Does 2001 Timeline Reveal DPW/CYS Was Called and Failed to Act?

The delay in PSU officials speaking with Sandusky in 2001 is very similar to the delay in 1998.  Does the delay suggest that DPW/CYS was asked to investigate?

By
Ray Blehar

Some of the most important information in an investigation can be learned from thoroughly examining timelines, dates, and times to determine what exactly happened.

In Report 2, I criticized Louis Freeh's report because it contained only one somewhat comprehensive timeline in the beginning of the report.  As readers of my reports and blogposts know, the specific timelines of various incidents in the Sandusky scandal have revealed some very critical information.

A few examples follow:

-- That Mike McQueary had to tell Joe Paterno that the 2001 incident happened around a corner to enable Curley and Schultz to inform Spanier of the same information;

-- That DPW official, Jerry Lauro, lied to Sara Ganim of the Patriot News regarding his lack of knowledge of the psychology reports in the 1998 case; and,

-- That Ray Gricar did not close the 1998 case on June 1, 1998 because there was no time for him to review the police report, which was completed on June 3, 1998.

1998 - 2001 Timelines

The timelines in the 1998 and 2001 cases have a few things in common that indicate PSU was the more diligent party in terms of investigating Sandusky and that perhaps indicate DPW/CYS intervened in the 2001 case.

First Scheduled Interviews With Sandusky
According  to the 1998 University Park Police Report, ADA Karen Arnold instructed Detective Ronald Schreffler to interview everyone involved as soon as possible (see page 5).  DPW's Jerry Lauro contacted Detective Schreffler and stated that Sandusky was scheduled to be interviewed on the morning of May 7, 1998 (see page 8).  On May 7, 1998, Lauro met with University Park police but there was no interview of Sandusky.  No explanation is available regarding why the interview did not occur.

According to Gary Schultz's handwritten note of 12 February 2001, Tim Curley was supposed to meet with Jerry Sandusky on Friday, February 16.  This interview was also postponed and no one - not even crack investigator Louis Freeh - has provided a reason for the postponement.

Based on the timeline comparison, it is uncanny that both initial meetings with Sandusky were planned for the first week of the investigation, but both were postponed (with no reason given).

Interviews with Sandusky Delayed By Weeks
In both the 1998 and 2001 cases, the interview of Sandusky eventually takes place, but only after several weeks pass.  In 1998, three and a half weeks (25 days) go by before the police and DPW talk to Sandusky.  According the the testimony of former police Chief Tom Harmon, the police had scheduled another interview with Sandusky on May 27, 1998 - only to have CYS call it off because DPW could not attend.

In 2001, Tim Curley eventually met with Sandusky on March 1 or 2 according to the e-mail records and Spanier's notes referencing the case.  Therefore, about three weeks pass (22/23 days)before PSU  speak with Sandusky.  On March 7, 2001, Curley closed the loop with Joan Coble informing her that he informed Gary Schultz he had met with Sandusky/Second Mile.  (Note:  The Freeh Report incorrectly stated that Curley met with Second Mile on March 19, 2001).

The Middle
What happened between the initial scheduling of the Sandusky interview and the actual interview was also somewhat similar.   After May 7, 1998, there was little to no involvement of DPW and CYS in the investigation, aside from bringing in John Seasock to do an evaluation of Victim 6.  Conversely, the University Park police ran two different stings (May 13 and May 19) as well as fielded a call from the Mother of Victim 6 about Sandusky's contact with her son on May 11.

The only activity in the investigation in 2001 was the Schultz/Curley interview of McQueary, occurring on or about February 19, 2001 and the activities on 25 to 27 February to reschedule the interview with Sandusky. So it is interesting that there is some evidence of a possible report, but no specific information on the public record about an investigation.

I submit that the timelines, specifically the delays in interviewing Sandusky, provide an indication that DPW or CYS had  likely been contacted and intervened - at least temporarily - in the 2001 case.  Their intervention delayed PSU's interview with Sandusky.  The timelines also indicate the PSU officials were more diligent about addressing the Sandusky allegations than were state officials.

Penn State Deliberations About Sandusky

The Schultz note of 12 February 2001 reflects a plan that was developed on or about the time PSU would have been required by law to report the incident to DPW/CYS (i.e., 48 hours from first report on the morning of 10 February).  Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense for Schultz to make a plan of contacting DPW outside of the 48 hour window required by law.

So, why the reference to DPW in the note?

Two Issues To Resolve
There are two issues at play in this case, not just one.  One issue is completely within DPW's control, while the other is in PSU's control.

