Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 5 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 14 (19 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Did Freeh Frame Joe Paterno?

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Supported 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -

The FactFreeh Fiction contains several examples of the most egregious stretching of slim "evidence" to construct absurd conclusions that Joe Paterno and PSU were culpable in covering up for Jerry Sandusky.  


Joe Paterno Statue by Blehar & Bozeman

Joe Paterno Statue by Blehar & Bozeman

One of the most incredible descriptions of that can be found in Freeh on   page 49 in this Freeh pdf and find the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs .

       " Harmon continued to provide Schultz with information about DPW's role and their potential conflict of interest with the Second Mile." Harmon provided an update to Schultz on May 8, 1998 reporting that Lauro indicated that it was his intent to have a psychologist who specializes in child abuse interview the children. This is expected to occur in the next week to week and a half. I don't anticipate anything to be done until that happens."        " As the investigation progressed, Curley made  several requests  to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message  captioned "Jerry"  and asked, "Anything new in this department?  Coach  is anxious to know where  it stands?" Schultz forwarded Curley's note to Harmon who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley.The reference to  Coach is believed to be Paterno ."

This p 49 section is indicative or the obscene stretches made by Freeh.   Here Freeh references:

- Advertisement -

1) DPW's potential 'conflict of interest' with TSM but on p 43 it's CYS with the  conflict. 

2) Freeh indicates it is Lauro's intent to have a Psychologist who specialize in child abuse  but it ends up an unlicensed counselor from CYS - John Seasock. When in fact it is Lauro who  in the Police Report first accepts DA Arnold's request through Schreffler to delay the interview and then calls back saying "My supervisor instructed me to go ahead with the interview? 

- Advertisement -

3) Freeh says Curley made  "several" requests  for updates when in fact he made  exactly 3 including the "anything new  coach  is anxious" request. Freeh puts these exhibits first in his appendix with 3 chains of these emails making it appear there are 8 requests when in fact it is 3 requests repeated in the same email chains. These 3 requests for "any update" are May 13, 18 and 30th or 3 times that month Curley asks "any update"? Why not just say Three?   

4) Freeh says  the message is  c aptioned "Jerry"  he then says incongruously that " coach is believed to  be Paterno" .  Tim Curley usually refers to Paterno as "JOE" in other email. It's difficult to fathom how this statement could possibly be included in any serious competent document isn't it? An email captioned "JERRY" is said by Freeh to be about Paterno? 

This blatant stretching of the facts to paint PSU in the worst possible way  is  appalling as is the failure to comment on the obvious failures of the DPW/CYS investigators.

In 1998, Penn State Director of Public Safety, Tom Harmon relayed information in Detective Schreffler' police report to Gary Schultz.  What went up the flagpole to Schultz is not a full and complete accounting of the facts. Just what Harmon thought Schultz needed to know about the investigation of Sandusky. One of the things Harmon relayed to Schultz was his concern about DPW's role in the investigation and a potential conflict of interest with Second Mile.

BUT According to the Freeh Report on page 43 paragraph 2 it was the local CYS that had the conflict of interest with Second Mile. 

That afternoon Schreffler contacted John Miller, a caseworker with the Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) about the allegation. However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case" (e.g., CYS had various contracts with Second Mile - including placement of children in a Second Mile residential program, the Second Mile's executive director had a contract with CYS to conduct children's evaluations and the  referral sheet  from Chambers indicated the case might involve a  foster child . In light of these conflicts, the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) took over the case from CYS on May 5. DPW officials in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania took the lead because of Sandusky's high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro.

DPW was assigned to the case because of the Child Abuse Hotline Call from Dr. Alycia Chambers (who got a release from the mother of Victim 6).  Hotlines and customer service lines all work the same.  You call, get a number, and someone resolves the problem.  Jerry Lauro was assigned to take care of the incident.

Dr. Chambers had worked with victim 6 for some time and knew without doubt he was not a  foster child  - so what is this  referral sheet  referred to by whoever decided there was some conflict? 

Conclusion: Freeh's assertion of why Lauro was assigned is false and Freeh mentions DPW's conflict of interest issue with Second Mile on page 49 and CYS's conflict of interest on page 43 without ever resolving which entity had a conflict of interest or determining if both had conflicts of interest.

