after 25 years, Austin couple exonerated in child abuse case

[LaJolla Lion]

Yep...have to agree. But there is also the side of the story which notes that knowledge of 1998, and knowing it was completely investigated BY THE AUTHORITIES (two psych evals, two sting operations show it wasn't taken lightly) and they didn't do anything led them to believe there was no actionable intel this time either. I mean, there were no witnesses and MM was telling different stories to different people.

having said that, to your point, I agree that it came down to C&S. It was a value decision and they guessed wrong. IMHO, it wasn't criminal, just wrong.

Very true, but if you are a CEO, VP, or President of a University you are paid a decent salary to always look out for #1...#1 this case was the University. I don't see how or why the ignored the advice and the only thing I can think is their prior relationship with Jerry clouded their judgement. I honestly could see them losing their jobs over this, but jail time is a bit much. It's a feather in someone's cap or a trophy...that is all.

 

[Obliviax]

Very true, but if you are a CEO, VP, or President of a University you are paid a decent salary to always look out for #1...#1 this case was the University. I don't see how or why the ignored the advice and the only thing I can think is their prior relationship with Jerry clouded their judgement. I honestly could see them losing their jobs over this, but jail time is a bit much. It's a feather in someone's cap or a trophy...that is all.

That is exactly were I stand. I have no problem with them being fired. But criminal? And back in the time when much of pedophilia was less understood, its a reach (much was done after the series of Boston Globe articles in 2002). I think that is why the jury ended up convicting on a "made up" charge. They wanted to convict them of something, anything, but none of the laws suited that conviction.

 

[L.T. Young]

I don't disagree. What is puzzling is how a dozen people heard the story and not a single one called CYS or the police. Not a single one. That tells me that, consistently, they must not have felt it warranted such action. What is more puzzling is that the police only went after CS&S, Why didn't they go after MM? Dad? Dranov? Mom? GF? Courtney? Raykovic? and so on?

So we've got a dozen people that didn't report it and most of them were not pursued by the authorities. What does that tell you?

C/S/S lied and they were convenient fall guys to take the hit instead of people at TSM that knew.

Namely the asshat who gave Sandusky access to a pool which allowed him to continue grooming.

 

[BobPSU92]

I don't disagree. What is puzzling is how a dozen people heard the story and not a single one called CYS or the police. Not a single one. That tells me that, consistently, they must not have felt it warranted such action. What is more puzzling is that the police only went after CS&S, Why didn't they go after MM? Dad? Dranov? Mom? GF? Courtney? Raykovic? and so on?

So we've got a dozen people that didn't report it and most of them were not pursued by the authorities. What does that tell you?

You know. They feared the wrath of JoePa.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Pretty much it. The reason they were targeted IMO was they had prior knowledge of Jerry doing this and they made a choice not to call for some odd reason. MM, Dad, Dr, D and so on weren't discussing Jerry in 98 like these two were in particular. People can willfully ignore that I guess, but there is the big difference. Was it criminal or a cover up, don't think so. The other biggest reason for their charges was hysteria and hype around this since it was a national story. People love a good witch hunt and what is funny on this site is those that hate that a witch hunt happened are still after everyone else involved. A little bit of hypocrisy there.

You continue to selectively "harvest" testimony. This summary is an example:
Why didn't Schultz and Curley report the incident to the authorities when recommended to do so by Wendell Courtney, the legal counsel they discussed the matter with who also labeled the file of the consult as "Possible Child Abuse". Bottom line is that Curley and Schultz had enough information to know they needed to involve the authorities...they had that information before even discussing it with Mike.

What WC stated concerned his investigation into ".. Possible Child Abuse...". After his legal research, he concluded it was not necessary and HE STATED AS MUCH! He stated that if he did suspect Child Abuse he would have reported it (or at least advised that PSU was REQUIRED to report it). Recheck testimony...WC's actual FULL TESTIMONY/notes only re-enforces the fact that LEGALLY - there was NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE (including a "victim") to report such a vague sighting of a grown man and a "child" - suspicious maybe (in the minds of a 2012 viewer)....but NOT ILLEGAL or a criminal event.

Remember this certifiable fact....in 2001, No one who MM spoke to confirmed his GJP testimony of "anal rape" -OR - no one in testimony OR ACTION reacted like reporting what MM saw was a legal and appropriate thing to do. AGAIN - more than 1/2 a dozen people confirmed that any "criminal" or "suspected criminal" event took place in 2001. In fact, based on what is known now, how is MM NOT being tried for perjury??? C/S/S were so charged on less definite legal information!!