The first issue is that PSU must deal with a report of suspected child abuse.  According to the evidence, research on "suspected child abuse" and conferences with Gary Schultz were conducted between Courtney and Schultz about that issue.  Both men believe the end result was a report to local child welfare authorities.   Also remember there was the slip-up by Agent Sassano stating that a record of the 2002 (sic) report was in the possession of DPW (Sassano has yet to correct the record).

The second issue at play is Sandusky's inappropriate use, as an emeritus faculty member, of PSU's facilities with youths from The Second Mile (TSM).  This issue is such that it could be addressed almost immediately by the PSU administrators.  It is probable that the Schultz note of 12 February 2001 was the plan for dealing with the facilities use issue -- not the plan for dealing with suspected child abuse.

The reference for calling in DPW "as an independent agency concerned with child welfare" is likely a result of Schultz's review of the 1998 case and his discussions with Harmon over the conflicts of interest between TSM and Centre County CYS in 1998.

It is likely that Schultz did not believe that he could go to Centre County CYS if Sandusky and Second Mile "pushed back" on PSU's directive for Sandusky to not use the facilities with TSM youths.  If the "push back" from TSM and Sandusky occurred, Schultz believed he would get a better result if he raised the issue to DPW.

E-mail Authenticity (or lack thereof)
While Freeh, Frazier, the majority of the media point to the e-mail of February 27-28 (Freeh Report, Exhbit 5G) as evidence of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier's decision not to inform DPW, the testimony of Braden Cook proved that this e-mail was not authentic.  According to Cook, his team was provided the Schultz e-mails for a second time on July 2, 2012 (page 70).

The e-mails were first provided in March 2011 (page 69)  on a DVD after it was discovered that the Schultz data was not in their inventory provided to them PSU's John Corro.   John Corro testified to providing three USB keys of data to Cynthia Baldwin.   That means none of the "incriminating" e-mails in this case was pulled from a forensic hard drive or a copy of a forensic drive.  Cook did not say who provided him with the Schultz e-mails in July 2012, however he testified that he was providing e-mail information to Freeh's team and the PSU lawyers for attorney-client privilege review (beginning in late Fall 2011).

Government and private sector document and computer forensics experts who were consulted regarding the authenticity of the e-mails agree that the evidence is suspicious, but that tampering can only be determined through comparison with data from the hard drives. Freeh's history with evidence tampering, as well as Ken Frazier's insistence that the documents in this case provided the information the Board needed to come to make decisions in the case, provide valid reasons to believe the Schultz e-mails may have been altered.

Keep reading and you will discover that the stakes in this case were high enough for Freeh  - who was identified and recommended for the job by Governor Tom Corbett - to make the evidence fit a pre-determined conclusion.

The Inconvenient Truth of the Sandusky Case

The inconvenient truth that the Commonwealth does not want the public to learn, is that DPW and CYS routinely fall short when it comes to protecting children and indicating child abusers.  The grand jury presentment of November 2011 did its best to hide the failures of DPW and CYS to take Sandusky off the streets in 1998.  And I suspect it has done the same in the case of the 2001 incident.

The record of failures of CYS and DPW to properly intervene in child abuse cases and protect PA's children is staggering.  Based on a 2008- Health and Human Services review of DPW, children continue to be harmed in 43% of the cases after abuse is reported.  Mathematically, this computes to an estimated 11,000 abuse cases and approximately 200 deaths since 2002 (the original date of the McQueary report).

Those are just numbers, however.  The stories behind the numbers are quite interesting.

Many of you might recall the story of Aleta Bailey.  Aleta was a little girl in York County who was reported to have been beaten by her mother's live in boy friend, Larry Hake.  The York County caseworker on that case, Beverly Mackereth, requested a police escort for herself because she felt unsafe to investigate the case because of Hake's reputation as a violent man.  After taking Aleta to the hospital to be examined, Mackereth sent the little girl back into that environment - requiring that there be another adult present when Hake was near Aleta.  Five weeks after that order, Aleta was raped, tortured, and murdered by Hake.  The hospital nurses found bruises and swelling on all parts of her body, including her feet.

Most rational people would question how Mackereth retained her employment after this incident, thus it is truly mind blowing that she not only kept her job, but is now the Secretary of DPW.  From 2011 to her promotion in March 2013, she was the Deputy Director of Children and Youth Services -- the agency with the mission to protect children.

In another case I investigated, a child lodged complaints to Clearfield County CYS officials about the abuse suffered at the hands of the parent over and over again.  CYS refused to investigate the case because they had previously investigated and cleared the parent.   The child attempted suicide, but before doing so had vandalized the home.  The child survived, but afterwards was charged with vandalism and had to make restitution. No action was taken against the parent.  The child remains emotionally damaged.

