By
Ray Blehar
The often repeated version of the 1998 story doesn't begin to tell the full story of what we assumed was the first incident that resulted in a child abuse investigation of Jerry Sandusky.
During Spanier's grand jury hearing in April 2011, prosecutor Frank Fina mentioned the Commonwealth was told of a previous Sandusky investigation for illegal contact with a minor in 1984. Fina stated they were unable to find police record of that incident. Thus, the 1998 incident may not have been Sandusky's first brush with the law about child sexual victimization.
As for the 1998 incident, the popular version of it goes like this...
A boy arrived home with wet hair from showering with Sandusky after a workout on PSU's campus. That upset the mother and she called the University Park police who investigated the case. The incident involved Sandusky giving the child a hug while they were both naked in the shower. After a lengthy investigation, no charges were filed and the case was closed by then Centre County District Attorney (DA) Ray Gricar.
As the Sandusky scandal unfolded, and police reports and psychology reports were released, the story broadened and the public learned that three other arms of government -- the PA Department of Public Welfare (DPW), Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS), and the State College Borough police were also involved in the investigation, as was psychologist Dr. Alycia Chambers and unlicensed counselor, John Seasock.
The Freeh report added additional information, when the "secret file" of Gary Schultz revealed notes that he had kept from his discussions about the case (presumably with University Park police Chief Tom Harmon).
A fuller picture of a botched investigation appeared, with conflicting evaluations of the victim, missing reports, and other bureaucratic bungling. And what appeared to be a concerted effort by the Commonwealth and Louis Freeh to cover up the mistakes.
Ironically, the actions of Sandusky and his interactions with Victim 6 and the second boy, BK, were only examined superficially. We just got the highlights.
When you examine the complete timeline of Sandusky and his interactions with these boys, what materializes is a story of a pedophile who surreptitiously accessed, abused, and then stalked a vulnerable boy.
The Timeline
April 1998: Sandusky met Victim 6 at a TSM picnic in Spring
Creek Park.
Sunday
5/3/98 3:36PM - Jerry
called V6 to set up work out
5/3/98 5:42PM - Jerry
called V6 to provide his arrival time
5/3/98 7:00PM - Jerry
picked up V6 to go the workout
5/3/98 7:15-8:45 -
Sandusky and V6 toured locker room, worked out, & showered.
5/3/98 9:00PM -
Sandusky dropped V6 off at his family's apartment
Monday
5/4/98 Mother
& son met with police, CYS, and psychologist Chambers
Tuesday
5/5/98 1:55 PM DPW's
Jerry Lauro informed Schreffler he was following up on the case
Wednesday
5/6/98 9:19PM - Jerry called Victim 6
Thursday
5/7/98 11:15AM
Lauro, Schreffler, & Weaver interview mother of V6 at apartment
Friday
5/8/98 2:00 PM Seasock
evaluated V6
Saturday
5/9/98 12:10PM Seasock
discussed evaluation with Schreffler
Sunday
5/10/98 4:20PM - Jerry
called & left message for V6 to call him.
Monday
5/11/98 3:45PM - Jerry
called V6 to invite him to go to Altoona. V6 responded that he'd need his mother's permission. Jerry also talked
to BK and asked him how his baseball practices were going.
Tuesday
5/12/98 Jerry called
V6 to ask to pick him up on the 13th.
Wednesday
5/13/98 3:55
Jerry called V6 to confirm pick-up
5/13/98 4:00
Jerry arrived. Confronted by mother
about incident (Police eavesdropping)
5/13/98 4:05
Jerry left premises without V6. Mother reported that the first
time Sandusky came to her home, he came to the rear, sliding glass door.
5/13/98 6:00 BK
reported Jerry was at his little league field (Gill Field) talking to him.
Tuesday
5/19/98 Jerry arrived
at V6 apartment and is questioned by mother and admitted to showering with
other boys before. The mother informed Sandusky he should not attend
any more of her son's baseball games.
Monday
6/1/98 11:00AM
Schreffler and Lauro interviewed Sandusky.
What you likely missed in the official 1998 reports?
There are some lesser known facts from this case that few people know and then there are some things you can glean by reading between the lines.