The problem come with 2011 "testimony" by MM where he changed what he said he witnessed. This 2011-12 testimony is the key person in tying ANYTHING PSU to Sandusky. In 2001, the year in which "child endangerment" was leveled against PSU officials (and the core of the OAG case for any of this), NO DESCRIPTION PROVIDED TO ANYONE - inside or outside PSU - reasonably warranted reporting to police. This entire fiction concerning Penn State's LEGAL culpability is MANUFACTURED BY THE CORRUPT OAG as a means of advancing their own political agenda.

I have been told directly that this is the reason for all the legal abuses in every legal activity taken by the State of PA. The mountains of mis-information that the past 6+ years has created is the ONLY reason we are still debating this crime. The crime is and remains NOT a PSU crime, but Crimes committed by the State of PA in abusing its power, authority and legal responsibilities.

 

[lionroar88]

Yea, sure they do. GTFOH. Some of the worse scumbags in the legal community are grandstanding District Attorneys. It's all about pelts on the wall, showing how tough on crime they are, at election time.

Prime example... Marilyn Mosby

I should have qualified that, the head DAs who are elected do play politics.....but the rank in file generally want to do the right thing, we didn't get into it for the money....

You aren't very familiar with Baltimore are you?

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

Sandusky is guilty. MM, JOE, Curly, Shultz and Spanier all should have gone to the police. They F'ed up. It does not even matter if Sandusky is innocent. It is not up to them to decide and they are required to go to the police.

You are completely full of $hit that any of the people you named were "required" to report to police the report MM made n 2001 (an Administrative HR Report of After-hours Suspicious Activity in his workplace by an AUTHORIZED USER of that facility) under the applicable code, CPSL, in 2001. Utterly full of $hit and this is a patently false claim as evidenced by Mike McQueary's Father and Dr. Dronov not being prosecuted (and they testified that they recommended an HR Reporting and not calling police WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS IN PROGRESS because MM convinced them that he had not actually seen illegal activity and had only seen suspicious activity that concerned him).

But it is a completely bull$hit claim that any of the people you name were "required" to go to police. Beyond that PSU, based on MM's Report, made a Report of the incident that qualified under CPSL as a report to PA Child Services Authorities DESPITE not being "required" to do so.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You continue to selectively "harvest" testimony. This summary is an example:
Why didn't Schultz and Curley report the incident to the authorities when recommended to do so by Wendell Courtney, the legal counsel they discussed the matter with who also labeled the file of the consult as "Possible Child Abuse". Bottom line is that Curley and Schultz had enough information to know they needed to involve the authorities...they had that information before even discussing it with Mike.

What WC stated concerned his investigation into ".. Possible Child Abuse...". After his legal research, he concluded it was not necessary and HE STATED AS MUCH! He stated that if he did suspect Child Abuse he would have reported it (or at least advised that PSU was REQUIRED to report it). Recheck testimony...WC's actual FULL TESTIMONY/notes only re-enforces the fact that LEGALLY - there was NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE (including a "victim") to report such a vague sighting of a grown man and a "child" - suspicious maybe (in the minds of a 2012 viewer)....but NOT ILLEGAL or a criminal event.

Remember this certifiable fact....in 2001, No one who MM spoke to confirmed his GJP testimony of "anal rape" -OR - no one in testimony OR ACTION reacted like reporting what MM saw was a legal and appropriate thing to do. AGAIN - more than 1/2 a dozen people confirmed that any "criminal" or "suspected criminal" event took place in 2001. In fact, based on what is known now, how is MM NOT being tried for perjury??? C/S/S were so charged on less definite legal information!!

The problem come with 2011 "testimony" by MM where he changed what he said he witnessed. This 2011-12 testimony is the key person in tying ANYTHING PSU to Sandusky. In 2001, the year in which "child endangerment" was leveled against PSU officials (and the core of the OAG case for any of this), NO DESCRIPTION PROVIDED TO ANYONE - inside or outside PSU - reasonably warranted reporting to police. This entire fiction concerning Penn State's LEGAL culpability is MANUFACTURED BY THE CORRUPT OAG as a means of advancing their own political agenda.

I have been told directly that this is the reason for all the legal abuses in every legal activity taken by the State of PA. The mountains of mis-information that the past 6+ years has created is the ONLY reason we are still debating this crime. The crime is and remains NOT a PSU crime, but Crimes committed by the State of PA in abusing its power, authority and legal responsibilities.

Remember this certifiable fact...Every person MM talked to felt enough was there to seek further advise along the way. I'm not even talking about what MM said word for word as we'll NEVER ever know that, but they all raised an eyebrow to an extent. If Joe felt it was nothing at all, why did he pass it along? Why did TC and Schultz even bother to talk to WC? You can't have it both ways. YOU CAN USE CAPS and UNDERLINE WORDS and babble on all you want to.

