Post by aurabass on Jul 27, 2012 9:06:32 GMT -5
From Ray Blehar & Barry Bozeman - Exclusive from The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal
The first of a series in which SMSSS will expose who let Sandusky roam Freeh (pun intended) for 14 years.
Freeh’s mission, as provided to him by the BOT, was to find of what PSU officials did wrong and that bias resulted in Freeh missing key evidence that shows DPW wanted to shut down the 1998 Sandusky investigation quickly.
.
The Freeh Report provides exhibits in Appendix 2 that show the flow of information from the University Park Police (Tom Harmon) to Gary Schultz to Tim Curley and Graham Spanier. While Freeh’s conclusions and statements about this information are provably false (see the Who Is The Liar article), he and his teams most egregious error is not recognizing the most important piece of information in this chain of information.
.
Again, the reason Freeh and his team didn't find it is because he wasn't looking for it. This error is known as confirmatory bias, where analysts only look for information to support a hypothesis and throw out or ignore information that runs counter to the hypothesis.
.
This contrary evidence is in Exhibit 2B of the report in the e-mail from Harmon to Schultz just ten days into the 1998 investigation. Harmon relays to Schultz regarding DPW:
"I have been advised they want to resolve this quickly."
Why would a child welfare agency want to resolve a child abuse investigation quickly? Are they covering for Sandusky? Or is somebody else pulling the strings?
The second critical piece of information -- also not put in the proper context by Freeh's team -- is Schultz’s handwritten note on May 5, 1998:
“Is this opening of Pandora’s box” “Other Children”
This is the last thing written on the notes by Schultz, after he was written notes stating that both boys have been interviewed and have similar accounts of the shower incident. Schultz next writes that “Either way, caseworker felt they would interview Jerry.” The note closes with the Pandora’s box statement, which obviously means that they’ve identified other victims.
.
These two pieces of evidence, taken together, point to DPW and Harmon knowing of a wider ring of boys being abused on May 5th, then informing Tom Harmon of their intention to resolve the investigation quickly on the May 13th. This is horrifying information.
.
When you go back and read Freeh's Executive Summary statement (page 16) stating that PSU officials had "a striking lack of empathy for child abuse," it really makes you sick to your stomach that PSU paid Freeh 6.5 million dollars to conduct this investigation and he completely whiffed on identifying the real people - professional psychologists and CYS -- who KNEW they were closing in on a serial child molester and scuttled the investigation.
.
What does Harmon say about it? He was the person relating DPW's desire "resolve this quickly. "We don’t know because AG Linda Kelly asked Freeh’s Special Investigative Comm. not to interview him among others (see page 12 of Freeh)
.
Who are the others? My guess, as an analyst, is that the others are people who will provide information about how Sandusky slipped through law enforcement's fingers in 1998. - Ray Blehar
The SMSSS Weblog post 1998: So Close to an End for Sandusky - raised these questions based on direct evidence contained in the Freeh Report.
:
1)Who authorized the switch from CYS (Centre Co. Child & Youth Services) to DPW (Pa Dept of Pub Welfare) in the 1998 Sandusky "victim 6" investigation? - That investigation was taken over by DPW because of conflicts of interest between The Second Mile & CYS since CYS including a counselor named Seasock did evaluations and work for The Second Mile. But who made that happen?
2) Who authorized CYS counselor Seasock to interview and evaluate victim 6? Since CYS was evidently conflicted and DPW in charge why would a CYS evaluator who worked with The Second Mile be authorized to make that evaluation? What makes this even more odd is that Centre Co. DA Karen Arnold specifically ordered that not to happen? So whoever did this went around Arnold's express orders and allowed Counselor Seasock access and his report to be accepted by DPW investigator Jerry Lauro.
3) Who ordered the Seasock interview to be accepted over a Doctor of Psychology's evaluation that was very unfavorable to Jerry Sandusky? Prior to the Seasock interview Dr. Alycia Chambers evaluated victim 6 when contacted by his mother. Her evaluation was described in the Freeh Report: 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.
Old Main was kept out of the 1998 investigation and there is NO EVIDENCE linking Joe Paterno to any knowledge of the 1998 investigation. We know Joe had nothing to do with this and the evidence shows that Harmon - rather than involving Schultz or Curley - kept the investigation details from them other than one slip that let Schultz question if there were other children involved.
The coming posts in this series will supply the answers to these questions and will show that Penn State and Joe Paterno have basically been framed by the Freeh report.
Who suggested Freeh get the 6.5 million dollar job from the Board of Trustees?
Why did the board accept the woefully incomplete Freeh Report as the definitive indicator of PSU involvement when it failed to even gather information from Curley, Schultz, Spanier, McQueary, Wendell Courtney, Jack Raykovitz, Tom Harmon or Mike McQueary?