1. Possible
DPW/CYS Tip-offs to Sandusky/TSM. According to
member of TSM, they had no idea that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 and
blamed Penn State for keeping the information away from them. As most
readers of this blog know, CC CYS was required by the Public Welfare Code to
contact TSM at the outset of the 1998 investigation and put a safety plan in
place.
Obviously, that didn't happen, but the idea that Sandusky or TSM didn't
know about this incident until the end of the investigation is highly debatable.
As the investigation
progressed, Sandusky appears to have called Victim 6 in close proximity to the times
an action was taken on the case. To wit:
On Monday 5/4, Victim
6 met with police & caseworkers.
On Wednesday, 5/6,
Sandusky called Victim 6 at 9:19PM
On Friday, 5/8, Victim
6 was evaluated by Seasock
On Sunday, 5/10,
Sandusky called Victim 6 at 4:20 PM
Was Sandusky trying to find out what the young boy had told investigators? These calls were obtained from caller ID and the purposes are not stated in any report.
Was Sandusky trying to find out what the young boy had told investigators? These calls were obtained from caller ID and the purposes are not stated in any report.
According to
Sandusky's prison interview, he stated he was surprised when he was approached
on June 1st by Schreffler and Lauro and claimed it was the first he had any
idea he was under investigation.
I'd take that
statement with a grain of salt.
At least 16 known individuals and
other unspecified persons definitely had knowledge of the 1998 incident, some of them who
were friends and associates of Sandusky. Those sixteen were:
Subjects/Complainants: Victim
6, his mother, and BK;
Police: Schreffler; Weaver;
Harmon, and Ralston (and other police);
DA's Office: Arnold, Sloane,
and Gricar;
Child Welfare: Lauro, DPW (and
his supervisor) and Miller, CYS (and associates)
PSU Officials: Schultz and
Curley
Other: Dr. Alycia Chambers
(and associates), John Seascock
 |
| Former Police Chief Tom Harmon |
Other State College policemen, aside from Ralston, were aware of the 1998 case. One recalled Schreffler stopping by to ask someone to go on the first sting with him. The mother also first called the State College police, who referred her to University Park.
Dr. Chambers reported one of her associates was familiar with Sandusky from interactions with TSM. One way or another, it is likely word got back to Sandusky and/or TSM during those 37 days that he was under investigation.
2. Access without
parental consent. The fact that
Sandusky came to the rear sliding doors of the apartment the first
"known" time he came there indicates that he had been to (or at least by) the apartment without the mother's knowledge. The mother was troubled by Sandusky coming to the back door and brought it up to the police on May 13th. She asked how he knew which back door was their's because there was nothing to identify the apartment. Given that her son was in little league, that activity gave Sandusky an opportunity for access without her knowledge. It is likely that Sandusky may have followed Victim 6 home from baseball practices (or perhaps gave him a ride home) and observed him enter the apartment through the rear doors.
3. The workout and
shower incident. Most of
the attention focused on the shower incident itself and the fact that Sandusky
hugged the child while naked, however, there is more to the story.
 |
| Det. Ronald Schreffler |
Schreffler's police report stated that Sandusky was "biting (kissing him on the arm)." This fact was not brought out in most media reports or at the trial -- the only kiss most heard of was the one Sandusky gave the boy on the forehead during the workout.
Next, Victim 6 has never
fully disclosed the details of the incident. He testified that things went "black" from the time he was
in the shower with Sandusky until the time he arrived home. This is consistent with the behavior of many boys who are vitcimized by a man. Disclosures are often inaccurate and the level of abuse is typically disclosed incrementally. His memory of his arrival at home differs from that of his mother's. Victim 6 always says his hair was wet, however, the mother told Dr. Chambers the boy's hair was bone dry.
His behavior after coming home indicates that something happened which made him feel "dirty," According to Schultz's notes and other reports, he took a shower after arriving home that night and again the next morning.
Interestingly enough, the fact that he showered two times in the 11 hours after he had showered with Sandusky was not mentioned in the grand jury presentment, in the text of the Freeh Report, or at any time during the trial of Sandusky.
Those omissions were not by accident.
His behavior after coming home indicates that something happened which made him feel "dirty," According to Schultz's notes and other reports, he took a shower after arriving home that night and again the next morning.