The bottom line is there was gray there and most reasonable people see it. Those guys didn't take the stand and go to trial as their own notes and emails about 98 would have killed them in a trial...and I'm not saying these guys should have even had to go to trial....but had they gone...they were toast. They took the plea as they knew damn well they couldn't explain away a second suspected abuse and not reporting it. You don't know what MM said anymore than I do or anyone else here...that is an actual fact. If you state otherwise, you're FOS. I don't know what he said, but I do know he was acting like something was up in the chats back int he day that broke this.

THE POST I RESPONDED TO WAS WHY THEM, and I OFFERED MY OPINION on WHY THEM and NOT EVERYONE ELSE WHO WAS TOLD. It was not saying the justice system got it right....the only thing it got right was locking up that sick SOB named Jerry.

 

[PSU_Chicago]

given the fever in Centre County and elsewhere leading up to Sandusky's very fast to the courthouse trial, did anyone think he could get a fair trial? I remember watching the crowds around the courthouse the night the verdict was announced .... he had no chance. He, PSU, Paterno, etc were all convicted way before that trial.

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

given the fever in Centre County and elsewhere leading up to Sandusky's very fast to the courthouse trial, did anyone think he could get a fair trial? I remember watching the crowds around the courthouse the night the verdict was announced .... he had no chance. He, PSU, Paterno, etc were all convicted way before that trial.

Yes, and sacred Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights, including due process rights, were trampled repeatedly in the process by the PA OAG (the Capos for the MontCo-Hershey GOP Junta and Crime Syndicate) - go figure!

 

[TenerHallTerror]

You are completely full of $hit that any of the people you named were "required" to report to police the report MM made n 2001 (an Administrative HR Report of After-hours Suspicious Activity in his workplace by an AUTHORIZED USER of that facility) under the applicable code, CPSL, in 2001. Utterly full of $hit and this is a patently false claim as evidenced by Mike McQueary's Father and Dr. Dronov not being prosecuted (and they testified that they recommended an HR Reporting and not calling police WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS IN PROGRESS because MM convinced them that he had not actually seen illegal activity and had only seen suspicious activity that concerned him).

But it is a completely bull$hit claim that any of the people you name were "required" to go to police. Beyond that PSU, based on MM's Report, made a Report of the incident that qualified under CPSL as a report to PA Child Services Authorities DESPITE not being "required" to do so.

would now be a good time to remind everyone that even the OAG admitted they were not legally required to inform the police in 2001?

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

Remember this certifiable fact...Every person MM talked to felt enough was there to seek further advise along the way. I'm not even talking about what MM said word for word as we'll NEVER ever know that, but they all raised an eyebrow to an extent. If Joe felt it was nothing at all, why did he pass it along? Why did TC and Schultz even bother to talk to WC? You can't have it both ways. YOU CAN USE CAPS and UNDERLINE WORDS and babble on all you want to.

The bottom line is there was gray there and most reasonable people see it. Those guys didn't take the stand and go to trial as their own notes and emails about 98 would have killed them in a trial...and I'm not saying these guys should have even had to go to trial....but had they gone...they were toast. They took the plea as they knew damn well they couldn't explain away a second suspected abuse and not reporting it. You don't know what MM said anymore than I do or anyone else here...that is an actual fact. If you state otherwise, you're FOS. I don't know what he said, but I do know he was acting like something was up in the chats back int he day that broke this.

THE POST I RESPONDED TO WAS WHY THEM, and I OFFERED MY OPINION on WHY THEM and NOT EVERYONE ELSE WHO WAS TOLD. It was not saying the justice system got it right....the only thing it got right was locking up that sick SOB named Jerry.

What laughable drivel and logic....

• The parties who were given a report of the incident WHILE IT WAS IN PROGRESS and TESTIFIED that the sole purpose of their conversation was to determine the proper handling of the incident....and that it was agreed on a CONSENSUS basis between all three parties that POLICE DID NOT NEED TO BE CALLED and the proper handling was an "Administrative HR Reporting" to Mike's employer at a later date at his earliest convenience....had no obligation to "report", but
• The parties who took MM's Administrative HR Report and who were almost certainly told of MM's discussions with his father and Dr. D at his father's home while the incident was still in-progress as well as being told of the conclusion of those discussions (i.e., based on the limited amount MM actually saw, it was decided that he should make an Administrative HR Report rather than call police)....should be prosecuted despite the fact that they absolutely broke no law....

More of your farcical, anti-factual bull$hit spin.....go figure, but you aren't defending the corrupt scumbags who enabled and perpetrated this sham malicious prosecution. LMFAO

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

would now be a good time to remind everyone that even the OAG admitted they were not legally required to inform the police in 2001?

