McQueray Hearing Cancelled.

[nits74]

In 1998, when Jerry Lauro (the lead state investigator) and Ron Schreffler talked to Sandusky in the locker room, Lauro did most of the talking, and told Sandusky he had seen far worse than what Victim 6's mother claimed Sandusky had done with her kid.

According to Sandusky, they told him not to shower with Victim 6 anymore, but never told him he couldn't shower with other boys. When he asked if he could take Victim 6 to football games or other functions, they said no problem. If they ever suspected Sandusky of any type of pedophilia in 1998, they wouldn't have let him anywhere near the kid. Sandusky said Lauro made it sound like the Victim 6 incident wasn't any big deal at all.

Lauro then gave Sandusky a personal phone call either later that evening, or the next day assuring him that all the charges were unfounded and that his record would be cleared. Then he sent Sandusky a personal letter stating the same thing.

Lauro felt so sure Sandusky was clean, he never even bothered to tell the Second Mile of the investigation so they could keep Sandusky under supervision, something Lauro was mandated to do under a 1994 Pennsylvania child welfare law.

With Lauro, the State's lead investigator, leading the charge to clear Sandusky, and Gricar dropping the charges, to most normal people, this would insinuate that Sandusky was given a clean bill of health. To two untrained people like Curley and Schultz, this would have indicated to them that Sandusky never did anything wrong, at least from a law enforcement perspective.

Here's the link to Sandusky's interview where he describes the 1998 locker room meeting, the phone call, and the letter. Start from the beginning, because he morphs into it within the first two or three minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ytgza2mDw

Here's the Patriot News article that describes Lauro closing the case, reporting the charges as unfounded, and not following 1994 Child Welfare Reporting procedure.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/sandusky_second_mile_dpw.html

But apparently we do have at least two very well trained people in this area posting on this very topic that were apparently able to figure all of this out themselves. Please do share you qualifications with us, guys. Better yet, don't bother. You are getting skewered by Buffalo and others with more common sense.

 

[PrinceIgor]

So now you're asking us to prove a negative? .

Prove a negative? Where were you asked to prove anything? You (or someone) made a statement that was, in fact, not true. You got called on it. That simple.

 

[PrinceIgor]

That is absolutely false. John Seasock was sure that Sandusky was NOT a pedophile, and he was the "expert" the authorities (DPW) brought in. There is absolutely NO QUESTION that Seasock determined that Sandusky was NOT a "probable pedophile." The only question is exactly what was relayed to Schultz and/or Curley. But in any case, there is absolutely NO WAY that they were told that Sandusky was a "probable pedophile" as asserted by CDW or that they were even given that impression.

Seasock report

It's pretty apparent that Seasock was an uncredentialed quack compared to Alycia Chambers, who was not only a PHD professional in her field, but consulted with her professional colleagues, who endorsed her assessment that Jerry exhibited pedophile behavior. It has also long been understood that the circumstances under which Seasock was brought in raises way more questions than can be currently answered. IIRC, this non-"expert" talked to the kid once. Once.

This is all really old news.

 

[WeR0206]

It's pretty apparent that Seasock was an uncredentialed quack compared to Alycia Chambers, who was not only a PHD professional in her field, but consulted with her professional colleagues, who endorsed her assessment that Jerry exhibited pedophile behavior. It has also long been understood that the circumstances under which Seasock was brought in raises way more questions than can be currently answered. IIRC, this non-"expert" talked to the kid once. Once.

This is all really old news.

Well DPW is the agency who brought in seasock (against the wishes of ADA Arnold and Schreffler mind you) to do another evaluation of V6. So you can thank them forth that. Either they were also groomed by JS or they were involved in a cover up.

Amazingly DPW/Lauro have maintained they never saw Chambers evaluation even though Chambers called it in directly to DPW's childline and also sent it to Schreffler on 5/8.

If you're trying to argue that the state dropped the ball big time in 1998 then you're preaching to the choir pal. I guess it never occurred to you that would be a huge incentive for the state to put the blame/focus re: JS on PSU admins and not themselves?

