Sorry if this has been discussed in the past but I cannot seem to find an answer. Why was Jack never charged alongside C/S/S? He knew about JS and was head of the 2nd mile so I find it very odd that he was not charged with failure to report. Any reason why?
OT: Jack Raykovitz question
- Thread starter PSU0622
- Start date
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Doesn't matter what you theorize, once TC told Raykovicz of a complaint, 2nd Mile's policies required him to suspend all of Sandusky's contact with minors and investigate until completed. He didn't do that. But, you already knew that, didn't you?
This is exactly what I am thinking. Has the OAG or anyone discussed this or given an explination?
CR has been very busy slandering C/S/S every chance he has, probably hoping to taint the jury pool. I am hopeful that he eventually gets his ass sued off.
What was the "complaint"? Per the testimonies of Curley and (presumably) Raykovitz, Curley only told Raykovitz that it was merely horseplay, that Penn State had already investigated the incident, and that there wasn't any more to be done. My guess as to why Raykovitz wasn't charged is because the state believes - both through Curley's and Raykovitz's testimonies - that Curley didn't tell Raykovitz that anything occurred that would need to be reported. The state is arguing that Curley lied to and misled Raykovitz into believing that the incident was horseplay, that PSU looked into it and that nothing more needed to be done. Now, the accuracy of all that is still yet to be determined, of course - but that's why I believe Raykovitz wasn't charged.
It doesn't matter. It was still up to 2nd Mile to perform their own investigation.
What would he be charged with? In theory Raykovitz heard something from someone (Curley) who heard something from someone (McQ) that something inappropriate occurred. Correct me if I am wrong but the PA law at the time (and possibly still today) did not require people to report these third hand reports.
Raykovitz/ inaction may have violated TSM policies and maybe even DPW regulations which governed TSM but those "infractions" would be administrative in nature, not criminal.
IMHO the better and more appropriate question is why were Curley and Shultz charged when they in essence heard the same story albeit second hand as opposed to third hand.
ooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOso CRYPTIC!!!!!!!!!
maybe you can tell me about the Midnight Rambler while you're at it, Mr BigStuff?
Excellent post. I've said the same/similar thing in the MM thread.
At the least, in 2001 JR had the AD of PSU on his doorstep complaining that JS was seen taking a late night inappropriate 1:1 shower with a boy by a GA which made him uncomfortable enough to pass it up the chain. JR was also told that b/c of this behavior, JS wasn't allowed to participate in the TSM's friend fitness program at PSU because C/S revoked JS's guest privileges (hello red flag!!). This should have been PLENTY of cause for JR to place the protection plan around JS and get to the bottom of what the heck happened. But nope, that NEVER happened and JR was allowed to ride off into the sunset...how nice!
As others have said, CSS and JR essentially said they heard the same thing re: 2001, that it was a late night inappropriate shower/horseplay. CSS were college admins and JR was JS's boss and had DIRECT control over JS's access to kids, yet the state threw the book at and broke the Constitution just to charge CSS and let JR off scott free. Why is the state holding college admins to a HIGHER standard than the guy who was legally responsible for JS's actions and the kids JS's was with??
Last edited:
“Has this ever happened before?”
That was the first thing Marshall asked when Raykovitz told her in early 2009 about the accusations against Sandusky.
“He looked at me and said, ‘Yes, we knew of something in 2001 that Tim Curley talked to me about.’ At that point, I didn’t particularly want to know any more and he didn’t volunteer anything else.”
"Are you trying to tell me that you think Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile?" Raykovitz asked Curley. Because, if that's what he was trying to tell him, Raykovitz suggested, Tim Curley had lost his mind.
I don't believe this has been confirmed from testimony. Strictly Gil Spencer's article
Every single time the 2nd Mile or Raykovitz is brought up, the 3 stooges (Raffycorn, CDW, Cruising) are all on the board defending any of all of their actions within minutes. Second mile & Raykovitz have never done any wrong by those 3's (or one person with three names) standards. It's much more than a coincidence at this point.
Correct. The only source for that is an unnamed source that Gil Spencer had.
But there are a handful of other statements that are interesting regarding Raykovitz:
Have to post a general reply to this thread.....
Just so everyone (including CR 66) understands - it does NOT matter what TC said to JR - it only matters THAT HE SAID SOMETHING.
The 2m cannot rely on anyone else's policies, procedures, investigations, hearsay or otherwise !!
If it was reported to him he is REQUIRED to do his own due diligence
Just so everyone (including CR 66) understands - it does NOT matter what TC said to JR - it only matters THAT HE SAID SOMETHING.
The 2m cannot rely on anyone else's policies, procedures, investigations, hearsay or otherwise !!
If it was reported to him he is REQUIRED to do his own due diligence
This is the quote that really shocks me and I am surprised it does not get more attention. JS works in your organization and is with kids everyday but you don't want to know anymore?