Be a good time to remind the defender-of-the-corrupt scumbag trolls who keep making this utterly bull$hit and false claim (i.e., pure propaganda and "flaming").

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Be a good time to remind the defender-of-the-corrupt scumbag trolls who keep making this utterly bull$hit and false claim (i.e., pure propaganda and "flaming").

it just stuns me how such a simple and easily proven FACT gets continually overlooked by the "I hate kids and want them in harm's way" crowd

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

it just stuns me how such a simple and easily proven FACT gets continually overlooked by the "I hate kids and want them in harm's way" crowd

Maybe because they are trolls and they have no desire to understand simply understood FACTS that diametrically conflict with their trolling, lying propagation of the "False Narrative" agenda (i.e., the corrupt AG-turned-Governor's "33rd SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Lies" and its accompanying fraudulent, malicious prosecution indictments).

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Maybe because they are trolls and they have no desire to understand simply understood FACTS that diametrically conflict with their trolling, lying propagation of the "False Narrative" agenda (i.e., the corrupt AG-turned-Governor's "33rd SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Lies" and its accompanying fraudulent, malicious prosecution indictments).

pretty much sums it up about them. They ignore Clemente. they ignore the actual testimony. they ignore the actual court filings. they live in this deluded fantasy bubble usually reserved for Pitt fans

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Maybe because they are trolls and they have no desire to understand simply understood FACTS that diametrically conflict with their trolling, lying propagation of the "False Narrative" agenda (i.e., the corrupt AG-turned-Governor's "33rd SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Lies" and its accompanying fraudulent, malicious prosecution indictments).

I agree,,,the Jerry trolls on this site give PSU a horrible name. The ignore what Clemente stated about Jerry being in the top 1% of serial pedophiles and live in this delusional world where some new trial will set him free. GD Jerry trolls suck.

 

[DandyDonII]

Prime example... Marilyn Mosby



You aren't very familiar with Baltimore are you?

As I said, elected DAs can be very political. If this were the test board, I would opine on which party is usually worse at doing this, but that is a topic for another forum.


As for Oblivax’s earlier post about DA’s being concerned about conviction rate, that doesn’t usually cause a DA to violate the law, it usually causes them to cut the defendant a deal to avoid trial and a possible loss. This sometimes leads to a DA making unreasonable offers to a defendant in slam dunk trial though.


I agree that there are bad apples in every profession. Just because there are bad apples, doesn’t mean that all are bad apples or even most are bad apples, just like not all PSU coaches are pedophiles just because one was…

 

[voltz99]

You are completely full of $hit that any of the people you named were "required" to report to police the report MM made n 2001 (an Administrative HR Report of After-hours Suspicious Activity in his workplace by an AUTHORIZED USER of that facility) under the applicable code, CPSL, in 2001. Utterly full of $hit and this is a patently false claim as evidenced by Mike McQueary's Father and Dr. Dronov not being prosecuted (and they testified that they recommended an HR Reporting and not calling police WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS IN PROGRESS because MM convinced them that he had not actually seen illegal activity and had only seen suspicious activity that concerned him).

But it is a completely bull$hit claim that any of the people you name were "required" to go to police. Beyond that PSU, based on MM's Report, made a Report of the incident that qualified under CPSL as a report to PA Child Services Authorities DESPITE not being "required" to do so.

MM's dad and Dranov did not work for PSU. Educators are required to report suspected abuse to the police. PSU and most schools have since revised their policies. If you look at the MSU football player case the MSU OIC automatically sent a copy of the report to the police. IF PSU had that one revision then Joe and EVERYONE at PSU would have been in the clear on Sandusky.

 

[Obliviax]

MM's dad and Dranov did not work for PSU. Educators are required to report suspected abuse to the police. PSU and most schools have since revised their policies. If you look at the MSU football player case the MSU OIC automatically sent a copy of the report to the police. IF PSU had that one revision then Joe and EVERYONE at PSU would have been in the clear on Sandusky.

That's right. But that wasn't in place at the time.

As it stands, Joe followed what the NCAA came up with post JS to a "T". The published guidelines for a coach is to report it to the AD and make sure it is reported to an executive outside of the sports vertical management structure. Then the coach is to get out of the way. That would have been Curley (the AD) and Schultz (exec responsible for campus police). Point being, C&S take the fall but Paterno did everything he should have, even by today's standards.

 

[pandaczar12]

MM's dad and Dranov did not work for PSU. Educators are required to report suspected abuse to the police. PSU and most schools have since revised their policies. If you look at the MSU football player case the MSU OIC automatically sent a copy of the report to the police. IF PSU had that one revision then Joe and EVERYONE at PSU would have been in the clear on Sandusky.

