Blehar's latest: Evidence Rules Out PSU Cover-Up in 2001

[WeR0206]

Here's the latest blog from Blehar (another excellent job):

Analysis: Evidence Rules Out PSU Cover-Up in 2001


Police and OAG investigators interviewed 67 former and/or current Centre County CYS employees -- but none were presented as grand jury witnesses regarding the 2001 case. That is one of many pieces of evidence that demonstrate the weakness of the Commonwealth's case.


By
Ray Blehar


The existing media scenario and the view of law enforcement is one and the same -- PSU officials conspired to cover-up Sandusky's crimes to protect the school's and the football program's reputation.

The evidence, however, tells a very different story.

When the evidence for and against a cover-up is weighed, the evidence stacks up heavily against the existing/accepted scenario.
Evidence For
1. Mike McQueary testified that he conveyed to PSU officials "that it was a in a very bad sexual act, a molestation act with a minor"
2. Under the 2007 law, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were required to report the incident to the authorities because they were "school employees."
2. No records exist to verify that Penn State made a report of the incident in 2001.
3. An unauthenticated email covering the period on February 25-27, 2001, suggests (but not conclusively) that a report was not made to child welfare authorities in 2001.
4. Former University Park police chief Tom Harmon was the only witness (with first hand knowledge) to testify that no report was made to the police about the 2001 incident.



Evidence Against
McQueary's Report
1. McQueary testified that he did not use any explicitly sexual language with any of the PSU officials and, in fact, said he could not remember the exact words he used. McQueary testified that the men "definitely received from me that it was sexual." (July 29, 2013 hearing, page 29)
2. There are not corroborating witnesses for McQueary's statements to Curley and Schultz.
3. Other individuals who McQueary informed about the incident on February 9th, 2001 did not advise him to make a report to the police and/or child welfare. Those individuals also did not make a report.

The Law
4. Under the child abuse reporting statute in 2001, no Penn State officials were not among the enumerated individuals who were mandated to report child abuse.
5. The statute's definition of a student (under section 6303) was "[a]n individual enrolled in a public or private school, intermediate unit or area vocational-technical school who is under 18 years of age." The statute did not apply to colleges and universities in 2001.

Child Abuse Reports/Records
6. Under Pennsylvania law, there is no requirement for reporters of child abuse to maintain a record of the report.
7. In 2001, local child welfare authorities were not required to report General Protective Services complaints to the State-wide database. Note: Required to be included as of July 1, 2014.
8. Under the Public Welfare Code provision for General Protective Services, local child welfare authorities have the discretion to prioritize and investigate complaints based on a risk assessment of the alleged abuse report.
9. Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) assisted in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky and was aware the investigation did not result in an abuse finding.
10. Records of investigations of unfounded complaints are expunged upon notification by ChildLine.

History of Penn State's Reports of Sandusky's Behavior

11. PSU cooperated fully with a 1998 investigation of then active assistant football coach[/I], Jerry Sandusky.12. In 2001, PSU Athletic Director Timothy Curley reported (then-retired) Sandusky's shower incident outside of the University[/I] his employer, The Second Mile.
13. There is no evidence that PSU officials were aware of or any inappropriate conduct by Sandusky with children after February 9, 2001.
14. PSU officials openly communicated about the 1998 and 2001 incidents over email and courtesy copied support staff on some of the communications.
15. PSU Senior Vice-President of Business and Finance, Gary Schultz, reported his knowledge of the 2001 incident to the University's legal counsel, Wendell Courtney.
16. According to the grand jury presentment and other court proceedings, Schultz recalled that a report of the 2001 incident was made to local child welfare authorities (i.e., CC CYS).
17. According to an email (page 84 of Freeh Report) from Wendell Courtney, he recalled that in 2001 "someone...contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation."

Lack of Corroborating Witnesses/Witness Credibility
18. According to the Moulton Report (page 156), the Director of CC CYS testified at the Sandusky grand jury on March 10, 2011, however her testimony did not address the 2001 incident[/I].
19. According to the Moulton Report's timeline (pages 142 to 166) none of the 66 former and/or current employees of CC CYS interviewed by the police and/or general investigators were presented as grand jury witnesses about the 2001 incident.
20. Prosecution witness, former University Park police chief Tom Harmon testified that he purposely mislabeled the 1998 police report of the Sandusky investigation so that the press would not be able to discover it in the police logs.
21. The University Park police under Harmon's direction had no qualms about arresting football players and properly reporting the arrests as such in the police logs.
22. Harmon was formerly a neighbor of Sandusky's and attended the same church.
23. Harmon was a mandated reporter of child abuse in 2001 and he could have been charged with failure to report child abuse if he admitted knowledge of the 2001 incident.
24. On the Monday after the incident, Harmon emailed Schultz to confirm that a report of the 1998 incident existed in the imaged archives. Harmon testified that Schultz didn't ask him about the file nor did he recall giving the file to Schultz.


