Bees - Freeh Report - 1998 Incident

[Todd Gack]

And the shark has been jumped.

 

[billsin01]

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 keep arguing this one point, about which you may be 110% correct. I'll admit I don't know. But I think the point most others are making is that there was an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that pointed to Sandusky being up to some inappropriate stuff (even if you discount reports of showers and simply talk about the constant and exceptionally close contact with the kids) at least in '98 and likely long before then. This seems fairly inarguable and absolutely condemns the university. Pointing to one psych eval and saying, "see, how were they supposed to know?" is at best a pretty thin argument and at worst intellectually dishonest.

 

[billsin01]

And the shark has been jumped.

I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to but I'm giving you a 'like' for the handle 'todd gack.' well done.

 

[OrangePA]

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.

No.

It was the kid's psychologist who correctly read the situation.

Here is the quote from the Freeh report: "At 7:34 am, May 4, 1998 the boy's mother called Alycia Chambers, a licensed State College psychologist who had been working with her son so see if she was 'overreacting' to Sandusky showering with her son."

Got it?

The psychologist had already been working with the boy - she was not the school's psychologist - she worked in State College. And she did the right thing - she reported the situation.

It was the DPW psychologist - Seasock - who concluded that there was no sexual act - that Sandusky did not become a pedophile at age 52. And it was Seasock who could not be reasoned with by the police detective, Schreffler.

Indeed, the report concluded that "A senior administrator of a local victim resource center [an advocate for victims!!!] familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report."

Again it was Seasock's misguided conclusion that stopped the process.

 

[OrangePA]

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.

Oh my goodness.

You're trying so hard to argue.

The report made clear that there was no relationship between Seasock and the school at the time he interviewed the kid. And the report concluded that the school had no involvement in the investigation.

Yes, to make sure that there was no impropriety, Freeh looked to see if there was, at any time, any financial or employment connection between PSU and Seasock. He determined that later on Seasock did some consulting for the school but made nothing of it.

My purpose in posting was not to review the entire Freeh report - word for word - regarding 1998.

It was to continue my discussion with Bees' regarding his conviction that the school influenced the outcome of the DA's decision not to prosecute at that time.

Freeh concluded that the school did not influence that decision.

Got that genius?

 

[OrangePA]

You keep arguing this one point, about which you may be 110% correct. I'll admit I don't know. But I think the point most others are making is that there was an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that pointed to Sandusky being up to some inappropriate stuff (even if you discount reports of showers and simply talk about the constant and exceptionally close contact with the kids) at least in '98 and likely long before then. This seems fairly inarguable and absolutely condemns the university. Pointing to one psych eval and saying, "see, how were they supposed to know?" is at best a pretty thin argument and at worst intellectually dishonest.

Actually, I do not keep arguing the point.

I promised Bees I would read that portion of the report again and continue our discussion on what happened in May, 1998.

Others, so taken with emotion and hatred, want to argue the entirety of the situation and want to go way beyond where my original thought went.

My original thought being that Seasock was an idiot - got the situation wrong and impacted history.

My second point was that despite all of the wonderful conspriacy theories advanced on this board, the Freeh report found no evidence that the school influenced the outcome in 1998.

Here is the quote from Freeh: "University police and the Department of Public Welfare responded promptly to the report by the young boy's mother of a possible sexual assault by Sandusky in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998. . . While no information indicates that University leaders interfered with the investigation, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curely were kept informed of the investigation."

There it is - no interference in the investigation.

Even Stern should be able to understand that.

 

[OrangePA]

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).

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[/quote]


Right.

I know.

You want to prosecute Dick Anderson and other coaches who saw the guy showering with kids.

Go at it, Bees. Maybe it will happen.

 

[rrlbees]

Actually, I do not keep arguing the point.

I promised Bees I would read that portion of the report again and continue our discussion on what happened in May, 1998.

Others, so taken with emotion and hatred, want to argue the entirety of the situation and want to go way beyond where my original thought went.

My original thought being that Seasock was an idiot - got the situation wrong and impacted history.

My second point was that despite all of the wonderful conspriacy theories advanced on this board, the Freeh report found no evidence that the school influenced the outcome in 1998.

Here is the quote from Freeh: "University police and the Department of Public Welfare responded promptly to the report by the young boy's mother of a possible sexual assault by Sandusky in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998. . . While no information indicates that University leaders interfered with the investigation, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curely were kept informed of the investigation."

There it is - no interference in the investigation.

Even Stern should be able to understand that.

Here is the psyche report done by the Happy Valley psychologist and given to PENN ST police officer Detective Schreffler. He never shared the report with the people he should have such as the child welfare department. The date of the report is prior to the confirmation that Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno etc knew about the investigation whihc was before the Seasock report was requested to be done. Why was this one ignored or it's findings not passed along to the welfare department? You can also google all of this stuff at the NBC news site and other sites to read documents. Cover up.