Many people seem to want to believe that Joe or someone at PSU interfered with the 1998 investigation but here is the truth in plain site in the Police report. 

1) ON May 7 District Attorney Karen Arnold instructs Det Schreffler to postpone any additional psychological evaluation of victim 6. 

2) On May 8 Schreffler calls CYS John Miller, DPW's Jerry Lauro, who agree to delay and then he calls Victim 6's mother. 

3) But on May 8 at 11:55 Jerry Lauro calls back and tells Schreffler "I was told by MY SUPERVISOR to go forward with the appointment and the evaluation 

4) So Schreffler calls the mother again who says she was just told by CYS's John Miller the interview was off and she is confused 

5) Eventually it is resolved that the evaluation took place at 2pm shortly after Det Schreffler puts  Dr Alycia Chambers formal report into the recor d by attaching it to  this police report. 

This is explosive information.   DA Karen Arnold told Det Schreffler to hold off on any additional evaluations on May the 7th and Schreffler informs CYS  - Miller, DPW - Lauro and the mother of victim 6 that the interview by Seasock is off. But at 11;55 Lauro's supervisor tells him to ignore the DA and go ahead with the interview by and unlicensed counselor who worked for CYS doing evaluations for The  Second Mile. 


Freeh reports that CYS was removed from the case due to a conflict of interest and even more 

strange is that Seasock's  evaluation that is completely in error , as we know from the results of the  Sandusky trial. 

Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, as part of DPW's investigation. Counselor John Seasock,opined that  "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children."  Seasock's report ruled out that the boy  "had been placed in a situation where he was being "groomed for future sexual victimization. *

This conclusion in the Seasock interview completely contradicts the proper evaluation already in Schreffler's file - see final entry on the report above by Dr. Chambers

Chambers made a report to the PA child abuse line and consulted with colleagues. Her colleagues agreed that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile's pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a loving, special relationship.

So the implications of this are OBVIOUS 

Who is this Supervisor who told Lauro to ignore the District Attorney?

Who decided Seasock was a psychologist? 

Why is Seasock's - a social worker/ counselor  evaluation accepted over Dr. Chambers?

Why is Seasock who works with CYS and The Second Mile even considered for the job?

Freeh says CYS was replaced by DPW over conflict of interest but they use Seasock?

Seasock's evaluation is the reason Lauro gives for recommending the case be closed to Gricar.

Why did Gricar take over for DA Arnold - an investigation that was going nowhere with this Seasock evaluation claiming  there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children.

This explosive information PROVES that someone - Lauro's Supervisor - is the person who is manipulating the investigation from Harrisburg. We now know why the 1998 investigation ended with Sandusky cleared of criminal behavior and pedophile tendencies. 

Freeh has all of this information showing how Sandusky escaped prosecution or further investigation in 1998 due to the Seasock evaluation. He knows that someone in Harrisburg forced this evaluation on Lauro over the expressed demand of DA Arnold. Yet Freeh does two things that are completely incredible. 

First he tries to make a case that Joe Paterno was in the loop in 1998 by claiming one email saying "I touched base with coach" captioned Joe Paterno on May 6, from Curley to Schultz means Joe was somehow informed of an investigation that had just begun. When in fact we know that Curley and Schultz had been involved with an ongoing discussion of Sandusky's future since Joe and Tim met with Jerry in January and Joe told Jerry he would not become head coach. 

Freeh's exhibits contain a great deal about Sandusky talking about his retirement options and demands. It is impossible to make any legitimate claim that this "I touched base with coach" doesn't have to do with that. 

From: Gary C. Schultz   Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 2:06 PM

To: Tim Curley  Cc: Spanier-Graham (GBS)

Subject: Re: Joe Paterno

Will do. Since we talked tonight I've learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the JS Thursday.

At 05:24 PM 5/5/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote:

I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.   Tim Curley

NOW SEE THE NEXT EMAILS SUBJECT JERRY

From: Gary C. Schultz   Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 8:55 AM        To: Thomas Harmon  Subject:  Re: Jerry

Good, Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve quickly.

At 04:48 PM 5/13/98 EST, Thomas Harmon wrote:

The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly.

Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 04:11:19 To: Tim Curley  From: "Gary C. Schultz     Subject:  Re: Jerry   

Tim, l understand that a DPW person was here last week; don't know for sure if they talked with Jerry. They decided to have a child psychologist talk to the boys sometime over the next week.