Notice that CSSP had nothing to do with any of the above failures by the state.

 

[PrinceIgor]

Well DPW is the agency who brought in seasock (against the wishes of ADA Arnold and Schreffler mind you) to do another evaluation of V6. So you can thank them forth that. Either they were also groomed by JS or they were involved in a cover up.

Amazingly DPW/Lauro have maintained they never saw Chambers evaluation even though Chambers called it in directly to DPW's childline and also sent it to Schreffler on 5/8.

If you're trying to argue that the state dropped the ball big time in 1998 then you're preaching to the choir pal. I guess it never occurred to you that would be a huge incentive for the state to put the blame/focus re: JS on PSU admins and not themselves?

Notice that CSSP had nothing to do with any of the above failures by the state.

I'm not preaching. I'm in total agreement. The state has way more 'splainin' to do than most imagine. I think Lauro might be fibbing.

 

[Aoshiro]

It's pretty apparent that Seasock was an uncredentialed quack compared to Alycia Chambers, who was not only a PHD professional in her field, but consulted with her professional colleagues, who endorsed her assessment that Jerry exhibited pedophile behavior. It has also long been understood that the circumstances under which Seasock was brought in raises way more questions than can be currently answered. IIRC, this non-"expert" talked to the kid once. Once.

This is all really old news.

And how would Curley or Schultz have known any of that in 1998?
What they knew is that Sandusky was completely cleared by the authorities responsible for such matters. It's an absolute lie to claim that they somehow knew that Sandusky was a "probable pedophile."

 

[CDW3333]

Well DPW is the agency who brought in seasock (against the wishes of ADA Arnold and Schreffler mind you) to do another evaluation of V6. So you can thank them forth that. Either they were also groomed by JS or they were involved in a cover up.

Amazingly DPW/Lauro have maintained they never saw Chambers evaluation even though Chambers called it in directly to DPW's childline and also sent it to Schreffler on 5/8.

If you're trying to argue that the state dropped the ball big time in 1998 then you're preaching to the choir pal. I guess it never occurred to you that would be a huge incentive for the state to put the blame/focus re: JS on PSU admins and not themselves?

Notice that CSSP had nothing to do with any of the above failures by the state.

I'm throwing a flag on this one. Nobody knows who approved the hiring of Seasock. All we know is that he mysteriously received a six-year contract from Penn State about a year after he rendered his report regarding Victim #6.

And I agree that DPW probably knew about Chambers's report but no bureaucrat was going to indicate Sandusky because: 1. He's Jerry frickin Sandusky and he's too big to fail; 2. Gricar had already decided not to press charges; and 3. An "expert" hired by the investigators had already opined that Jerry did nothing wrong and wasn't a pedophile.

After Seasock's report, it was game over. If you want to know who was protecting Old Jer' figure out who approved the hiring of Seasock.

 

[CDW3333]

You


You're a supercilious, lying twit. McQueary, by your addled account, was a coward.
I don't think you could be dumb enough to believe the nonsense you post, so evidently you're an unscrupulous miscreant.

Supercilious twit? Unscupulous miscreant? Whoa! Somebody got a thesaurus for Christmas and they're not afraid to try it out.

Personally, I always though of myself as more of a lovable rogue. Or maybe an incorrigible scalawag.

 

[CDW3333]

And how would Curley or Schultz have known any of that in 1998?
What they knew is that Sandusky was completely cleared by the authorities responsible for such matters. It's an absolute lie to claim that they somehow knew that Sandusky was a "probable pedophile."

Yeah, we'll just ignore Schultz's "Pandora's Box" note.

 

[LundyPSU]

Yeah, we'll just ignore Schultz's "Pandora's Box" note.

You mean Harmon's words to Schultz. The same Harmon who told Schultz nothing criminal occured? So Schultz hears that and knows that UPPD, DA, CYS, and DPW investigated. Yet you believe that Curley and Schultz knew that JS was a probable pedo in 1998.