Chambers report

 

[Noexcuse]

Here is the psyche report done by the Happy Valley psychologist and given to PENN ST police officer Detective Schreffler. He never shared the report with the people he should have such as the child welfare department. The date of the report is prior to the confirmation that Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno etc knew about the investigation whihc was before the Seasock report was requested to be done. Why was this one ignored or it's findings not passed along to the welfare department? You can also google all of this stuff at the NBC news site and other sites to read documents. Cover up.

Chambers report

There will be in depth independent investigative works done on this and the real truth of the level of Paterno's complicity will eventually come out. One thing I seem to remember hearing early on is that whenever a football player at PSU broke the law the police were instructed to deliver them to the Paterno residence. There is no reason to think that the original psych report, delivered first to the police, was not shared first with Paterno and the AD and that is where the decision was made to not share it with the Welfare Department. Cases are often built on circumstantial evidence and the predominance of circumstantial evidence will often lead to a conviction. One thing Joe has going for him is he was an old f@rt who didn't use computers and conveniently didn't leave an email trail.

 

[rrlbees]

Right.

I know.

You want to prosecute Dick Anderson and other coaches who saw the guy showering with kids.

Go at it, Bees. Maybe it will happen

I can't but am hopeful that they do. Andersson said himself that he witnessed these things. So that begs the question WHY did he not go to the proper legal officials? Did he even tell anyone higher up at PedSt? If he did, what happened? Tell me what Doug Marrone or one of his assitents would do if they constantly saw another assistent (or ex-assistent) walk into the football showers with a random 10 year old?

BTW, I also want to know what Schiano knew and when he knew it. He was there for 5 years while this all occured. You're a lawyer. You know about endangering the welfare of a child and other similar crimes.

 

[kingtidge]

No.

It was the kid's psychologist who correctly read the situation.

Here is the quote from the Freeh report: "At 7:34 am, May 4, 1998 the boy's mother called Alycia Chambers, a licensed State College psychologist who had been working with her son so see if she was 'overreacting' to Sandusky showering with her son."

Got it?

The psychologist had already been working with the boy - she was not the school's psychologist - she worked in State College. And she did the right thing - she reported the situation.

It was the DPW psychologist - Seasock - who concluded that there was no sexual act - that Sandusky did not become a pedophile at age 52. And it was Seasock who could not be reasoned with by the police detective, Schreffler.

Indeed, the report concluded that "A senior administrator of a local victim resource center [an advocate for victims!!!] familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report."

Again it was Seasock's misguided conclusion that stopped the process.

Have a read...

I misread the report where the psychologist is concerned - when they said "State College Psychologist..." I took that to mean she worked for PSU - obviously not the case. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, your contention that the Seasock report is the reason the investigation was closed is still absolute nonsense.

"This was behavior that is consistent with a male predator, a pedophile,"​

​

Chambers told NBC reporter Michael Isikoff​

​

The little boy, now known as Victim No. 6, was Chambers' client. She interviewed him the day after the alleged incident and then warned Penn State police that Sandusky's behavior fit a likely pedophile's pattern.​

(Chambers)... wrote a report for police, and during their investigation, Penn State police hid in a bedroom and listened as the little boy's mother confronted Sandusky, asking him if he'd touched her son's private parts. According to court documents, Sandusky said he didn't think so, but wasn't sure. She asked him if he'd done the same thing with other boys and Sandusky said, 'Yes' and that he wished he could get forgiveness. "I wish I were dead," he told her, according to court records.​

Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, issued a statement in response to NBC's report, which read, in part, "We are very troubled by the fact we now can confirm the 1998 Penn State police investigation into allegations related to Accuser 6 apparently resulted in a 90 page investigative report which contained psychological reports prepared not only by Dr. Chambers but also by Dr. John Seasock who apparently concluded Jerry did not sexually abuse Accuser 6. The Attorney General has provided us to date with only a small fraction of that police report and has refused to give us copies of Dr. Chambers' and Dr. Seasock's reports, both of which we believe are relevant and critical to the preparation of Jerry's defense. We now are left to speculate on what other critical information the Attorney General has failed to provide to the defense team.​

What stopped the process was Penn State police deliberately ignoring evidence (Chamber's Report) - they had it all - both contradictory reports from psychologist Chambers and the welfare dept. report- all within a 90 page investigation report and they closed case without resolution of conflicting assessments of both reports. Shreffler knew there was a conflict with both evidentiary reports and let the case be closed anyways.