So in other words, you think they should be held to today's standards, not what was in place in 2001. So do you also want to hold people today to some future standard?

Dranov is/was a doctor, pretty sure they have always been required to report suspected abuse.

 

[DandyDonII]

I think there are certain facts that can't be disputed:
1. MM saw something that really got his attention (otherwise he would not have called dad, dad would not have Dranov come over to talk) and MM ld not have gone to see Joe.
2. MM told Joe something that obviously concerned Joe. Joe apologized to MM for having to see/deal with it, and Joe contacted the AD and the guy that oversaw the Police Department

I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute 1 and 2...

3. What MM told them is certainly a fair point to discuss. In order to believe that MM told all of them that he saw a molest, you would have to believe that MM's dad, Dr. Dranov, Curley and Schultz decided to protect a known child molester, I don't see that as being the case. I didn't mention Joe, because I think Joe believed that he was doing the right thing by reporting it to the guy who the Police reported to. Joe had no reason to doubt that they wouldn't handle appropriately.
4. My guess is that MM was vague in what he described based upon everyone's concern that something could be up, but everyone's failure to do the logical thing if a molest was learned, call 911.
5. I have no problem with Curley and Schultz being prosecuted for failing to report the incident, based upon the fact that Jerry was showering with a kid late at night and something was going on, even not knowing exactly once. That is what reporting laws are for. This is especially true since these two knew about 98 (I don't care that he wasn't charged, these two were on notice that strange things were happening with Jerry)...They simply needed to call the police or a state agency and this could have been handled
6. Raykovitz should have been prosecuted as well. he was given the same information as TC and GS plus was in charge of JS. How he was let go as Spanier was prosecuted is pure BS.
7. Spanier is a bit tougher call since by all accounts he got TCs version of what was told and never spoke to MM about this...He probably got the shaft by being criminally prosecuted, however, he screwed Penn State by not ordering it being reported. His duty was to protect PSU, and by calling the police on this case he would have been protecting PSU. There was virtually no upside to not calling the police or appropriate agency
8. In the end, I don't think there was any conspiracy or any belief by these guys that JS was molesting kids. However, they were given information that they should have acted on and failed to do so. They made a mistake...

 

[Obliviax]

I think there are certain facts that can't be disputed:
1. MM saw something that really got his attention (otherwise he would not have called dad, dad would not have Dranov come over to talk) and MM ld not have gone to see Joe.
2. MM told Joe something that obviously concerned Joe. Joe apologized to MM for having to see/deal with it, and Joe contacted the AD and the guy that oversaw the Police Department

I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute 1 and 2...

3. What MM told them is certainly a fair point to discuss. In order to believe that MM told all of them that he saw a molest, you would have to believe that MM's dad, Dr. Dranov, Curley and Schultz decided to protect a known child molester, I don't see that as being the case. I didn't mention Joe, because I think Joe believed that he was doing the right thing by reporting it to the guy who the Police reported to. Joe had no reason to doubt that they wouldn't handle appropriately.
4. My guess is that MM was vague in what he described based upon everyone's concern that something could be up, but everyone's failure to do the logical thing if a molest was learned, call 911.
5. I have no problem with Curley and Schultz being prosecuted for failing to report the incident, based upon the fact that Jerry was showering with a kid late at night and something was going on, even not knowing exactly once. That is what reporting laws are for. This is especially true since these two knew about 98 (I don't care that he wasn't charged, these two were on notice that strange things were happening with Jerry)...They simply needed to call the police or a state agency and this could have been handled
6. Raykovitz should have been prosecuted as well. he was given the same information as TC and GS plus was in charge of JS. How he was let go as Spanier was prosecuted is pure BS.
7. Spanier is a bit tougher call since by all accounts he got TCs version of what was told and never spoke to MM about this...He probably got the shaft by being criminally prosecuted, however, he screwed Penn State by not ordering it being reported. His duty was to protect PSU, and by calling the police on this case he would have been protecting PSU. There was virtually no upside to not calling the police or appropriate agency
8. In the end, I don't think there was any conspiracy or any belief by these guys that JS was molesting kids. However, they were given information that they should have acted on and failed to do so. They made a mistake...

I can buy that...problem is, C&S were convicted (plead guilty to) of endangering the welfare. the description of that charge is:

(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.
​

Jerry was not employed, C&S were not supervising. So the charge simply does not match the events. So, again, one is left wondering what laws they may have broken?