CDW, you are really reaching here

 

[CDW3333]

You mean Harmon's words to Schultz. The same Harmon who told Schultz nothing criminal occured? So Schultz hears that and knows that UPPD, DA, CYS, and DPW investigated. Yet you believe that Curley and Schultz knew that JS was a probable pedo in 1998.

CDW, you are really reaching here

How do you know they're Harmon's words? And if they are, shouldn't that mean something to the COO of Penn State when the Chief of Police for Penn State implies that there many other potential claims olf child abuse out there regarding Sandusky?

It seems to me that it hurts your case (i.e. nobody could've known that Sandusky was a pedophile in '98) when you have the COP tagging him as one. Did anybody ever ask Clement about that?

 

[CDW3333]

How do you know they're Harmon's words? And if they are, shouldn't that mean something to the COO of Penn State when the Chief of Police for Penn State implies that there many other potential claims olf child abuse out there regarding Sandusky?

It seems to me that it hurts your case (i.e. nobody could've known that Sandusky was a pedophile in '98) when you have the COP tagging him as one. Did anybody ever ask Clement about that?

And how do you factor in Curley's language from his email of 2/27/01, "we are aware of the first situation." Aware of what? That he was cleared? Or that we'd already figured out that he was a pedophile?

 

[JoeBatters1]

What I don't get about CDW3333 is why he and some others even come to this board. I don't believe he went to PSU and it seems like the overwhelming majority of his posts are about the sandusky scandal. He doesn't appear to be a fan of PSU in anyway that I can tell - his posts don't seem to indicate he has much interest in PSU football or any other PSU sports, or other doings at PSU. Yet he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on the board wanting to post about Sandusky.

 

[nits74]

And how do you factor in Curley's language from his email of 2/27/01, "we are aware of the first situation." Aware of what? That he was cleared? Or that we'd already figured out that he was a pedophile?

CDW, more than likely it means exactly what it said. They are aware of an incident in 1998. Doesn't imply that they deduced that he was a pedophile.

 

[LundyPSU]

And how do you factor in Curley's language from his email of 2/27/01, "we are aware of the first situation." Aware of what? That he was cleared? Or that we'd already figured out that he was a pedophile?

We don't know for certain what Curley knew in 1998. But based on Schultz's notes in 2001, he indicated he reviewed 1998 with Curley. The 'first situation' that Curley referenced is assumed to be 1998. So Curley's knowledge could be from 1998 or from the 2001 review that Schultz noted. Either way, if it was a reference to 1998, then it was about JS being cleared of anything criminal in showering with the kid. Kid never alleged anything sexual and it was investigated by DA, UPPD, CYS and DPW. We still don't know what was actually reported to C/S by MM or JVP in 2001 to know how the 1998 incident was view in light of the 2001 report. Was it a pattern of grooming or something more serious? Possibly. Or was it goofy Jerry being Jerry again, but still inappropriate. Inappropriate that is happened twice now and needs to stop, so PSU is restricting JS' access to the facilities with kids, reporting it to TSM, and possibly DPW if JS doesn't take the directive. Also, possible.

 

[LundyPSU]

How do you know they're Harmon's words? And if they are, shouldn't that mean something to the COO of Penn State when the Chief of Police for Penn State implies that there many other potential claims olf child abuse out there regarding Sandusky?

It seems to me that it hurts your case (i.e. nobody could've known that Sandusky was a pedophile in '98) when you have the COP tagging him as one. Did anybody ever ask Clement about that?

Harmon testified that those were his words. At that point, they knew of 2 kids who had showered with JS. Knowing JS' involvement with TSM, there could be even more kids who have showered with him. That could be Pandora's Box. Does that mean Harmon believed JS was a pedo who abused even more kids? Possibly. We don't know the context fully. Just can't take the worst possible interpretation and assign it as the truth. It could be. It also could not be. Easy to think it is the worst, given the JS is rotting in jail as a convicted pedo. That is hindsight bias. CDW- I know you are a critical thinker, so if you remove that bias, you can easily see other possible interpretations.

