Proof That Freeh Framed Joe Paterno

      "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." * 'l'he reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno."

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

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 they were responding to 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.

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 1:55 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 record 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. 

 

CYS was removed from the case due to a conflict of interest and even more strange is that his 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

 

 

Doctor Chambers and her colleagues determined correctly that the behavior described by victim 6 and his 10 year old friend fit the description of grooming. click and read this.  

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 if 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 <[email protected]>

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 -0400

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
 

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? 

 

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 seeing to get information constantly for Joe

 

2) Freeh writes Curley asks for updates SEVERAL TIMES - WHAT? We all know the saying 

.couple = two - few = three - some = four - several = five - many = six

and 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. 

 

3) Freeh states the May 13 email is captioned "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 charge 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. 

6) Freeh could easily point out that 6 of the trial victims and 10 or 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. The word "coach" in a 2001 email where Curley states he is rethinking their strategy that never says "coach" made him rethink or that 'coach" wanted him to rethink 

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.