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

MM's dad and Dranov did not work for PSU. Educators are required to report suspected abuse to the police. PSU and most schools have since revised their policies. If you look at the MSU football player case the MSU OIC automatically sent a copy of the report to the police. IF PSU had that one revision then Joe and EVERYONE at PSU would have been in the clear on Sandusky.

Wrong, the "Mandatory Reporter" definitions of the PA CPSL (i.e., the PA Statute that created them) did not require "Higher Education" employees (i.e., University "educators") to report in 2001, you are completely full of $hit and making bull$hit up as you go along as per usual.

 

[lionroar88]

I think there are certain facts that can't be disputed:
1. MM saw something that really got his attention (otherwise he would not have called dad, dad would not have Dranov come over to talk) and MM ld not have gone to see Joe.

MM never said he 'saw' something, he has said he 'heard' something. When you think you 'hear' something and then see 2 people for a split second - you mind can tell you that you saw something that you didn't really see. Especially when said someone's first reaction to the people questioning him years later was to worry they wanted to talk to him about something HE did that was inappropriate since he was married, and betting on FB games where you played in and coached is a big No-No.

2. MM told Joe something that obviously concerned Joe. Joe apologized to MM for having to see/deal with it, and Joe contacted the AD and the guy that oversaw the Police Department

It is typical behavior for some to say 'sorry you saw that'... especially someone Joe's age.

I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute 1 and 2...

Yes it can be reasonably disputed because MM hasn't been 100% consistent with his stories.

3. What MM told them is certainly a fair point to discuss. In order to believe that MM told all of them that he saw a molest, you would have to believe that MM's dad, Dr. Dranov, Curley and Schultz decided to protect a known child molester, I don't see that as being the case. I didn't mention Joe, because I think Joe believed that he was doing the right thing by reporting it to the guy who the Police reported to. Joe had no reason to doubt that they wouldn't handle appropriately.
4. My guess is that MM was vague in what he described based upon everyone's concern that something could be up, but everyone's failure to do the logical thing if a molest was learned, call 911.
5. I have no problem with Curley and Schultz being prosecuted for failing to report the incident, based upon the fact that Jerry was showering with a kid late at night and something was going on, even not knowing exactly once. That is what reporting laws are for. This is especially true since these two knew about 98 (I don't care that he wasn't charged, these two were on notice that strange things were happening with Jerry)...They simply needed to call the police or a state agency and this could have been handled
6. Raykovitz should have been prosecuted as well. he was given the same information as TC and GS plus was in charge of JS. How he was let go as Spanier was prosecuted is pure BS.
7. Spanier is a bit tougher call since by all accounts he got TCs version of what was told and never spoke to MM about this...He probably got the shaft by being criminally prosecuted, however, he screwed Penn State by not ordering it being reported. His duty was to protect PSU, and by calling the police on this case he would have been protecting PSU. There was virtually no upside to not calling the police or appropriate agency
8. In the end, I don't think there was any conspiracy or any belief by these guys that JS was molesting kids. However, they were given information that they should have acted on and failed to do so. They made a mistake...

 

[DandyDonII]

MM never said he 'saw' something, he has said he 'heard' something. When you think you 'hear' something and then see 2 people for a split second - you mind can tell you that you saw something that you didn't really see. Especially when said someone's first reaction to the people questioning him years later was to worry they wanted to talk to him about something HE did that was inappropriate since he was married, and betting on FB games where you played in and coached is a big No-No.



It is typical behavior for some to say 'sorry you saw that'... especially someone Joe's age.



Yes it can be reasonably disputed because MM hasn't been 100% consistent with his stories.

it is easy to pick statements apart one by one, it is every defense attorney's favorite tactic...However, when you take all of the events as a whole, you need a million different explanations to make your theory work, while one simple explanation makes my theory work...

 

[DandyDonII]

Wrong, the "Mandatory Reporter" definitions of the PA CPSL (i.e., the PA Statute that created them) did not require "Higher Education" employees (i.e., University "educators") to report in 2001, you are completely full of $hit and making bull$hit up as you go along as per usual.

I don't know enough about PA laws to argue with you on that point..

 

[Obliviax]

it is easy to pick statements apart one by one, it is every defense attorney's favorite tactic...However, when you take all of the events as a whole, you need a million different explanations to make your theory work, while one simple explanation makes my theory work...

And, again, that bumps up into the whole "reasonable doubt" thingy.

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

I think there are certain facts that can't be disputed:
1. MM saw something that really got his attention (otherwise he would not have called dad, dad would not have Dranov come over to talk) and MM ld not have gone to see Joe.
2. MM told Joe something that obviously concerned Joe. Joe apologized to MM for having to see/deal with it, and Joe contacted the AD and the guy that oversaw the Police Department

I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute 1 and 2...