 

[JmmyW]

How do you know they're Harmon's words? And if they are, shouldn't that mean something to the COO of Penn State when the Chief of Police for Penn State implies that there many other potential claims olf child abuse out there regarding Sandusky?

It seems to me that it hurts your case (i.e. nobody could've known that Sandusky was a pedophile in '98) when you have the COP tagging him as one. Did anybody ever ask Clement about that?

Clemente addressed this in his report, page 55:

5.) According to the SIC, “On May 5, 1998, Schultz's notes about the incident state: “Is this opening of pandora's box? Other children?”

These are valid questions that were officially answered by the closing of the investigation with a finding of no sexual intent and no criminal behavior.

 

[jjsocrates]

What I don't get about CDW3333 is why he and some others even come to this board. I don't believe he went to PSU and it seems like the overwhelming majority of his posts are about the sandusky scandal. He doesn't appear to be a fan of PSU in anyway that I can tell - his posts don't seem to indicate he has much interest in PSU football or any other PSU sports, or other doings at PSU. Yet he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on the board wanting to post about Sandusky.

His motivation appears simple (even if his identify is safely anonymous): he's either on Frazier's (or Ira Lubert's) payroll, he's a close colleague of Fina, or he was closely associated with TSM. Either case, its in his best interest to keep this false narrative going, even if his logic is more twisted than a pretzel.

 

[CDW3333]

Clemente addressed this in his report, page 55:

5.) According to the SIC, “On May 5, 1998, Schultz's notes about the incident state: “Is this opening of pandora's box? Other children?”

These are valid questions that were officially answered by the closing of the investigation with a finding of no sexual intent and no criminal behavior.

Closing the investigation doesn't answer the Pandora's Box question. Pandora's Box suggests that there are many other claims out there. Why are PSU officials worried about additional claims when No. 6 is supposed to be invalid (but, as it turned out, it wasn't)?

 

[CDW3333]

Harmon testified that those were his words. At that point, they knew of 2 kids who had showered with JS. Knowing JS' involvement with TSM, there could be even more kids who have showered with him. That could be Pandora's Box. Does that mean Harmon believed JS was a pedo who abused even more kids? Possibly. We don't know the context fully. Just can't take the worst possible interpretation and assign it as the truth. It could be. It also could not be. Easy to think it is the worst, given the JS is rotting in jail as a convicted pedo. That is hindsight bias. CDW- I know you are a critical thinker, so if you remove that bias, you can easily see other possible interpretations.

How would Harmon know what Schultz was thinking when he wrote the words? Was Schultz standing in front of him when he wrote it? Or did they both arrive at the same idea independently?

The fact that you have high ranking PSU officials batting around the idea that Sandusky has molested other kids (in 1998) and then you get the botched investigation on top of it makes that much worse.

 

[CDW3333]

His motivation appears simple (even if his identify is safely anonymous): he's either on Frazier's (or Ira Lubert's) payroll, he's a close colleague of Fina, or he was closely associated with TSM. Either case, its in his best interest to keep this false narrative going, even if his logic is more twisted than a pretzel.

No everybody knows I'm paid by the BOT. I've got this really funny Karen Peetz story that I'll share with you one day.

 

[CDW3333]

Clemente addressed this in his report, page 55:

5.) According to the SIC, “On May 5, 1998, Schultz's notes about the incident state: “Is this opening of pandora's box? Other children?”

These are valid questions that were officially answered by the closing of the investigation with a finding of no sexual intent and no criminal behavior.

Interesting. What did Clemente have to say about Dr. Chambers's report?

 

[JoeBatters1]

CDW3333 - it's my impression that you are an attorney, how is that you have so much time to be on this board? Most lawyers I know - the good ones anyway - just do not have the abiliity to waste time like you apparently do? What kind of law do you practice? Do you have a personal connection to the sandusky scandal? I am just trying to fathom why you are so obsessed with this case?