Also: "A senior administrator of a local victim resource center [an advocate for victims!!!] familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report."

That is proof of nothing - simply a statement from a welfare official trying to (unsuccessfuly I might add) put a rationalization on why no one investigated further.

You cannot claim the statement as a valid reason why the case was closed - sorry. It's an unsubstantiated statement - plain and simple. It's true it was said - but that is it.

The actual facts of what happened, as stated above, lead to a completely opposite conclusion.

Penn State Police knew about both conflcting reports and closed the case anyways without resolving obvious and alarming conflicts between both reports.

 

[longtimefan]

The report made clear that there was no relationship between Seasock and the school at the time he interviewed the kid. And the report concluded that the school had no involvement in the investigation.

Yes, to make sure that there was no impropriety, Freeh looked to see if there was, at any time, any financial or employment connection between PSU and Seasock. He determined that later on Seasock did some consulting for the school but made nothing of it.

I'm going to put my conspiracy cap on here. Is it possible that Seasock received his "payoff" post facto in the form of later consulting work? Think of McQueary getting his asst. coaching position over other candidates who were said to be more qualified.

 

[rrlbees]

Have a read...

I misread the report where the psychologist is concerned - when they said "State College Psychologist..." I took that to mean she worked for PSU - obviously not the case. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, your contention that the Seasock report is the reason the investigation was closed is still absolute nonsense.



What stopped the process was Penn State police deliberately ignoring evidence (Chamber's Report) - they had it all - both contradictory reports from psychologist Chambers and the welfare dept. report- all within a 90 page investigation report and they closed case without resolution of conflicting assessments of both reports. Shreffler knew there was a conflict with both evidentiary reports and let the case be closed anyways.

Also: "A senior administrator of a local victim resource center [an advocate for victims!!!] familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report."

That is proof of nothing - simply a statement from a welfare official trying to (unsuccessfuly I might add) put a rationalization on why no one investigated further.

You cannot claim the statement as a valid reason why the case was closed - sorry. It's an unsubstantiated statement - plain and simple. It's true it was said - but that is it.

The actual facts of what happened, as stated above, lead to a completely opposite conclusion.

Penn State Police knew about both conflcting reports and closed the case anyways without resolving obvious and alarming conflicts between both reports.

Cambers report includes a staement by the boy that Sandusky told him all the boys took showers with him and another quote that the boy stated that Sandusky promised to let him sit on the bench. Sandusky used his influence at PedSt for decades to lure little boys into his trap mof being abused. And nobody at PedSt ever did a thing to stop it, not admins not the HC nor any assistent coach during that time.

 

[rrlbees]

I'm going to put my conspiracy cap on here. Is it possible that Seasock received his "payoff" post facto in the form of later consulting work? Think of McQueary getting his asst. coaching position over other candidates who were said to be more qualified.

Bingo.

 

[OrangePA]

Have a read...

I misread the report where the psychologist is concerned - when they said "State College Psychologist..." I took that to mean she worked for PSU - obviously not the case. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, your contention that the Seasock report is the reason the investigation was closed is still absolute nonsense.



What stopped the process was Penn State police deliberately ignoring evidence (Chamber's Report) - they had it all - both contradictory reports from psychologist Chambers and the welfare dept. report- all within a 90 page investigation report and they closed case without resolution of conflicting assessments of both reports. Shreffler knew there was a conflict with both evidentiary reports and let the case be closed anyways.

Also: "A senior administrator of a local victim resource center [an advocate for victims!!!] familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report."

That is proof of nothing - simply a statement from a welfare official trying to (unsuccessfuly I might add) put a rationalization on why no one investigated further.

You cannot claim the statement as a valid reason why the case was closed - sorry. It's an unsubstantiated statement - plain and simple. It's true it was said - but that is it.

The actual facts of what happened, as stated above, lead to a completely opposite conclusion.

Penn State Police knew about both conflcting reports and closed the case anyways without resolving obvious and alarming conflicts between both reports.

Just read the highlighted section of the Freeh report.

The Seasock report severely hampered the investigation by the police.

And that conclusion is understandable if you're the local DA.

You have a guy with an impeecable reputation - a guy who is a national figure.

You are faced with the prospect of charging this guy with a very provocative criminal allegation.

And you have the DPW psychologist report declaring that nothing sexual occurred.

Again, these matters are of course art and not science and the DA did not have the luxury of the hindsight that we now have.

It cost time, money, and PR capital to charge a public figure with a crime. If you don't think you can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you really can't go ahead and file the charges.

So, maybe the DA was wrong - clearly he was in hindsight.

But one can at least understand how the Seasock report severely hampered the process. That is a very fair conclusion to draw.

That's what I'm trying to convey.

