Bees - Freeh Report - 1998 Incident

[OrangePA]

I have read the Freeh Report with respect to the 1998 incident.

Here is what Freeh reported: (1) the kid's psychologist was convinced that Sandusky was "grooming" the kid; (2) the psychologist referred the case to the local police; (3) the police investigated the case; (3) the case was not referred to Centre County Youth Safety and Welfare because that organization had a conflict of interest with Second Mile; (4) the police interviewed another kid who had the same shower experience with Sandusky - the shower bear hug; (5) the assigned police detective contacted an assistant DA to get involved in the case; (6) the case was referred to the PA Department of Public Welfare; (7) DPW retained psychologist Seasock to evaluate the kid - he determined that Sandusky was not a pedophile and that his actions with the kid were not those of a pedophile "grooming" a young boy for eventual sexual contact; (8) about three weeks after the May 3, 1998 incident, the DA chose not to prosecute; (9) according to a local support person - a person who apparently disagreed with the decision not to prosecute, the decision was greatly impacted by Seasock's report and (10) the University had no involvement at all in the decision not to prosecute.

The University at that point closely monitored what was happening but did not influence the DA. The University also did not speak with Sandusky about the situation.

So, I stand by my original observation that the person who blew it in 1998 was Seasock. It seems that had he issued an accurate report, the case would have been prosecuted.

And, I do not believe that the University did anything wrong in 1998 with respect to a possible prosectution of Sandusky.

Do I think the University should have spoken to Sandusky? Yes. Do I think the University should have conducted its own investigation? Yes. Do I think the University should have had Sandusky evaluated before allowing him to continue to have a presence on the campus? Yes.

Do I think Sandusky's sterling reputation in the community and role as defensive genius for the football team influenced the DA? Yes.

And I think those factors also influenced the University's reaction to the situation.

And that's how pedophile's survive - at least for awhile.

The use their positions in the community to thwart any notion that they have ill motives or engage in illicit behavior. We are experiencing that right now in Philadelphia with the Diocese.

 

[SU2NASA]

I have read the Freeh Report with respect to the 1998 incident.

Here is what Freeh reported: (1) the kid's psychologist was convinced that Sandusky was "grooming" the kid; (2) the psychologist referred the case to the local police; (3) the police investigated the case; (3) the case was not referred to Centre County Youth Safety and Welfare because that organization had a conflict of interest with Second Mile; (4) the police interviewed another kid who had the same shower experience with Sandusky - the shower bear hug; (5) the assigned police detective contacted an assistant DA to get involved in the case; (6) the case was referred to the PA Department of Public Welfare; (7) DPW retained psychologist Seasock to evaluate the kid - he determined that Sandusky was not a pedophile and that his actions with the kid were not those of a pedophile "grooming" a young boy for eventual sexual contact; (8) about three weeks after the May 3, 1998 incident, the DA chose not to prosecute; (9) according to a local support person - a person who apparently disagreed with the decision not to prosecute, the decision was greatly impacted by Seasock's report and (10) the University had no involvement at all in the decision not to prosecute.

The University at that point closely monitored what was happening but did not influence the DA. The University also did not speak with Sandusky about the situation.

So, I stand by my original observation that the person who blew it in 1998 was Seasock. It seems that had he issued an accurate report, the case would have been prosecuted.

And, I do not believe that the University did anything wrong in 1998 with respect to a possible prosectution of Sandusky.

Do I think the University should have spoken to Sandusky? Yes. Do I think the University should have conducted its own investigation? Yes. Do I think the University should have had Sandusky evaluated before allowing him to continue to have a presence on the campus? Yes.

Do I think Sandusky's sterling reputation in the community and role as defensive genius for the football team influenced the DA? Yes.

And I think those factors also influenced the University's reaction to the situation.

And that's how pedophile's survive - at least for awhile.

The use their positions in the community to thwart any notion that they have ill motives or engage in illicit behavior. We are experiencing that right now in Philadelphia with the Diocese.

The university didn't speak with him? Something obviously led to Sandusky's "retirement" out of nowhere.

 

[Phillymoose]

I believe the whole point of your post was to say that you did not feel that PSU did anything wrong in 1998, although you qualify the statement by saying 'with respect to a possible prosecution of Sandusky'.

The university is not a DA's office. They have totally different standards towards taking action. To equate the two is nonsense. The university knew that 2 credible children complained that there was a problem. Enough of a problem, apparently - that the police & DA got involved. This meets the merely 'let's fire Bernie Fine' test. True - SU fired Bernie amidst the extra scrutiny the PSU scandal bought, but if PSU had acted the same way in 1998, they would have clean hands today.