The numbers don't lie.


ConclusionBased on the evidence on the public record to date, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Commonwealth to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for its allegation of a failure to report and a cover-up by PSU officials.

There is reasonable doubt at every turn (without introducing more doubt based on the actions an inactions of The Second Mile).

Note: This is a companion post, titled "What Are They Hiding?" that will examine the possible reasons why Commonwealth officials and the Board of Trustees pinned the blame on PSU officials for enabling Sandusky's crimes.

This post was edited on 3/11 12:06 AM by WeR0206

 

[9fold]

Hence, we are approaching three and a half years since Curley and Schultz were indicted and two and a half years since Spanier was indicted, and there are no hints of when they may go to trial.

By contrast, sandusky, in a far more complicated case (many more counts, several victims), went to trial and was put in jail just seven months after being indicted.

 

[PSUriseANDfire]

This whole thing was a farce. It's really scary that a bunch of good men were destroyed by a sociopath.

What's more, we all were as well because of the actions of an inept group of idiots(at the time).

 

[pandaczar12]

Great work Ray!

I think an important point is missing in the following section:

Evidence Against
3. Other individuals who McQueary informed about the incident on February 9th, 2001 did not advise him to make a report to the police and/or child welfare. Those individuals also did not make a report.

Those other individuals were informed BEFORE C/S/S/P, within about an hour of the shower incident, and at least one of them was a mandated reporter. Much like 1998 being a "false alarm", this knowledge would be an important data point in the decision making of C/S/S/P.

 

[Misder2]

Who was the mandated reported?

 

[Lion78]

Nobody was mandated. Some are still trying to claim Dr. Dranov was, but not in 2001 in the context of how he learned of the event.

 

[Ceasar]

I've always felt the failure to report charge is the weakest the three are facing. They really have three solid defenses. One, the statute of limitations had expired before they were charged and they cannot be charged; two, even if the statute of limitations is not a problem, they were not mandated reporters so it makes no difference what they were told, they had no obligation to report no matter how bad it was; third, if the statute is not a problem and they are/were mandated reporters, they were never advised of sexual abuse and therefore the facts did not rise to the level of having to report.

 

[psu1969a]

"Some are still trying to claim Dr. Dranov was, but not in 2001 in the context of how he learned of the event."

To the best of my knowledge, the law included the word "suspected". So even if he had any knowledge or suspicion, then he should have reported the incident!

 

[Misder2]

He was NOT a mandated reported

 

[pandaczar12]

This is the first I've ever heard anyone claim that Dr. Dranov was not a mandated reporter. I'm not saying you are wrong, but can you provide any evidence to your point?

Originally posted by Misder2:
He was NOT a mandated reported

Regardless, it doesn't change the point that other individuals were informed BEFORE C/S/S/P, within about an hour of the shower incident. Much like 1998 being a "false alarm", this knowledge would be an important data point in the decision making of C/S/S/P.

 

[Misder2]

The criteria defining a mandated reporter, he did not meet those.

 

[pandaczar12]

Originally posted by Misder2:
The criteria defining a mandated reporter, he did not meet those.

And someone could easily say he does meet the criteria... without specifics your argument doesn't hold any water.

 

[Ceasar]

Agreed. My recollection is Dranov would be a mandated reporter if he observed/learned something while examining a patient. But simply hearing second or third hand rumors of what someone else saw did not rise to the level of required reporting.

 

[Misder2]

Originally posted by pandaczar12:

Originally posted by Misder2:
The criteria defining a mandated reporter, he did not meet those.

And someone could easily say he does meet the criteria... without specifics your argument doesn't hold any water.

It's not an argument, it's a statement.

 

[pandaczar12]

Originally posted by Misder2:

Originally posted by pandaczar12:

Originally posted by Misder2:
The criteria defining a mandated reporter, he did not meet those.

