Freeh Report Creates More Questions For The Lesser Known

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

After reading the ~145 pages of the Freeh Report, I sat back for a second… I was exhausted, disheartened, frustrated, sad, and a million more emotions. What was most glaring to me was not the biggest names. Not Paterno. Not Spanier. Not Schultz or Curley. Joe is no longer with us and is a small portion of the Report. Spanier, Schultz and Curley seem, at least to me, to have perjured themselves, and will have to face those damning accusations in a court of law, where jail time is a very real possibility. What stuck out to me was how many people at some point in time had an opportunity to step in, to make waves, to potentially stop Sandusky – and did not. Spanier, Schultz and Curley will have to continue to answer questions. I think it’s just as important to ask the others involved some tough questions too.


Richard Anderson (page 40)

The former coach was one of “several staff members and football coaches [who] regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys in the Lasch Building.” No one was suspicious of this behavior. Now, I suppose we can come up with some situations where that could be fairly innocent; however, it seems like the consensus is that this conduct is inappropriate. What were these staff members and coaches thinking? Why did they never say anything?


Alycia Chambers (pages 42-44)

The licensed State College Psychologist had been working with one of the young boys Sandusky showered with before the incident in question. She was told by the mother of the young boy that Sandusky had showered with her son. Correctly, Chambers told the mother she was not overreacting and to make a report to the authorities, which the mother did, calling the University PD and reporting the incident to Detective Schreffler. “Chambers made a report to the Pennsylvania child abuse line and also consulted with colleagues.” They agreed that the behavior was similar to a pedophile’s. Her report did not make it to Caseworker Lauro’s desk; however, and this is the last she is mentioned in the Freeh Report. Did she follow up? Did she ever wonder what happened to Sandusky, who was believed to have pedophile tendencies?


Ron Schreffler (pages 42-46)

The Detective interviewed the 11-year-old boy after his mother called authorities. In his interview he was told there was another child, 10 years old, who had showered with Sandusky on other occasions. He was also present when a police officer hid inside the boy’s home as Sandusky and the boy’s mother spoke. This happened a second time, though it is not clear if Schreffler was a part of the second hidden operation. Schreffler ultimately spoke with Sandusky at the football complex, accompanied with Caseworker Lauro, where Sandusky admitted to showering with young boys, but agreed he would not continue to. Why didn’t Schreffer investigate further? Was going through the trouble of hiding in the boy’s home, and hearing that Sandusky did, in fact, shower with young boys not warrant more effort?


John Miller (pages 43-44)

A caseworker with the Center County Children and Youth Services (CYS), Miller received contact from Detective Schreffer about Sandusky and the allegations from the young boy. There were several conflicts, including CYS’s various contacts with the Second Mile, and the case was given over to the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). How much information did Detective Schreffer tell Miller? Would Miller have been in a position, either at that moment or when Sandusky had not been prosecuted, to take action? While the Freeh Report indicates that Miller was removed from his responsibility in lue of the DPW, it is just another person who may have known intimate details of accusations against Sandusky.

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

Next Nittany Lions Game Full schedule »
Saturday, Oct 2525 Oct8:00Ohio State BuckeyesBuy Tickets

Tags: Gary Shultz Graham Spanier Jerry Sandusky Joe Paterno Tim Curley

comments powered by Disqus