 

[CDW3333]

CDW3333 - it's my impression that you are an attorney, how is that you have so much time to be on this board? Most lawyers I know - the good ones anyway - just do not have the abiliity to waste time like you apparently do? What kind of law do you practice? Do you have a personal connection to the sandusky scandal? I am just trying to fathom why you are so obsessed with this case?

1. I work for myself so I can do what I want. 2. Sitting in front of a computer answering emails, preparing pleadings, preparing discovery, etc. is the really boring part of my job, so once in a while I come over here to amuse myself. 3. I work the hours I want. Last night I worked until 9 p.m. meeting with clients. 4. It's important to my practice (trial lawyer) that I remind myself that truly close-minded people can never be convinced of anything they don't want to believe. Sometimes I think my powers of persuasion are enough to convince close-minded people. They aren't. If people want to ignore the evidence that is right in front of them, they will.

 

[Talpsu]

Don't you think somebody would've stepped up by now? A former 2nd Mile kid, a parent of a 2nd Mile kid, an employee of the 2nd Mile, an employee of CYS/DPW. Somebody. After 31/2 years.

Maybe there's nothing there. Maybe this really is a Penn State scandal.

Seriously???? Have you been living under a rock? They have stepped up and come forward I think over 30 of them. In fact PSU paid them over 60 million dollars!!!! ALL SECOND MILE KIDS!!!! Most of them that got paid never even stepped foot on PSU campus to top it off. PSU was will to just hand out money so that who they sued. TSM doesn't even exist anymore so its not like the "victims" can sue them

 

[Talpsu]

That's 31/2 years ago. What's anybody done to find out if she actually made the statements and, if so, what she meant by them? Right now, we have a rather aged report based entirely on hearsay from anonymous sources. Also, I though Genovese was a woman.

And you're just dancing around the question. Where is there any evidence that anybody at TSM knew that Sandusky was a pedophile before Sandusky was reported to the state?

You just keep changing the subject. I want witness statements. I want emails. I want documentary evidence. Not fourth or fifth hand anonymous statements.

How about the 1998 incident

 

[PrinceIgor]

And how would Curley or Schultz have known any of that in 1998?
What they knew is that Sandusky was completely cleared by the authorities responsible for such matters. It's an absolute lie to claim that they somehow knew that Sandusky was a "probable pedophile."

(1) Dropping an investigation for want of evidence is not synonymous with "being cleared." As anyone remotely close to the world of criminal law enforcement will tell you, even when the air on an elevator 'clears,' suspicions on who authored the flatus linger with the knowledge it's rarely a one-time event.

(2) I never said -- not ever -- that C&S knew (or were even told) that Sandusky was a probable pedophile. What I have said is that the smoke in the air suggested he was a possible pedophile. There were many proofs, the strongest being the Chambers Report given to the UPPD

Please, no insults to the intelligence that the report's strong suggestion that JS demonstrated pedophile behavior was never seen by Schultz. Harmon has already testified he shared everything on the case with Schultz: even his own personal notes (as Gary's 'special file demonstrates). It's not known whether Gary shared this with Tim, but one presumes so.

 

[JoeBatters1]

1. I work for myself so I can do what I want. 2. Sitting in front of a computer answering emails, preparing pleadings, preparing discovery, etc. is the really boring part of my job, so once in a while I come over here to amuse myself. 3. I work the hours I want. Last night I worked until 9 p.m. meeting with clients. 4. It's important to my practice (trial lawyer) that I remind myself that truly close-minded people can never be convinced of anything they don't want to believe. Sometimes I think my powers of persuasion are enough to convince close-minded people. They aren't. If people want to ignore the evidence that is right in front of them, they will.