And someone could easily say he does meet the criteria... without specifics your argument doesn't hold any water.

It's not an argument, it's a statement.

OK, someone could easily say he does meet the criteria... without specifics your statement doesn't hold any water.

 

[psu1969a]

misder2, And the criteria is? I worked for CYS in Harrisburg in the late 1990s. Just interested on where you got your inforamtion. FYI, all physicians/nurses/teachers are/were mandatory reporters; even if they were informed or only suspected abuse.

 

[Misder2]

Originally posted by psu1969a:
misder2, And the criteria is? I worked for CYS in Harrisburg in the late 1990s. Just interested on where you got your inforamtion. FYI, all physicians/nurses/teachers are/were mandatory reporters; even if they were informed or only suspected abuse.

As an example. This particular one shows that Corbett was Governor at the time, but I have seen that wording used in describing a "Mandated Reporter" in articles/publications from the 200-2001 time frame. I'll see if I can find some specifically for that date.

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/cs/groups/webcontent/documents/communication/p_011835.pdf

 

[Yanks49]

My somewhat uninformed opinion has always been, even if Dranov and McQueary were not mandated, they did Paterno AND Mike a disservice by not doing more than they did, maybe just by being with Mike when other discussions were had with Paterno and later C/S/S.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Thank you Ray for another great report.

I have always felt that Harmon was pivotal in the reporting situation. Based on his and Schultz' testimony, it appears that Harmon knew what was going on but did his best to parse the truth. I would love for someone to drill down on Harmon's personal relationship with Sandusky. It appears to me that Harmon was instructed by Schultz to report Sandusky to CYS and Harmon either didn't do it or did it in a fashion that CYS did not take it seriously because Harmon was a friend of Sandusky.

I hope this is on the radar of CSS's attorneys.

 

[Misder2]

Yanks, I don't disagree with that in any way.

 

[mhentz]

Originally posted by Misder2:
The criteria defining a mandated reporter, he did not meet those.

The good Dr. Dranov might not have been a mandatory reporter per the statutes for this particular case but we can assume he had mandatory reporter training at the time. Otherwise, he'd have been in violation of his licensing requirements and It's just more convenient to my argument to assume he kept his license to practice medicine current even though he was in admin as opposed to practice at the time. He was at least still calling himself "Doctor." To that end, I believe it's pretty safe to assume his mandatory reporter training must have had some bearing on his advice to Mike McQueary. Otherwise, I'm having difficulty understanding why they would call him in for advice at all. If I'm wrong in any or all of this, perhaps you can clear up the question as to why John and Mike McQueary called in this particular individual for advice on the matter.

 

[Southeastern PA Buck]

Free these men of these charges now

nm

 

[aalion]

I am pretty sure Dr. D even testified that he was a "mandatory reporter" when asked at either Sandusky's trial or one of the pretrial events for C/S/S. Whether he was a mandatory reporter in this particular circumstance can maybe be debated (I don't know the law), but to me he was at least as much a mandatory reporter of this specific incident, back in 2001, as C/S/S were. Regardless, Dr. D. was certainly better trained than any of C/S/S about warning signs, suspicions, etc. than C/S/S, and the fact that he didn't "hear" what Mike now claims he saw seems to be a pretty big deal. To me, it is far more likely and sensible that MM was confused by what he saw and gave a confusing account to everyone, then to beleive that he was not confused, but couldnt communicate it to his Dad and Dr. D. due to "shock" or whatever, but could communicate it clearly to the 4 PSUers.

I have posted this before... every single action/inaction taken by everyone involved, from Mike to Spanier to TSM and everyone in between, is 100% consistent with "this is JS stepping over the line and he needs to stop being inappropraite". And there are at least a dozen actions that are completely contrary to "JS is evil but lets cover it up to protect the football team".

 

[Misder2]

Originally posted by mhentz:

Originally posted by Misder2:
The criteria defining a mandated reporter, he did not meet those.

The good Dr. Dranov might not have been a mandatory reporter per the statutes for this particular case but we can assume he had mandatory reporter training at the time. Otherwise, he'd have been in violation of his licensing requirements and It's just more convenient to my argument to assume he kept his license to practice medicine current even though he was in admin as opposed to practice at the time. He was at least still calling himself "Doctor." To that end, I believe it's pretty safe to assume his mandatory reporter training must have had some bearing on his advice to Mike McQueary. Otherwise, I'm having difficulty understanding why they would call him in for advice at all. If I'm wrong in any or all of this, perhaps you can clear up the question as to why John and Mike McQueary called in this particular individual for advice on the matter.