One of the more interesting cases is that of former psychologist Jim Singer, again in Clearfield County.  Dr. Singer saved a young girl's life by reporting her abuse and taking the extra step of hiring his own attorney to approach a judge to get a protective order for the child.  The judge issued the order. A state police investigation of the case revealed that Clearfield County CYS never investigated or even filed a formal report of the abuse incident.  Instead, CYS and other entities retaliated against Singer for reporting the abuse resulting in the loss of his license to practice psychology.  There have been other retaliatory cases in Centre County, though not as extreme as what happened to Jim Singer.

What becomes apparent after studying the issue of child abuse is that the failure to report child abuse is not a problem in Pennsylvania.

The problem is what happens AFTER a report of child abuse is made.  I suspect that the 2001 case is another example of DPW failing to protect Pennsylvania's children.



Coming Soon:  The Failure to Report Child Abuse "Dog and Pony" Shows

Ganim Preview: Article on Psych Reports Required Corrections

Sara Ganim's story on Jerry Lauro was pre-mature and demanded corrections when new information surfaced.  Those corrections never materialized.

by

Ray Blehar 

First off, I don't know Sara Ganim.  I've never met her or spoke to her.  I am not in the business of making personal attacks on people and I urge anyone who reads this blog not to engage in such behavior.  It is hurtful and non-productive.

After reading many of her columns, I was struck by the number of factual errors I found that could have been prevented had Sara simply done an internet search or two on her computer.  

Another important issue is "never rely on a single source" which in my employment as an analyst is rule number one.  In other words, instead of running with a story based on a single source, it may have better served Sara to wait a day until she could review the facts herself or confirm it with other sources.

Finally, there is the issue of slanting a story a certain way before the facts are known or to build on the narrative that existed at the time.  We all know the prevailing narrative was a cover up at Penn State.  However, had Ms. Ganim waited a day to review the evidence, she may have uncovered a new, completely different narrative.

The following story is one of her articles that would have been well served by all the above.

Patriot-News Special Report: 1998 Jerry Sandusky investigator would have pursued dropped case if he had seen hidden Penn State police report

1.  Headline promotes the prevailing narrrative -- PSU was covering up Sandusky's crimes.

Published: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 6:00 AM     Updated: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 12:23 PM

2.  Published one day before the public release of the 1998 PSU police report, the Chambers report, and the Seasock report.

By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News The Patriot-News

The state Department of Public Welfare investigator who closed a child sexual abuse investigation against Jerry Sandusky in 1998 said he likely would not have closed it had he seen reports from two psychologists who interviewed the young accuser.

3.  Only one psychologist (Chambers) interviewed Victim 6.  The other report was that of an unlicensed counselor (Seasock).

4.  The investigation involved two boys, not one.  This should have raised questions, such as, were there evaluations done on the second boy and if not, why not?   

"The course of history could have been changed,” Lauro said.

Jerry Lauro, brought in to investigate the child abuse claims against Sandusky, said Wednesday that Penn State police never shared those conflicting reports with him before he closed the case. Lauro said he closed the case because he did not believe there was enough evidence based solely on interviews.

5.  Lauro was completely aware of the second evaluation and he instructed CYS to arrange it, according to the 1998 police report. This interview took place on May 8th.  The investigation did not close until June 1st.  So, Lauro knew of the interview and had access to it.  

6. The first psychologic evaluation, conducted by Alycia Chambers, was released to DPW  on or about May 7th.   DPW had the report in its possession for nearly a month.  The Chambers report was also released to CYS (according to my discussion with her on October 12, 2012).  Therefore, DPW could have gotten access to Chambers report through CYS.

Lauro was interviewed by the state grand jury that recently brought 52 child sex abuse charges involving 10 boys against Sandusky, but he said he did not even know that psychologists had evaluated the boy, then 11, until a reporter who acquired the 100-page report approached Lauro and showed him the reports.

7.  Again, Lauro arranged the second evaluation of the child, so he definitely knew of the evaluation conducted by John Seasock.  Ganim would have learned this on March 23rd -- if she read the police report.

Penn State “Detective [Ron] Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” Lauro said, referring to reports from psychologist John Seasock and a female psychologist. Seasock concluded that the boy was not sexually abused two days before the case was closed. The report of the female psychologist who evaluated the boy right after the incident found Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming a victim for sexual abuse.

8.  Lauro may have been honest about Schreffler not sharing the reports with him, but that doesn't explain how Lauro didn't see either report -- especially the one that he arranged. 