The monster might still have gotten away with it awhile, but he'd have done so without the stature that a sustained relationship with PSU provided. It was the perfect perch from which to prey and PSU enabled it 100%.

Your campaign to mitigate PSU's culpability is somewhat disturbing.

 

[rrlbees]

You need to read more than the Freeh report, you must also read the court testimony and the grand jury report. The latter 2 caqrry more weight in a court of law. Cover up. Lauro is the one that determined the case to be closed, but he did so with incomplete information.

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.
“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.

“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room. 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.’”

“At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors.”
​

 

[kingtidge]

If the Seasock report was salvo # 1 of the cover-up (which it could be argued it is - a purposely incomplete/sloppy report with an unjustifiable conclusion), then it is likely one of the first real examples of obstruction of justice in this case.

The school did nothing wrong not prosecuting Sandusky in 1998 on the premise of what may be a purposely falsified witness interview report???

The Seasock report was either: a. purposely falsified or, b. sloppy, incomplete, inaccurate, unprofessional that reaches an invalid conclusion.

Your argument contends it was 'b' and that's not PSU's fault and the sloppy, falsely-concluded report (which was in direct conflict with the School's own Psychologist's report on Sandusky) was enough for them to say: "no further investigation or possible prosecution necessary."

I don't buy it. Not even for a minute.

 

[OrangePA]

The university didn't speak with him? Something obviously led to Sandusky's "retirement" out of nowhere.

Actually, I have not re-read that portion of the Freeh report.

My recollection from my first review of the Report is as follows: (1) the May, 1998 incident occurred after he announced that he was retiring and (2) Joe Pa's notes on the issue seem to indicate that he told Sandusky that it would be impossible to both be the HC and run Second Mile - that was the rationale for him telling Sandusky he would not be the HC.

 

[RF2044]

Actually, I have not re-read that portion of the Freeh report.

My recollection from my first review of the Report is as follows: (1) the May, 1998 incident occurred after he announced that he was retiring and (2) Joe Pa's notes on the issue seem to indicate that he told Sandusky that it would be impossible to both be the HC and run Second Mile - that was the rationale for him telling Sandusky he would not be the HC.

Correction--that was the PUBLIC rationale.

 

[OrangePA]

If the Seasock report was salvo # 1 of the cover-up (which it could be argued it is - a purposely incomplete/sloppy report with an unjustifiable conclusion), then it is likely one of the first real examples of obstruction of justice in this case.

The school did nothing wrong not prosecuting Sandusky in 1998 on the premise of what may be a purposely falsified witness interview report???

The Seasock report was either: a. purposely falsified or, b. sloppy, incomplete, inaccurate, unprofessional that reaches an invalid conclusion.

Your argument contends it was 'b' and that's not PSU's fault and the sloppy, falsely-concluded report (which was in direct conflict with the School's own Psychologist's report on Sandusky) was enough for them to say: "no further investigation or possible prosecution necessary."

I don't buy it. Not even for a minute.

Well, you may not buy whatever.

But the Freeh report is clear - the University had nothing to do with the investigation of the May 3, 1998 event.

And the Freeh report says that there was no evidence of a relationship between Seasock and the University.

It's not my argument - it is the conclusion of the Freeh report. Sorry.

 

[OrangePA]

You need to read more than the Freeh report, you must also read the court testimony and the grand jury report. The latter 2 caqrry more weight in a court of law. Cover up. Lauro is the one that determined the case to be closed, but he did so with incomplete information.

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. ​

“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.​

​

“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room. 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.’”​

​

“At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors.”​

​

I told you that I would read the Freeh Report.

I have done that.

And the Report makes clear that the University had no involvement in the investigation of the 1998 incident.

The Report does not characterize Lauro in the heroic or positive manner you are describing.

I guess if I were him, I would be trying to make myself look better in hindsight.

Give me a link to what you have just quoted. It sounds interesting.

It also

 

[kingtidge]

Well, you may not buy whatever.

But the Freeh report is clear - the University had nothing to do with the investigation of the May 3, 1998 event.

Got it, because Sheffler ignored the school's psychologist's report and closed the case... so 'technically' the school was not involved in the investigation since their own psychologist's report was conveniently ignored by police and child welfare.

That was certainly convenient.

 

[NKR1978]

Sandusky voice mail transcripts to the McQuearey shower victim (Victim 2):
http://www.rossfellercasey.com/sandusky-voicemail

And the boys attorneys sum up the damage caused by Paterno, Schultz, Curley and Spanier perfectly:

"Our client has to live the rest of his life not only dealing with the effects of Sandusky's childhood sexual abuse, but also with the knowledge that many powerful adults, including those at the highest levels of Penn State, put their own interests and the interests of a child predator above their legal obligations to protect him."

 

[rrlbees]

I have read the Freeh Report with respect to the 1998 incident.