3. What MM told them is certainly a fair point to discuss. In order to believe that MM told all of them that he saw a molest, you would have to believe that MM's dad, Dr. Dranov, Curley and Schultz decided to protect a known child molester, I don't see that as being the case. I didn't mention Joe, because I think Joe believed that he was doing the right thing by reporting it to the guy who the Police reported to. Joe had no reason to doubt that they wouldn't handle appropriately.
4. My guess is that MM was vague in what he described based upon everyone's concern that something could be up, but everyone's failure to do the logical thing if a molest was learned, call 911.
5. I have no problem with Curley and Schultz being prosecuted for failing to report the incident, based upon the fact that Jerry was showering with a kid late at night and something was going on, even not knowing exactly once. That is what reporting laws are for. This is especially true since these two knew about 98 (I don't care that he wasn't charged, these two were on notice that strange things were happening with Jerry)...They simply needed to call the police or a state agency and this could have been handled
6. Raykovitz should have been prosecuted as well. he was given the same information as TC and GS plus was in charge of JS. How he was let go as Spanier was prosecuted is pure BS.
7. Spanier is a bit tougher call since by all accounts he got TCs version of what was told and never spoke to MM about this...He probably got the shaft by being criminally prosecuted, however, he screwed Penn State by not ordering it being reported. His duty was to protect PSU, and by calling the police on this case he would have been protecting PSU. There was virtually no upside to not calling the police or appropriate agency
8. In the end, I don't think there was any conspiracy or any belief by these guys that JS was molesting kids. However, they were given information that they should have acted on and failed to do so. They made a mistake...

What the hell are you talking about? Both MM's dad and Dr. Dranov both have testified that MM went to Dad's House specifically to discuss what he had just seen and experienced and get counsel as to the appropriate way to handle! Furthermore, they have both testified multiple times that MM reported the incident to them WHILE IT WAS STILL IN PROGRESS and told them he left the child at Lasch with Sandusky. They not only asked him repeatedly what he saw and MM basically told them nothing of any significance (continually going back to what he HEARD when he first walked in and wasn't even hearing at the time of the brief glipses!), but they also asked him if the child was safe when he left. MM did not tell them he witnessed a criminal sexual assualt and specifically told them that he did not think the child was any danger when he left! As a result, they came to the conclusion that police did not need to be called and MM should make an AFTER THE FACT reporting via his employer's HR channel. You are beyond absurd in claiming that MM reported any form of criminal child abuse to his father or Dranov and making claims utterly contrary to what they FACTUALLY testified.

Beyond all that, MM has testified repeatedly that he did not tell the 30th SWIGJ he "saw" or "eyewitnessed" what The State claimed in their Indictment and Presentment (i.e., they lied about his testimony).... And that he only ever CONJECTURED about what was going on in the shower and NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he "eyewitnessed" what he CONJECTURED about (i.e., "what did he THINK was taking place?", not what he ACTUALLY SAW! And there is a HUGE Evidentiary difference in a court of law, especially when his saying he was CONJECTURING means that The State LIED in their Presentment and Indictments as to having an EYEWITNESS to their criminal claim!!!).

 

[DandyDonII]

And, again, that bumps up into the whole "reasonable doubt" thingy.

reasonable doubt does not equal all possible doubt. In order to believe that guys theory, you have to believe so many things are true that it defies any reasonable explanation...

 

[DandyDonII]

What the hell are you talking about? Both MM's dad and Dr. Dranov both have testified that MM went to Dad's House specifically to discuss what he had just seen and experienced and get counsel as to the appropriate way to handle! Furthermore, they have both testified multiple times that MM reported the incident to them WHILE IT WAS STILL IN PROGRESS and told them he left the child at Lasch with Sandusky. They not only asked him repeatedly what he saw and MM basically told them nothing of any significance (continually going back to what he HEARD when he first walked in and wasn't even hearing at the time of the brief glipses!), but they also asked him if the child was safe when he left. MM did not tell them he witnessed a criminal sexual assualt and specifically told them that he did not think the child was any danger when he left! As a result, they came to the conclusion that police did not need to be called and MM should make an AFTER THE FACT reporting via his employer's HR channel. You are beyond absurd in claiming that MM reported any form of criminal child abuse to his father or Dranov and making claims utterly contrary to what they FACTUALLY testified.

Beyond all that, MM has testified repeatedly that he did not tell the 30th SWIGJ he "saw" or "eyewitnessed" what The State claimed in their Indictment and Presentment (i.e., they lied about his testimony).... And that he only ever CONJECTURED about what was going on in the shower and NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he "eyewitnessed" what he CONJECTURED about (i.e., "what did he THINK was taking place?", not what he ACTUALLY SAW! And their is a HUGE Evidentiary difference in a court of law, especially when his saying he was CONJECTURING means that The State LIED in their Presentment and Indictments as to having an EYEWITNESS to the events!!!).