Interestingly enough, the fact that he showered two times in the 11 hours after he had showered with Sandusky was not mentioned in the grand jury presentment, in the text of the Freeh Report, or at any time during the trial of Sandusky.
Those omissions were not by accident.
The context of
Sandusky's "playful" behavior with Victim 6 was also never fully
explained. The lowering of sexual inhibitions is usually done so
gradually and skillfully the victim does not realize he or she is a victim
until it is too late. The activity can progress to fondling
while wrestling, drying the child with a towel, massaging an injury,
giving a back rub, tickling, playing a physical game, or cuddling in bed. In
this instance, Sandusky first got the boy on the floor by engaging in a game of
"Polish soccer" (where a rolled up sock or tape ball would be kicked
into a garbage can/target) then moving from that game into a wrestling match. As
we learned, Sandusky then worked out with the boy and suggested they shower.
Sandusky's coaxing of
the boy to shower with him was also a typical pedophile behavior. Again,
he had selected a vulnerable boy who was at an age where
he didn't fully understand what behaviors were normal between males. When
Sandusky said "all the guys do," Victim 6 believed
him and took a shower with Sandusky, even though it made him uncomfortable.
This statement - "all the guys do" and similar statements are
used by pedophiles in the seduction process of their young victims.
4. Possible
stalking behavior. The fact that
the mother told Sandusky to not attend her son's baseball games reveals that
Sandusky, after being rebuffed on the 13th, he attempted to stay in contact with Victim
6 (without the knowledge of the mother) by attending his baseball
practices.
Of course, with
Sandusky being a local celebrity of sorts, word filtered back to the mother
that Jerry was hanging out at practice. Even after she told Sandusky to
stop going to her son's practices, he continued and the mother was forced to pull her son
out of Little League.
Sandusky also
exhibited this behavior with Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) and other boys at Central
Mountain High School. According to Vice-Principal, Steve Turchetta, when
the boys broke off their relationships with Sandusky he became clingy
and needy. He got into shouting matches with the boys in which Turchetta played referree. Aaron Fisher testified that Sandusky followed his school
bus home and chased him from the bus stop to his home, stopping at times to
yell at Aaron to get into his car. Fisher ran away, hiding behind bushes, as he made his way back to his home.
Victim 4 also
testified that his "break up" with Sandusky was similar, with
Sandusky becoming emotional and writing him "creepy love letters" in an effort to pull him back into the relationship.
Conclusions
In 1998, a mother
came forward purely out of the interest of protecting her son. There was
nothing for her to gain financially. She protected her son from Sandusky as best as she could during the investigation, often paging the police when Sandusky would make unauthorized contact. After the investigation concluded and Sandusky was cleared, she took steps to ensure Sandusky never had one-on-one access to her son again.
The victim's story of the incident,
which he appears to be downplaying, has stayed consistent throughout and led to convictions on three sex offenses. Only he and Sandusky may know what happened in that period that went "black."
Sandusky's behavior far exceeded what is acceptable behavior for anyone who works with children in youth programs and were determined to be consistent with "grooming" according to Dr. Chambers. His known actions with this victim clearly violated the statutes related to Megan's Law (i.e., sexual offenses). His "need" to maintain contact with Victim 6 eventually forced the mother to pull the boy out of little league to ensure Sandusky did not have access without her knowledge.
Numerous people were aware that Sandusky was under investigation and it is very likely that TSM and/or Sandusky was informed about it while in was in progress.
Numerous people were aware that Sandusky was under investigation and it is very likely that TSM and/or Sandusky was informed about it while in was in progress.
The Commonwealth and Louis Freeh attempted to bury one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case, if not the entire scandal -- that Victim 6 took a shower just hours after showering with Sandusky, then took another shower the next morning. Police and caseworkers were aware of this fact, as well as over a dozen signs of possible child sexual abuse in this case. Despite the evidence of possible sexual abuse, DPW decided to "resolve the matter quickly" less than 10 days into the investigation.
There is more than one cover-up in this scandal and the evidence indicates that the Commonwealth and Louis Freeh were involved in covering up the failure of DPW in 1998.