But why the obsession with sandusky? I don't think you are an alum of PSU, so I don't see a personal connection. Are you close to any of the parties in the sandusky scandal - are you a party to any of the litigation associated with the sandusky scandal? Were you abused as a child - were you abused by sandusky? If being on this board is some how supposed to help you with your skills as a lawyer, as far as dealing with closed minded people - wouldn't that be better served by attending a professional conference or seminar on the subject? If you really do like playing around on message boards to sharpen your skills as a lawyer aren't there greater and much more interesting topics you could pursue on the internet regarding close minded views - what about those that argue whether or not we landed on the moon, or whether JFK was assisinated by the mob, castro, or LBJ, or what happended to Jimmy Hoffa? Again, your obsession with sandusky makes you appear as being borderline emotionally disturbed - it's kind of scary to be honest.

 

[Mixolydian]

4. It's important to my practice (trial lawyer) that I remind myself that truly close-minded people can never be convinced of anything they don't want to believe. Sometimes I think my powers of persuasion are enough to convince close-minded people. They aren't. If people want to ignore the evidence that is right in front of them, they will.

What a joke. It is important to your practice for you to continue to try to convince open minded people of things that even you don't believe. And it is pretty clear that you aren't very good at it.

 

[WeR0206]

(1) Dropping an investigation for want of evidence is not synonymous with "being cleared." As anyone remotely close to the world of criminal law enforcement will tell you, even when the air on an elevator 'clears,' suspicions on who authored the flatus linger with the knowledge it's rarely a one-time event.

(2) I never said -- not ever -- that C&S knew (or were even told) that Sandusky was a probable pedophile. What I have said is that the smoke in the air suggested he was a possible pedophile. There were many proofs, the strongest being the Chambers Report given to the UPPD

Please, no insults to the intelligence that the report's strong suggestion that JS demonstrated pedophile behavior was never seen by Schultz. Harmon has already testified he shared everything on the case with Schultz: even his own personal notes (as Gary's 'special file demonstrates). It's not known whether Gary shared this with Tim, but one presumes so.

Again you completely ignore what has been pointed out to you numerous times. The standard for the CC DA to press criminal charges is MUCH higher (they must be able to prove sexual intent/gratification was behind the showering behavior) than the standard for CYS/DPW to indicate JS. If the state experts thought there was the slightest chance JS would bring harm to children, they would have indicated him thus revoking his state issued clearance to work with kids.

If the state EXPERTS (who were privy to Chambers' report btw--she phoned it in directly to DPW's Childline and it was attached to Schreffler's report on 5/8/98) were fooled by JS, why do you hold college admins/fb coach to a higher standard??

Harmon testified that he usually didn't share that kind of info with Schultz or take direction from Schultz on how to perform his investigations, if Schultz did ask about a case Harmon would give a brief summary of what the investigation concluded. In the 1998 case, Harmon testified that he told Schultz NOTHING CRIMINAL HAPPENED.

 

[LundyPSU]

How would Harmon know what Schultz was thinking when he wrote the words? Was Schultz standing in front of him when he wrote it? Or did they both arrive at the same idea independently?

The fact that you have high ranking PSU officials batting around the idea that Sandusky has molested other kids (in 1998) and then you get the botched investigation on top of it makes that much worse.

Those were Schultz's notes of what Harmon said to him. Where do you conclude they had the idea that Sandusky molested other kids? Neither kids alleged that. And how would Schultz (or Curley) know the investigation was botched in 1998? Easy to say that now, but your point is that C/S knew JS was a pedo in 1998. And there is no known evidence that shows Schultz ever saw or knew what was in Chambers report.

 

[CDW3333]

Those were Schultz's notes of what Harmon said to him. Where do you conclude they had the idea that Sandusky molested other kids? Neither kids alleged that. And how would Schultz (or Curley) know the investigation was botched in 1998? Easy to say that now, but your point is that C/S knew JS was a pedo in 1998. And there is no known evidence that shows Schultz ever saw or knew what was in Chambers report.