Here is what Freeh reported: (1) the kid's psychologist was convinced that Sandusky was "grooming" the kid; (2) the psychologist referred the case to the local police; (3) the police investigated the case; (3) the case was not referred to Centre County Youth Safety and Welfare because that organization had a conflict of interest with Second Mile; (4) the police interviewed another kid who had the same shower experience with Sandusky - the shower bear hug; (5) the assigned police detective contacted an assistant DA to get involved in the case; (6) the case was referred to the PA Department of Public Welfare; (7) DPW retained psychologist Seasock to evaluate the kid - he determined that Sandusky was not a pedophile and that his actions with the kid were not those of a pedophile "grooming" a young boy for eventual sexual contact; (8) about three weeks after the May 3, 1998 incident, the DA chose not to prosecute; (9) according to a local support person - a person who apparently disagreed with the decision not to prosecute, the decision was greatly impacted by Seasock's report and (10) the University had no involvement at all in the decision not to prosecute.

The University at that point closely monitored what was happening but did not influence the DA. The University also did not speak with Sandusky about the situation.

So, I stand by my original observation that the person who blew it in 1998 was Seasock. It seems that had he issued an accurate report, the case would have been prosecuted.

And, I do not believe that the University did anything wrong in 1998 with respect to a possible prosectution of Sandusky.

Do I think the University should have spoken to Sandusky? Yes. Do I think the University should have conducted its own investigation? Yes. Do I think the University should have had Sandusky evaluated before allowing him to continue to have a presence on the campus? Yes.

Do I think Sandusky's sterling reputation in the community and role as defensive genius for the football team influenced the DA? Yes.

And I think those factors also influenced the University's reaction to the situation.

And that's how pedophile's survive - at least for awhile.

The use their positions in the community to thwart any notion that they have ill motives or engage in illicit behavior. We are experiencing that right now in Philadelphia with the Diocese.

Btw, your #1 is wrong. She was not his psychologist she was happy valleys psychologist although after the fact she dis provide counseling to him. Happy valleys investigator conveniently ignored her report and didn't even give it to welfare services.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[shantydaze]

I believe the whole point of your post was to say that you did not feel that PSU did anything wrong in 1998, although you qualify the statement by saying 'with respect to a possible prosecution of Sandusky'.

The university is not a DA's office. They have totally different standards towards taking action. To equate the two is nonsense. The university knew that 2 credible children complained that there was a problem. Enough of a problem, apparently - that the police & DA got involved. This meets the merely 'let's fire Bernie Fine' test. True - SU fired Bernie amidst the extra scrutiny the PSU scandal bought, but if PSU had acted the same way in 1998, they would have clean hands today.

The monster might still have gotten away with it awhile, but he'd have done so without the stature that a sustained relationship with PSU provided. It was the perfect perch from which to prey and PSU enabled it 100%.

Your campaign to mitigate PSU's culpability is somewhat disturbing.

What are the employment discrimination laws in Pennsylvania? In Wisconsin, where I am, employers are prohibited from taking adverse employment actions against an individual as a result of that individual being accused of the crime. There are exceptions, most notably, where the crime occurred at work or the alleged crime is related to the type of work to be completed (i.e. a DUI arrest is generally not enough to terminate someone's employment unless the employment requires the person to drive). If the crime is related to the type of work, the person can only placed on unpaid leave until convicted. Once convicted, the person can be terminated.

I have no idea whether PA has similar laws that would have cause the University to tread lightly in 1998. Even if it did, however, Sandusky should have been flagged and watched very closely to make sure the allegations were not correct.

 

[rrlbees]

Btw, wouldn't admitted naked showers with young boys set off alarms with PedSt? They needed no other part of an investigation. The PedSt internal police knew of his own admission to this. Its also endangering the welfare of a child.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[djcon57]

So, I stand by my original observation that the person who blew it in 1998 was Seasock. It seems that had he issued an accurate report, the case would have been prosecuted.

By May 4th/5th, 1998: Schultz, Curley, and Paterno ALL KNEW about the investigation

May 8th, 1998: Seasock conducted the 2nd evaluation after the 1st from Alycia Chambers (who had no connection to Penn State) concluded that the child's relationship with Sandusky had patterns of pedophilia. Case worker Jerry Lauro NEVER SAW Chambers' statement


It's your belief that no one spoke w/ Seasock in those 4 days about this case?

 

[007]

Btw, wouldn't admitted naked showers with young boys set off alarms with PedSt? They needed no other part of an investigation. The PedSt internal police knew of his own admission to this. Its also endangering the welfare of a child.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I doubt you will ever convince Orange PA that Seasock was nothing more that a very small part of why Sandusky got away with his actions for so long.