I think he may have just been a family friend of some sort, but I don't know.

Mandated to report and should have reported are 2 different things. Yes, based on what I can only presume he was trained to do, he should have instructed or demanded that they immediately report. I agree with you. That doesn't mean he was legally bound to do that.

 

[LundyPSU]

Problem is that we don't know what Mike told anyone. What we do know is that no one's actions in 2001 make sense based on what Mike claims in 2010/11 that he told everyone in 2001.

 

[Ceasar]

The argument over Dranov as a mandated reporter is moot

because he claims MM never told him he witnessed anything of a sexual nature (obviously I am not quoting Dranov directly) and the AG does not allege otherwise, nor does McQueary. So even if he was a mandated reporter, he had nothing to report. Of course that is the same argument Paterno, Curley, Shultz and Spanier make as well but for whatever reason the AG chooses not to believe them.

 

[jjsocrates]

Originally posted by Ceasar:
Agreed. My recollection is Dranov would be a mandated reporter if he observed/learned something while examining a patient. But simply hearing second or third hand rumors of what someone else saw did not rise to the level of required reporting.

Wait, so who WAS a mandated reporter? McQueary???

Why was Dranov not considered a mandated reporter if he heard "second or third hand rumors of what someone else saw" but people are claiming that Paterno, Curley and Schultz were?

What about Raykovitz?

 

[Misder2]

Originally posted by jjsocrates:

Originally posted by Ceasar:
Agreed. My recollection is Dranov would be a mandated reporter if he observed/learned something while examining a patient. But simply hearing second or third hand rumors of what someone else saw did not rise to the level of required reporting.

Wait, so who WAS a mandated reporter? McQueary???

Why was Dranov not considered a mandated reporter if he heard "second or third hand rumors of what someone else saw" but people are claiming that Paterno, Curley and Schultz were?

What about Raykovitz?

Schultz? In my opinion I would say most likely
Raykovitz? In my opinion I would say most definitely

Paterno, Curley McQueary, Dranov? No

 

[pandaczar12]

Re: The argument over Dranov as a mandated reporter is moot

Originally posted by Ceasar:
because he claims MM never told him he witnessed anything of a sexual nature (obviously I am not quoting Dranov directly) and the AG does not allege otherwise, nor does McQueary. So even if he was a mandated reporter, he had nothing to report. Of course that is the same argument Paterno, Curley, Shultz and Spanier make as well but for whatever reason the AG chooses not to believe them.

Good point.

But I'd like to reiterate my original point. Regardless of his mandated reporter status. The fact that two people were told BEFORE anyone at PSU found out is important. They heard the information in a more timely manner, and didn't act on it. That has to factor in to the decisions of C/S/S/P. Whether he was or was not a mandated reporter is moot, it really only matters if someone thought he was. If anyone even thought that because of his profession that Dr. Dranov was a mandated reporter, that would further influence the decisions of C/S/S/P.

We don't need to go down the rabbit hole of was he or wasn't he any further.

 

[Ceasar]

Re: The argument over Dranov as a mandated reporter is moot

all good points panda and I agree with you on all. And to state the obvious, everyone MM spoke with about this reached the exact same conclusion - that they did not hear anything that they felt had to be reported to authorities. Since we are dealing with intelligent people, what are the odds that every single one of them reaches the wrong conclusion? That would include at minimum McQueary, his dad, his girlfriend, Dr. Dranov, JVP, Shultz, Curley and to a lesser degree Spanier and Courtney (I say lesser since they did not actually speak with MM while the others did)..

 

[pandaczar12]

Re: The argument over Dranov as a mandated reporter is moot

Originally posted by Ceasar:
all good points panda and I agree with you on all. And to state the obvious, everyone MM spoke with about this reached the exact same conclusion - that they did not hear anything that they felt had to be reported to authorities. Since we are dealing with intelligent people, what are the odds that every single one of them reaches the wrong conclusion? That would include at minimum McQueary, his dad, his girlfriend, Dr. Dranov, JVP, Shultz, Curley and to a lesser degree Spanier and Courtney (I say lesser since they did not actually speak with MM while the others did)..