Your recollection doesn't seem to necessarily comport with Harmon's testimony:

"In the note, Schultz called Sandusky’s “behavior at best inappropriate — at worst sexual improprieties.” Schultz asked in the well-publicized note if this could be the opening of a “Pandora’s box,” meaning there are other children with similar allegations. Harmon mentioned that he “could have” used that term and Schultz was merely copying it down, but he wasn’t sure."

http://onwardstate.com/2013/07/29/former-police-chief-harmon-concludes-morning-testimony/

 

[CDW3333]

I would also point out that the reference to "Pandora's Box" and "other children" both have question marks after them, which would seem to indicate that Schultz was writing down question (but no answers). Under the context, it would make more sense for such questions to be asked by Schultz than Harmon. Although, if Harmon was asking Shultz the questions, that would open a whole new can of worms.

 

[CDW3333]

And, finally, not to put too fine a point on it, on p. 2 of Schultz's notes, it's written that the kid was seeing a psychologist and that the mother and the psychologist had called a child abuse hotline.

So, Schultz knew in '98 that a psychologist had concluded that Sandusky had abused the kid. I doubt that he kept this info to himself.

Hey, Jimmy W, what did Clemente have to say about Schultz's notes concerning the psychologist?

 

[LundyPSU]

Your recollection doesn't seem to necessarily comport with Harmon's testimony:

"In the note, Schultz called Sandusky’s “behavior at best inappropriate — at worst sexual improprieties.” Schultz asked in the well-publicized note if this could be the opening of a “Pandora’s box,” meaning there are other children with similar allegations. Harmon mentioned that he “could have” used that term and Schultz was merely copying it down, but he wasn’t sure."

http://onwardstate.com/2013/07/29/former-police-chief-harmon-concludes-morning-testimony/

Harmon stated he could have used that term, but could not recall specifically. Other notes from Schultz (including the improprieties note), Harmon state was his commentary to Schultz. And the Pandora's Box meaning you note is the reporter from Onward State, not testimony.

Still again, I don't know why Schultz would believe other kids were molested when there were no allegations of this by either kids and UPPD, DA, CYS, and DPW all investigation and said nothing criminal.

 

[LundyPSU]

And, finally, not to put too fine a point on it, on p. 2 of Schultz's notes, it's written that the kid was seeing a psychologist and that the mother and the psychologist had called a child abuse hotline.

So, Schultz knew in '98 that a psychologist had concluded that Sandusky had abused the kid. I doubt that he kept this info to himself.

Hey, Jimmy W, what did Clemente have to say about Schultz's notes concerning the psychologist?

You're right it does say that psychologist called the child abuse hotline. I don't know that she concluded abuse, but certainly suspected. That also doesn't mean that Schultz ever knew about or saw the Chambers report to UPPD. Again, if it was investigated by UPPD, DA, CYS, and DPW and they determined nothing criminal, then why would Schultz and Curley believe these kids and others were molested?

 

[WeR0206]

Your recollection doesn't seem to necessarily comport with Harmon's testimony:

"In the note, Schultz called Sandusky’s “behavior at best inappropriate — at worst sexual improprieties.” Schultz asked in the well-publicized note if this could be the opening of a “Pandora’s box,” meaning there are other children with similar allegations. Harmon mentioned that he “could have” used that term and Schultz was merely copying it down, but he wasn’t sure."

http://onwardstate.com/2013/07/29/former-police-chief-harmon-concludes-morning-testimony/

Please explain how Harmon/Schutlz speculating on an a best case/worst scenario proves that CS knew that JS was molesting kids? Guess what....their worst case scenario speculation was proven wrong when the state's own child care experts from DPW/CYS investigated the case and told everyone involved that JS was still cleared to have 1:1 access to kids.

You continue to look past this FACT b/c it doesn't fit in with your agenda that somehow C/S should have known better than what the state's CYS/DPW child care experts were telling them re: JS in 1998.

So, Schultz knew in '98 that a psychologist had concluded that Sandusky had abused the kid.

