On May 13, 1998, and May 19, 1998, Penn State University police detective Ronald Schreffler eavesdropped on conversations Jerry Sandusky had with the mother of a boy later identified as “Victim 6″ in a 2011 grand jury presentment alleging 40 criminal counts of child sexual abuse against eight victims by the former Penn State football coach. (The alleged victim count has since increased to 10, with 52 criminal charges.)
(PSU detective Schreffler statements contradict child welfare investigator)
The Nov. 4, 2011, grand jury presentment described Schreffler’s surveillance of Sandusky and the alleged victim’s mother in 1998:
Detective Schreffler testified .. The mother of Victim 6 confronted Sandusky about showering with her son, the effect it had on her son, whether Sandusky had sexual feelings when he hugged her naked son in the shower and where Victim 6’s buttocks were when Sandusky hugged him.
Sandusky said he had showered with other boys and Victim 6’s mother tried to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he would not.
She asked him if his “private parts” touched Victim 6 when he bearhugged him. Sandusky replied, “I don’t think so…maybe.”
At the conclusion of the second conversation, after Sandusky was told he could not see Victim 6 anymore, Sandusky said, “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.”
In a PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE report published on Dec. 18, 2011, Penn State detective Schreffler said of his investigation of Sandusky, “At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors.”
Of his surveillance of Sandusky, Schreffler also told the Post-Gazette:
“I’ll never forget this. He (Sandusky) said ‘I would ask for your forgiveness, but I know you won’t give it to me. I wish I were dead. I understand I was wrong’
“Hearing him make that comment, I just felt there was more there. He was upbeat when he came in, and she started hammering him. I often wonder what he would have done if I’d stepped out from around the corner.”
” … I felt my hunch was right. There was something there.”
In the same December 2011 newspaper story, Post-Gazette reporter Paula Reed Ward wrote:
Mr. Schreffler and Jerry Lauro, a child abuse investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, interviewed Mr. Sandusky on June 1, 1998. During that interview at the Lasch football building on Penn State’s campus, Mr. Schreffler said the man admitted to showering with boys.
“He said that he showered with other boys in the past, that he used poor judgment,” he said.
.. Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn’t indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution’s case even more difficult.
“It’d be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn’t any abuse.”
The Pennsylvania “state Department of Public Welfare” investigator in the case in 1998 was Gerald Lauro.
Thursday the HARRISBURG PATRIOT-NEWS reported the following 2011 quote from Lauro in regards to why he dropped his inquiry of Sandusky in 1998:
“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.’”
Yesterday the Patriot-News also reported that two “hidden” reports from psychologists who interviewed the Sandusky accuser in 1998 were allegedly never made available to Lauro by Schreffler. From P-N reporter Sara Ganim:
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.
Clearly all of the statements made by Schreffler and Lauro cannot be true but whether those irreconcible differences indicate some manner of coverup remains to be seen.
At the very least, it’s impossible to think that the current Sandusky investigation teams will ignore such dramatically contradictory accounts of a 1998 Penn State-led investigation which in the end allowed Sandusky to allegedly sexual abuse children for more than an additional decade.