The odds that happen are essentially zero. The odds that all of those people, some not even associated with PSU would also decided to cover up the incident for the sake of the football program is also essentially zero. I can say with near certainty that Mike didn't see anything other than JS in the shower with a teen, and that is all he reported. (The victim would also agree!) When the police came a knocking, the real or even imagined threat of his gambling and illicit use of school phone, coupled with stories from other victims... changed his memory.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Dr. Jon Dranov was John McQueary Sr.'s best friend and business partner.

Mark Hentz is correct - Dranov received mandated reporter training.

Others are also correct about Dranov - although you could argue that Mike reported "suspicion" of child sexual abuse ("the sounds"), the incident was not brought to Dranov's attention while formally serving in the capacity of his profession (ie, he wasn't at his office interacting with patients during working hours when he received this information).

Blehar can better speak to Dr. Jack Raykovitz' reporting duties as the CEO of a state-sponsored charity (Second Mile). At the very least, Raykovitz failed to implement a safety plan that would revoke Sandusky's access to children until resolution of a formal investigation. Instead, Raykovitz told Sandusky to wear swim trunks.

Interestingly, you rarely see this mentioned, but Dr. Jack Raykovitz was a contracted worker for Children & Youth Services (and even served as Matt Sandusky's personal therapist after Matt attempted suicide). And Tim Curley did report the 2001 incident to Raykovitz.

Some cover up.

 

[Misder2]

Very well done

 

[marshall23]

The deceit is clearly the product of The Commonwealth. Too many questions would have been asked about the dirty deals struck In CC giving JS foster and adoptive children for decades. Yes, and the fact that JR did contract work for the State Agencies as well. Social Workers, Judges, Corbett himself who was charged with oversight of charities.....the list is enormous. As Joe alluded to........."countless" professionals were fooled. Or were they?
MM's story gave the OAG a place to begin the process of diverting the inevitable outrage. Corbett was running the ice cream store by then and he knew the favorite flavor of each member of the BOT.
Pa's sad record in regard to child protection didn't begin or end at PSU. Also, looking at the "big picture" only a fool would believe that the '98 investigation was killed by PSU or anyone CC.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Under the 2001 law only Raykovitz would have been a mandatory reporter as I understand it. I believe Ray has an embedded link to the 2001 statute in one of his reason blog postings.

 

[indynittany]

Originally posted by Misder2:

Originally posted by jjsocrates:

Originally posted by Ceasar:
Agreed. My recollection is Dranov would be a mandated reporter if he observed/learned something while examining a patient. But simply hearing second or third hand rumors of what someone else saw did not rise to the level of required reporting.

Wait, so who WAS a mandated reporter? McQueary???

Why was Dranov not considered a mandated reporter if he heard "second or third hand rumors of what someone else saw" but people are claiming that Paterno, Curley and Schultz were?

What about Raykovitz?

Schultz? In my opinion I would say most likely
Raykovitz? In my opinion I would say most definitely

Paterno, Curley McQueary, Dranov? No

If anybody at PSU was a mandated reporter, it would have been Spanier once the report went up the chain of command and reached his desk.
What matters and has always mattered is that there is no evidence that anyone at PSU conspired to conceal what had occurred. Not only was Raykovitz informed, and he most definitely was a mandatory reporter, but as no one told Mike to keep his trap shut and no one sought to secure the silence of the kid's family, the whole narrative is nonsensical.
Furthermore, the only change Tim proposed was to include Sandusky, rather than to go behind his back. Misinterpreting Tim's email by not understanding the difference between EVERYONE, but...., and ANYONE, but....dispels the entire narrative.
I love what Ray does, but at some point he makes things much more complicated than they need to be.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Originally posted by ChiTownLion:

Interestingly, you rarely see this mentioned, but Dr. Jack Raykovitz was a contracted worker for Children & Youth Services (and even served as Matt Sandusky's personal therapist after Matt attempted suicide). And Tim Curley did report the 2001 incident to Raykovitz.

ChiTownLion. This is the first I have heard of that Raykovitz was a contracted worker for CYS. To me that makes Schultz' statement a fact and therefore he did not commit perjury. And yes that blows the whole cover up theory further out of the water.

There has to be paperwork showing his employment or a contract or bills and fees for his services. The question I have is was Dr. Raykovitz a contracted worker when he was informed by Curley of the Sandusky incident that MM witnessed? If he was then all of the suits should be thrown out immediately because the charges are false on their face.

WOW!