That's completely false. Chambers didn't conclude abuse occurred, she SUSPECTED child abuse via the grooming patterns/behavior she noted from talking with V6. The purpose of ChildLine is to report suspected abuse, childline then forwards that report to their experts to investigate and determine whether the report was founded or unfounded, etc... As far as C/S knew, after Chambers call to childline the state's own DPW/CYS determined 1998 to be unfounded by them continuing to allow JS access to kids after their investigation.

 

[CDW3333]

You're right it does say that psychologist called the child abuse hotline. I don't know that she concluded abuse, but certainly suspected. That also doesn't mean that Schultz ever knew about or saw the Chambers report to UPPD. Again, if it was investigated by UPPD, DA, CYS, and DPW and they determined nothing criminal, then why would Schultz and Curley believe these kids and others were molested?

Chambers called Sandusky a "likely pedophile." Likely. That means more probable than not. The standard for an indictment. Do you think Harmon did not communicate that to Schultz?

Let's be clear about one thing. Sandusky was cleared by John Seasock, nobody else. As soon as he rendered his report everybody else had the rationale they were looking for to drop this. No crime, no pedophilia. So, a single unqualified hack made the call here. Convenient.

The fact is, there was no reason to call in Seasock (or any psychologist) at that stage of the investigation other than to provide an imprimatur to drop it and everybody was free to act like nothing happened (which 14 years later a jury found to be false).

I'll say it again. Find out he was behind the hiring of Seasock (a question that remarkably gone un-investigated for the last three and half years) and you'll find out who was behind the coverup.

What we do know is that shortly after, Seasock got a mulri-year contract from PSU, something that conferred direct benefits-money and prestige.

And if '98 wasn't a big deal, why Spanier, Paterno and Curley all deny knowing about it?

 

[LundyPSU]

Chambers called Sandusky a "likely pedophile." Likely. That means more probable than not. The standard for an indictment. Do you think Harmon did not communicate that to Schultz?

Let's be clear about one thing. Sandusky was cleared by John Seasock, nobody else. As soon as he rendered his report everybody else had the rationale they were looking for to drop this. No crime, no pedophilia. So, a single unqualified hack made the call here. Convenient.

The fact is, there was no reason to call in Seasock (or any psychologist) at that stage of the investigation other than to provide an imprimatur to drop it and everybody was free to act like nothing happened (which 14 years later a jury found to be false).

I'll say it again. Find out he was behind the hiring of Seasock (a question that remarkably gone un-investigated for the last three and half years) and you'll find out who was behind the coverup.

What we do know is that shortly after, Seasock got a mulri-year contract from PSU, something that conferred direct benefits-money and prestige.

And if '98 wasn't a big deal, why Spanier, Paterno and Curley all deny knowing about it?

I agree, plenty of questions about what went down in 1998 (like why DPW pushed the Seasock involvement when Arnold said to wait). However, there is nothing to indicate so far that Schultz was told about the content of Chambers report. Schultz was getting updates from Harmon who was updated by Schreffler. Not sure how he would know about the bungling of CYS/DPW.
Still an open question about Curley and JVP's knowledge about 1998. You have a link to the Seasock contract from PSU? Thanks

 

[WeR0206]

I'm glad we can agree that Seasock was responsible for sandbagging the entire 1998 investigation.

We know for a FACT that DPW brought in Seasock against the wishes of the local ADA (Arnold) and police (Schreffler) -- BTW I wonder if this has ever happened before in any other cases..... A child service agency going against the wishes of the local DA and police?? I highly doubt it. We don't yet know WHO at DPW made that call or if anyone at PSU influenced them to make that call. I can't remember if anyone was ever asked under oath, but my guess is Lauro is the person who brought in Seasock.

If someone at PSU somehow was able to influence a state DPW agency worker to bring in Seasock, that person at PSU would have to be much higher up than C/S. My guess would be someone on the PSU BOT who had money/influence in Harrisburg.

I think it's much more likely that a big wig at TSM was responsible for pulling some strings to get DPW/Lauro sent in who then in turn brought in Seasock (who just so happened to do contract work for TSM at the time in 1998).