And whether or not TSM was told and what they were told is irrelevant to CSS's guilt, because reporting ONLY to TSM is not sufficient unless your only interest is completely and dishonestly excusing anybody at PSU from responsibility. A third-grader could see the inherent conflict of interest it would pose to only tell TSM - and this is not merely hypothetical, as it turns out later on, they were vaporized very quickly after it became known, finally, that Sandusky was an abuser.
CSS *knew* reporting only to TSM would not make anything happen other than (at BEST), maybe Sandusky not doing anything more on Penn State grounds.
CSS *knew* reporting only to TSM would not make anything happen other than (at BEST), maybe Sandusky not doing anything more on Penn State grounds.
"Are you trying to tell me that you think Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile?" Raykovitz asked Curley. Because, if that's what he was trying to tell him, Raykovitz suggested, Tim Curley had lost his mind. from http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/20120920/spencer-new-yorker-article-sheds-light-on-pedophiles
Given the circumstance of an eyewitness report of JS and a kid naked together in the showers in contact with each other, at the mere suggestion of it possibly being an act of pedophilia Raykovitz had a moral, ethical, AND LEGAL responsibility to report to Child line. End of discussion.
No, it's not irrelevant, you just want it to be so that it fits into your nice little narrative that was spoon fed to you by freeh/PA OAG.
Since C/S weren't required to report anything to anyone in 2001 and they still told the people at TSM who had DIRECT control over JS's access to kids and who were required to look into ANY AND ALL incident reports, I'd say that it was quite sufficient/relevant.
Alas......fresh invasion from the Fight on State Board, with a big assist from CDW:
They're here!
They're here!
I fully agree that, depending on what JR was told, TSM should have investigated. I'm not sure it changes the fact that C&S discussed their obligation to report JS to investigative authorities, then opted not to.
Too bad that NEVER happened. Are you referring to the emails where CSS talk about possibly looping in DPW? If so, that's another freeh red herring. The law/statue at the time in 2001 required suspected child abuse to be reported in writing to CC CYS within 48 hours (and a verbal call/report to childline ASAP) NOT DPW 2 weeks later. If Courtney looked everything up correctly, this is what Schultz would have been told. A lot of people believed freeh's red herring b/c no one bothered to look up the actual statues from 2001--apparently even freeh himself. Freeh then took the DPW emails completely out of context and assigned the worst possible interpretation to them, big surprise!! It's kind of his MO.
The emails talking about informing DPW two weeks later have NOTHING to do with reporting suspected child abuse. If you read the emails you will see that they were talking about involving DPW as an "independent child welfare agency" IF JS didn't agree with their new directive that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop. IOW they were worried that JS was going disagree that his showering with kids was wrong and CSS contemplated using DPW to help get that message across as an objective third party/child welfare authority. C/S/S also contemplated getting JS professional help if he didn't see why his behavior was wrong and needed to stop (aka get him help with his boundary issues).
Apparently DPW's help wasn't needed b/c JS agreed with their new directive thus DPW was never brought in and they never offered the professional help.
That is why Spanier said "that is a humane and reasonable way to proceed" or something along those lines. He wasn't talking about covering up for a pedo, he was talking about getting a guy with boundary issues help.
Most likely because those three stooges are connected to the case and are desperate to maintain the false narrative so they don't get pinched. Either they're one of Frank Fina's porn buddies, or they're "associated" with TSM in some way. And there is more than one way to be "associated" with TSM.
To answer the original question - Raykovitz had the political connections needed to make sure this became a Penn State issue and never a Second Mile issue. And the stooge trolls on this site have a job to make sure it stays that way.
They knew no such thing. What reason did they have to believe that Raykovitiz was such a horrible, irresponsible, reckless person? Did he have that kind of reputation back in 2001?
You are full of it.
they work pretty hard at it, I'll give them that. they're NEVER right, but they still defend their BS with vigor.
Based on the notes and emails we have seen:
2/12/01: Contacting DPW is conditional on JS admitting a problem
2/25-2/26: Contacting DPW is 1 of 3 next steps
2/27: Contacting DPW is conditional on JS cooperating
The 2nd Mile was protected in this whole ordeal by somebody with insane amounts of power and money. The 2nd Mile was essentially allowed to liquidate, close shop, and never be on anyone's radar to be investigated even though JS used them to access 100% of the victims. Defies any common sense and logic not to look into 2nd Mile and how/why it happened for so long. Only way it does not happen is somebody with the power/money to shut down investigations made it happen.
Ding ding ding...we have a winner ^^^^.
And anyone that doesn't believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
Latest posts
-
-
Football Former Penn State WR KeAndre Lambert-Smith commits to Auburn- Latest: Sportfan2017
-