“The conclusions she had drawn in her report were pretty damaging,” Lauro said. “I would have made a different decision. ... It’s unbelievable, and it gets my blood pressure going when I think about it.”

Schreffler, when reached by phone, declined comment. “My report speaks for itself,” he said before hanging up.

9.  Shreffler did not decline comment.  He provided a very strong statement about the facts of the case (i.e., "My report speaks for itself.")  Schreffler couldn't have been more right.  His report - even just the 13 or so page version that is publicly available - is a treasure trove of information.

Information about the two psychological reports surfaced last week when Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, made a formal request for copies of them in preparation for trial. Judge John Cleland ruled that Amendola can read them but can’t use them in court without getting his permission.

A source who reviewed the documents told The Patriot-News that he believed Seasock’s report that the boy was not abused was the reason that former and missing District Attorney Ray Gricar never pursued charges against Sandusky in 1998.

Gricar’s role has become the subject of much fodder and conjecture for two reasons: The case is the only other known time that police knew of allegations against Sandusky. And Gricar vanished in 2005. He was declared dead last summer but his case still stumps investigators, who say they have no evidence that his disappearance is linked to the Sandusky case.

When child abuse is reported, police and county Children and Youth Services typically conduct separate investigations. They work together but can have different conclusions.

In this case, since Centre County CYS worked closely with Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, Lauro was brought in from the state Department of Public Welfare to do the child abuse investigation.

10.  A search of the PA Child Protective Services Laws would have revealed that DPW was required to investigate ANY CASE involving an incident where the subject was an employee of a child welfare organization of Centre County, whether CYS had a close working relationship with that organization or not.

Schreffler and Penn State police closed the criminal investigation at Gricar’s request. But Lauro still could have decided to pursue the case within child protective services.

11. According to the police report, the investigation was concluded immediately after Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky on June 1, 1998.  Nothing in the report mentions that Gricar directed the case to be closed. 

That doesn’t mean Sandusky would have been charged. But it means the finding could have gone into the child abuse registry and The Second Mile might have been notified.

12.  A search of the laws  (Pa. 055  § 3490.91. and Pa. 055  § 3490.56.) would have revealed that  Centre County CYS was required, within 24 hours of receiving the report of suspected abuse,  to inform The Second Mile that Sandusky was under investigation and that CYS was required to notify The Second Mile at the end of the investigation, regardless of whether there was a finding of abuse.  

Lauro has said Schreffler also never told him the details of a meeting set up by police between Sandusky and the boy’s mother, in which police were listening secretly from another room. Prosecutors say Sandusky admitted to the mother that he touched her son and said, “I wish I were dead.”

“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room,” Lauro said last year. “He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.’ “

13.  As an investigative reporter, how could Ganim not be suspicious or skeptical about Lauro's statement regarding not knowing the details of what transpired in that sting?  

The mother of Victim Six says that she had believed Seasock was a paid consultant for CYS when she took her son to see him.

14. An internet search would have revealed that Seasock was employed by Renaissance Psychological Associates.  A day later, Ganim had access to the police report and Seasock's report that clarified the relationship between Seasock and CYS.

The other psychologist, whom the mother had contacted as soon as her son came home and told her that Sandusky had forced him to take a shared shower, saw her son over a longer period of time, she said.

15. The mother called the psychologist the next morning not that night.  Ganim would have learned this the day after this article was written.

“And that psychologist concluded that this incident ... was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” said a source who saw the report.

<end of article>

March 23, 2012:  1998 Police Report, Seasock Report, and Chambers Report

The day after the publishing of the above article, the 1998 Police Report, the Seasock Report, and the Chambers report were released to the public.

The 1998 police report blows quite a few holes in Lauro's version of the 1998 investigation and what he knew or didn't know.  It strains credulity that Lauro could have set up the second evaluation and then never asked or sought out the report before closing his case.

The Chambers report provides information to correct the date and time that the mother of Victim 6 called the psychologist.

The Seasock report states for whom he was employed and the police report shows that he was brought into the investigation by CYS -- at the request of DPW and, most significantly, against the orders of Assistant District Attorney Karen Arnold.

The latter is quite a development and would seem rather newsworthy, but the Patriot News did not report those facts in the days following the release of the three reports (or ever, based on searches of their web-site).

The Lauro narrative became the accepted version of events -- that somehow the Chambers report "got lost" and that Seascock mysteriously appeared and provided the fateful evaluation that cleared Sandusky.

Many of us have known for some time that Lauro's narrative was questionable, if not false. 

REPEAT:  Please refrain from any personal attacks on Ms. Ganim or anyone else associated with the Patriot News.