At 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote:

Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.  Tim Curley

When Curley asks "anything new? Coach is anxious to know?" The response is "I understand a DPW person was here last week, don't know for sure if they talked with Jerry" in an email captioned Re JERRY  

So ask Freeh and yourself this - if the first email is Re Joe Paterno and coach is about  Coach Paterno  why isn't the second email Re Jerry about Coach Jerry since it concerns DPW and their desire to talk with Jerry? And why does Tim Curley refer to JOE as JOE in every other email Curley sends?

But let's assume that Joe was told about 1998 in a brief update or summary. If he had been Joe would have learned that the conclusion of that investigation was that Sandusky exhibited NO CRIMINAL or PEDOPHILE behavior and the District Attorney, Penn State Police, State College Police, CYS and DPW had done the investigation thoroughly and cleared Sandusky. 

WHY WOULD JOE OR ANYONE ELSE LIE ABOUT KNOWING THAT? 

THE FACT-FREEH DECEPTION 

1) Freeh puts these emails in triplicate near the front of the exhibits making the casual viewer see 8 "any updates" from Curley as if he is constantly seeking to get information.

2) Freeh writes Curley asks for updates SEVERAL TIMES - WHAT?  Curley only requested an update 3 times in 30 days. Few -= 3 Freeh not "several"  So prejudicial to suggest that Curley was constantly looking for updates when you can't even know for certain if he was asking about the retirement negotiation or the Sandusky inquiry. A 6.5 million dollar report deserves the exact detail and THREE is the exact detail but "several" could be more. 

3) Freeh states the May 13 email  is  c aptioned "Jerry"  he then says incongruously that " coach is believed to  be Paterno" .   With absolutely no explanation why or what fool would believe that.

4) Freeh has before him clear and incontrovertible proof that the 1998 investigation by CYS DPW the District Attorney's office and two police departments ended with Sandusky being cleared - no criminal or pedophile behavior. He knows how this happened. Yet he makes a big deal out of the idea that Joe knew this and lied. Why is that when it's clear to anyone with a mind that knowing JS was cleared in 98 would actually give Joe and PSU cover to say "he was investigated thoroughly in a very similar incident so we thought this 2001 incident was the same?

5) While we know Freeh was only charged with finding fault at PSU it was still within his perview to point out that if CYS and DPW had done a credible job in 1998 his investigation would likely not be required. Nothing in his duty restricted him from showing that PSU and Paterno were never the reason that the 1998 investigation failed when it could have succeeded. Freeh condemns Joe and PSU for failing in 2001 on far less evidence. 

6) Freeh could easily point out that 6 of the trial victims and 10 of those 17 they eventually knew about were involved in the 1998 time frame and any competent investigation by DPW and CYS could have turned them up. Instead some Supervisor in Harrisburg made Lauro bring in Seasock to give Sandusky a whitewash ending the 1998 investigation prematurely 

7) The email from Harmon to Schultz stating "They want to get this over quickly" is a huge clue. Why would DPW want to get it over quickly? 

Freeh not only failed - the SIC Special Investigation Commission chose to go to great lengths to make Joe seem culpable in the absolute thinnest of connections - the word "coach' in a Curley email to Schultz captioned Jerry. 

Both Paterno and Sandusky are COACH Freeh. Funny thing nobody seems to have told your that. If you have read this carefully and seen this evidence I don't know how you could fail to understand how thin the evidence is that destroyed Joe Paterno's legacy and cost him 111 wins and PSU millions. This is an unbelievable travesty that needs to be fixed. 

 

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/

Editor and owner of The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal Weblog http://notpsu.blogspot.com/ The most complete collection of information on what has been unfairly labeled The Penn State Sex Scandal. Graduate of the Univ of TN in Public Administration, (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

PSU and Paterno Not Guilty - McQueary Testimony Proves It.

1998: So Close to an End for Sandusky - Who Interfered and Why?

Did Freeh Frame Joe Paterno?

Each 'Key Finding" of the Freeh Report is A Misleading Deception

Penn State Paterno/ Sandusky Story; One Year Anniversary - We Now Know the Truth

So You Think Joe Paterno is a Liar?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments