Penn State Football: Psychologist Report May Be Reason 1998 Sandusky Case Closed

Since the beginning of the child sex abuse scandal involving former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the question has lingered as to why charges hadn't been brought against Sandusky after district attorney Ray Gricar first learned of them in 1998. The question couldn't be answered directly, as Gricar disappeared in 2005, but that disappearance has only intensified questions about the case.

Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News may have uncovered the answer to Gricar's decision.

According to Ganim, during the 1998 investigation, a psychologist named John Seasock issued a report that he did not believe that the accuser now known as "Victim 6" had been sexually abused. Two days later, Gricar closed the case. There's no definitive proof of a causal relationship between those two facts, but the timing is noteworthy in and of itself.

As to the veracity of Seasock's report, here's where it gets complicated:

A source who reviewed the documents and has knowledge of the case said he believed Seasock’s report was the reason the investigation was closed.

However, the source said, Seasock was not the only psychologist to make an evaluation.

The day after Victim 6 came home from a tour of the football building with then-defensive coordinator and charity founder Jerry Sandusky and told his mom Sandusky had showered with him and a friend, the mother called police. She also called a psychologist.

“And that psychologist concluded that this incident, what the boy described, and I’m paraphrasing ... the psychologist concluded that what the boy described was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” the source said.

But there is no explanation of why Seasock was brought in, or any indication if he interviewed Victim 6 himself or just reviewed the notes of the first psychologist, the source said.

“One could speculate there was an effort to find someone who could contradict the first one,” the source said. 

To reiterate, that's purely speculative, so adjust interpretations accordingly.

Nonetheless, this report by the Patriot-News underscores what a challege it is to get any large-scale, years-long investigation correct. Not with any specific judicial goal in mind (prosecution, conviction, whatever), but just to get it right.

The end goal here is a specific, accurate determination as to Sandusky's actions, and with every instance of contradictory information about his behavior, that end goal can seem further away—especially without forensic evidence one way or the other. And in the 1998 investigation by Ray Gricar, that contradiction in expert opinion may have been enough to close the case.