IT MAKES NO SENSE.
The first of a series in which SMSSS will expose who let Sandusky roam Freeh (pun intended) for 14 years.
Freeh’s mission, as provided to him by the BOT, was to find of what PSU officials did wrong and that bias resulted in Freeh missing key evidence that shows DPW wanted to shut down the 1998 Sandusky investigation quickly.
.
The Freeh Report provides exhibits in Appendix 2 that show the flow of information from the University Park Police (Tom Harmon) to Gary Schultz to Tim Curley and Graham Spanier. While Freeh’s conclusions and statements about this information are provably false (see the Who Is The Liar article), he and his teams most egregious error is not recognizing the most important piece of information in this chain of information.
.
Again, the reason Freeh and his team didn't find it is because he wasn't looking for it. This error is known as confirmatory bias, where analysts only look for information to support a hypothesis and throw out or ignore information that runs counter to the hypothesis.
.
This contrary evidence is in Exhibit 2B of the report in the e-mail from Harmon to Schultz just ten days into the 1998 investigation. Harmon relays to Schultz regarding DPW:
"I have been advised they want to resolve this quickly."
Why would a child welfare agency want to resolve a child abuse investigation quickly? Are they covering for Sandusky? Or is somebody else pulling the strings?
The second critical piece of information -- also not put in the proper context by Freeh's team -- is Schultz’s handwritten note on May 5, 1998:
“Is this opening of Pandora’s box” “Other Children”
This is the last thing written on the notes by Schultz, after he was written notes stating that both boys have been interviewed and have similar accounts of the shower incident. Schultz next writes that “Either way, caseworker felt they would interview Jerry.” The note closes with the Pandora’s box statement, which obviously means that they’ve identified other victims.
.
These two pieces of evidence, taken together, point to DPW and Harmon knowing of a wider ring of boys being abused on May 5th, then informing Tom Harmon of their intention to resolve the investigation quickly on the May 13th. This is horrifying information.
.
When you go back and read Freeh's Executive Summary statement (page 16) stating that PSU officials had "a striking lack of empathy for child abuse," it really makes you sick to your stomach that PSU paid Freeh 6.5 million dollars to conduct this investigation and he completely whiffed on identifying the real people - professional psychologists and CYS -- who KNEW they were closing in on a serial child molester and scuttled the investigation.
.
What does Harmon say about it? He was the person relating DPW's desire "resolve this quickly. "We don’t know because AG Linda Kelly asked Freeh’s Special Investigative Comm. not to interview him among others (see page 12 of Freeh)
.
Who are the others? My guess, as an analyst, is that the others are people who will provide information about how Sandusky slipped through law enforcement's fingers in 1998. - Ray Blehar
The SMSSS Weblog post 1998: So Close to an End for Sandusky - raised these questions based on direct evidence contained in the Freeh Report.
:
1)Who authorized the switch from CYS (Centre Co. Child & Youth Services) to DPW (Pa Dept of Pub Welfare) in the 1998 Sandusky "victim 6" investigation? - That investigation was taken over by DPW because of conflicts of interest between The Second Mile & CYS since CYS including a counselor named Seasock did evaluations and work for The Second Mile. But who made that happen?
2) Who authorized CYS counselor Seasock to interview and evaluate victim 6? Since CYS was evidently conflicted and DPW in charge why would a CYS evaluator who worked with The Second Mile be authorized to make that evaluation? What makes this even more odd is that Centre Co. DA Karen Arnold specifically ordered that not to happen? So whoever did this went around Arnold's express orders and allowed Counselor Seasock access and his report to be accepted by DPW investigator Jerry Lauro.
3) Who ordered the Seasock interview to be accepted over a Doctor of Psychology's evaluation that was very unfavorable to Jerry Sandusky? Prior to the Seasock interview Dr. Alycia Chambers evaluated victim 6 when contacted by his mother. Her evaluation was described in the Freeh Report: 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.
Old Main was kept out of the 1998 investigation and there is NO EVIDENCE linking Joe Paterno to any knowledge of the 1998 investigation. We know Joe had nothing to do with this and the evidence shows that Harmon - rather than involving Schultz or Curley - kept the investigation details from them other than one slip that let Schultz question if there were other children involved.
The coming posts in this series will supply the answers to these questions and will show that Penn State and Joe Paterno have basically been framed by the Freeh report.
Who suggested Freeh get the 6.5 million dollar job from the Board of Trustees?
Why did the board accept the woefully incomplete Freeh Report as the definitive indicator of PSU involvement when it failed to even gather information from Curley, Schultz, Spanier, McQueary, Wendell Courtney, Jack Raykovitz, Tom Harmon or Mike McQueary?
IT MAKES NO SENSE.