Neither did the findings contained in the Freeh Report.

 

[djcon57]

And the Freeh report says that there was no evidence of a relationship between Seasock and the University.

This is also 100% not true...which makes me think you didn't even read it.

 

[billsin01]

I believe the whole point of your post was to say that you did not feel that PSU did anything wrong in 1998, although you qualify the statement by saying 'with respect to a possible prosecution of Sandusky'.

The university is not a DA's office. They have totally different standards towards taking action. To equate the two is nonsense. The university knew that 2 credible children complained that there was a problem. Enough of a problem, apparently - that the police & DA got involved. This meets the merely 'let's fire Bernie Fine' test. True - SU fired Bernie amidst the extra scrutiny the PSU scandal bought, but if PSU had acted the same way in 1998, they would have clean hands today.

The monster might still have gotten away with it awhile, but he'd have done so without the stature that a sustained relationship with PSU provided. It was the perfect perch from which to prey and PSU enabled it 100%.

Your campaign to mitigate PSU's culpability is somewhat disturbing.

The point that's really good here is the point about standards of taking action -- the judicial system is the judicial system for the purpose of making sure people are afforded a fair trial. An employer, university or other such entity is in no way, shape or form beholden to the same burden of proof/trial by jury, etc. Same goes for the court of public opinion (one of my biggest pet peeves is people getting upset about other people rushing to judgment before a jury trial -- who the f cares? we're people, not supreme court justices).

So, does this work against people in some cases? Yes, but it's life and it also works well in some cases where the judicial system fails.

 

[billsin01]

Btw, wouldn't admitted naked showers with young boys set off alarms with PedSt? They needed no other part of an investigation. The PedSt internal police knew of his own admission to this. Its also endangering the welfare of a child.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Yup, and let's also not forget that the guy was around children constantly -- as in all the time. I think one former player described him as the pied piper with all the kids around. And he started a foundation for disadvantaged youths and was with them all the time.

If the guy is a great guy and donating his time, etc., I'm cool with it. But once allegations like those surface it certainly warrants making sure all avenues are explored regarding potential abuse. This problem likely surfaced before 98 too, if I had to guess.

 

[007]

[quote="billsin01, post: 322138, member: 837"

If the guy is a great guy and donating his time, etc., I'm cool with it. But once allegations like those surface it certainly warrants making sure all avenues are explored regarding potential abuse. This problem likely surfaced before 98 too, if I had to guess.[/quote]

The first official report was made in May 98. Sandusky was convicted of abusing Victim #7 starting in September of 1995. The Freeh Report documented that "several" staff members and "football coaches" regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys at Penn St prior to May 1998 (none were reported to police).

 

[Stern]

Your campaign to mitigate PSU's culpability is somewhat disturbing.

Too kind, its downright creepy!

 

[Moontan]

One wonders if he's secretly hoping that PSU will get the boot and head to (& save) the NNBE?

(j/k opa)

 

[rrlbees]

[quote="billsin01, post: 322138, member: 837"

If the guy is a great guy and donating his time, etc., I'm cool with it. But once allegations like those surface it certainly warrants making sure all avenues are explored regarding potential abuse. This problem likely surfaced before 98 too, if I had to guess.

The first official report was made in May 98. Sandusky was convicted of abusing Victim #7 starting in September of 1995. The Freeh Report documented that "several" staff members and "football coaches" regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys at Penn St prior to May 1998 (none were reported to police).[/quote]

It is 1995 right now based on convictions but based on the latest allegations, much earlier. 3 guys claim mid 80's and 1 guy claims he was abused in 1979.

For any PedSt defenders Paterno no doubt knew for the whole Sandusky career. You have to be blind not to think otherwise. 4 decades in the showers and all the rumors don't go completely unnoticed by Paterno and many others all that time. Paterno should have had his complete record wiped out. He may be the most despicable person to ever become a college head coach in any sport.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OrangePA]

This is also 100% not true...which makes me think you didn't even read it.

Youre wrong.

The report indicated that a few years after 1998 Sessock did some consulting work for the university.

And the report found no connection at all between that work and the 1998 investigation.

You're wrong.

No connection between the 1998 investigation and PSU Administration was found.

 

[djcon57]

Youre wrong.

The report indicated that a few years after 1998 Sessock did some consulting work for the university.

And the report found no connection at all between that work and the 1998 investigation.

You're wrong.

No connection between the 1998 investigation and PSU Administration was found.

You said "And the Freeh report says that there was no evidence of a relationship between Seasock and the University."

This was not true. You have changed what you said.

They most certainly DID have a relationship as you state...just that no evidence was found that the payments were for the report.

You have changed your statement. I was not wrong. You were wrong..and everyone knows it.