 

[rrlbees]

Just read the highlighted section of the Freeh report.

The Seasock report severely hampered the investigation by the police.

And that conclusion is understandable if you're the local DA.

You have a guy with an impeecable reputation - a guy who is a national figure.

You are faced with the prospect of charging this guy with a very provocative criminal allegation.

And you have the DPW psychologist report declaring that nothing sexual occurred.

Again, these matters are of course art and not science and the DA did not have the luxury of the hindsight that we now have.

It cost time, money, and PR capital to charge a public figure with a crime. If you don't think you can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you really can't go ahead and file the charges.

So, maybe the DA was wrong - clearly he was in hindsight.

But one can at least understand how the Seasock report severely hampered the process. That is a very fair conclusion to draw.

That's what I'm trying to convey.

Unless you are able to understand that the PedSt police buried one psyche report and got another that would be more favorable to what PedSt wanted a psyche report to say.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[kingtidge]

But one can at least understand how the Seasock report severely hampered the process. That is a very fair conclusion to draw.

No, I don't understand...

If anything, the Seasock report should have encouraged the investigation process continue...


i.e. Why do we have two psych reports with completely divergent opinions on Sandusky as a likely pedophile?

A real investigation would not completely ignore a contrary evidentiary psych report like Chamber's.

No, the fact that both reports came to completely opposite conclusions SHOULD have spurred further investigation.

Both reports represent conflicting evidence.

As for the highlighted section... again, it's a statement you are taking as fact. Nothing in the Freeh report confirms the statement represents fact, only that it was said.

The ball was dropped by Penn State Police - either purposely or due to gross negligence.

Regardless, Penn State Police knew what was going on - they wrote a 90-page investigative report including both psych reports, never released report and closed the case.

 

[OrangePA]

No, I don't understand...

If anything, the Seasock report should have encouraged the investigation process continue...


i.e. Why do we have two psych reports with completely divergent opinions on Sandusky as a likely pedophile?

A real investigation would not completely ignore a contrary evidentiary psych report like Chamber's.

No, the fact that both reports came to completely opposite conclusions SHOULD have spurred further investigation.

Both reports represent conflicting evidence.

As for the highlighted section... again, it's a statement you are taking as fact. Nothing in the Freeh report confirms the statement represents fact, only that it was said.

The ball was dropped by Penn State Police - either purposely or due to gross negligence.

Regardless, Penn State Police knew what was going on - they wrote a 90-page investigative report including both psych reports, never released report and closed the case.

Oh my.

Nothing more to discuss with you.

Take care.

 

[OrangePA]

Unless you are able to understand that the PedSt police buried one psyche report and got another that would be more favorable to what PedSt wanted a psyche report to say.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Right. Of course, the Freeh report does not say that or even suggest that. Quite the contrary, the report says that the University had no involvement in the investigation.

Clearly there is no reason to discuss this further.

Like when discussing the JFK assination, one can never dispel a conspriracy theory because the theorist always comes up with another explanation - never based in fact, but on speculation or possibility.

The conspiracy theorist is not bound by fact because the essence of the theorist is to dispute obvious fact - to derive a theory on the basis of what is possible - not what is actually proven.

It's a vicious cycle and at this point a needless exercise.

 

[rrlbees]

Right. Of course, the Freeh report does not say that or even suggest that. Quite the contrary, the report says that the University had no involvement in the investigation.

What is so difficult to understand that the State College psychologists report that said Sandusky was a pedophile was sent to:

Mr. Ronald Schreffler
Criminal Investigation Unit
The Pennsylvannia University
University Park, PA 16802

And the very first paragrapgh says (as well as other things);

"I hope this will be useful to the investigation, even if only as collaboration." and "I especially appreciate your concerns for xxxxx's well being after the investigation is completed."

Why did this report die and what happened to the "investigation? Whitewashed and covered up.

 

[kingtidge]

Oh my.

Nothing more to discuss with you.

Take care.

Oh c'mon Pa...

I make a cogent, common sense argument and you take your ball and go home??

 

[Stern]

Oh c'mon Pa...

I make a cogent, common sense argument and you take your ball and go home??

He has done this before when he has been proven incorrect. Don't take it personally lol

 

[BlueCurtain]

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.”​

​

Sounds like police detectives were involved in the coverup. What's their penalty? Where's their fine?

 

[rrlbees]

Sounds like police detectives were involved in the coverup. What's their penalty? Where's their fine?

Good question. The Shreffler guy will eventually be brought down

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[rrlbees]

Regardless, Penn State Police knew what was going on - they wrote a 90-page investigative report including both psych reports, never released report and closed the case.

That is a very important point that some overlook or forget. It should also be noted that the police department reported to....Schultz.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2