You obviously are very emotionally involved in this. MM saw something that made him call his dad. His dad heard something that made him call Dranov, and they heard something that made them tell MM to call Joe. Joe was told something where he involved the guy that the police reported and the AD. They consulted counsel based upon their conversation with MM. All of this resulted in emails being sent back and forth. All of this communication was not done because MM saw nothing, it was done because MM saw something, but they were not sure what.

The reporting laws are in place for this type of situation. Call the police or the state agency and let them sort it out... I don't think any of the people involved are bad people, they just made a mistake, one they are all paying for now.....

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You obviously are very emotionally involved in this. MM saw something that made him call his dad. His dad heard something that made him call Dranov, and they heard something that made them tell MM to call Joe. Joe was told something where he involved the guy that the police reported and the AD. They consulted counsel based upon their conversation with MM. All of this resulted in emails being sent back and forth. All of this communication was not done because MM saw nothing, it was done because MM saw something, but they were not sure what.

The reporting laws are in place for this type of situation. Call the police or the state agency and let them sort it out... I don't think any of the people involved are bad people, they just made a mistake, one they are all paying for now.....

He thinks he's a lawyer and by yelling loudly and calling names he somehow makes his point valid. The ship has sailed already but wannabe Perry Mason is still holding the trial here. Nobody knows exactly what MM said...nobody.

 

[pandaczar12]

I think there are certain facts that can't be disputed:
1. MM saw something that really got his attention (otherwise he would not have called dad, dad would not have Dranov come over to talk) and MM ld not have gone to see Joe.

If someone was opportunistic and of questionable morals, say someone willing to bet on PSU football games they played and coached in, they could overblow a non-issue in order to get face time with the coach... hypothetically speaking.

 

[Obliviax]

reasonable doubt does not equal all possible doubt. In order to believe that guys theory, you have to believe so many things are true that it defies any reasonable explanation...

I don't agree. A jury doesn't have to, or even should have, the answers. They only evaluate what the prosecution asserts. In this case, too many lose ends to suggest they've gone beyond reasonable doubt. And that is why the jury made up a charge to convict Spanier on.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

If someone was opportunistic and of questionable morals, say someone willing to bet on PSU football games they played and coached in, they could overblow a non-issue in order to get face time with the coach... hypothetically speaking.

Or some over zealous fans you could say like to trash any witness or victim that doesn't exactly fit their side of their story. Hypothetically speaking of course. I mean I guess he knew when he walked in there in 01 how this would all play out. He went into the PSU Playbook chats and blurted it out knowing it would be picked up 8 years via that medium because he needed a fall back for your betting theory....all of this being hypothetical. I mean the Jerry trolls here are the only honest people left on the planet...you just ask them.

 

[voltz99]

That's right. But that wasn't in place at the time.

As it stands, Joe followed what the NCAA came up with post JS to a "T". The published guidelines for a coach is to report it to the AD and make sure it is reported to an executive outside of the sports vertical management structure. Then the coach is to get out of the way. That would have been Curley (the AD) and Schultz (exec responsible for campus police). Point being, C&S take the fall but Paterno did everything he should have, even by today's standards.

If you want to go with that logic then fine with me but the point being someone still F'ed up. Using YOUR logic Curley, Shultz, or Spanier F'ed up. They were also charged and Joe was NOT charged. If any of them had simply called the police then everyone at PSU would be in the clear. None of them made the call. I think it is a safe bet that the guidelines you are quoting did not include the executive doing NOTHING with the info.

 

[Obliviax]

If you want to go with that logic then fine with me but the point being someone still F'ed up. Using YOUR logic Curley, Shultz, or Spanier F'ed up. They were also charged and Joe was NOT charged. If any of them had simply called the police then everyone at PSU would be in the clear. None of them made the call. I think it is a safe bet that the guidelines you are quoting did not include the executive doing NOTHING with the info.

well, yeah. if your aunt had balls.....

None of them made the call. None of the other dozen people that knew didn't make that call either (including MM). So again, looking for consistency and continuity, everyone of them did the same thing so why were CS&S singled out?

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

You obviously are very emotionally involved in this. MM saw something that made him call his dad. His dad heard something that made him call Dranov, and they heard something that made them tell MM to call Joe. Joe was told something where he involved the guy that the police reported and the AD. They consulted counsel based upon their conversation with MM. All of this resulted in emails being sent back and forth. All of this communication was not done because MM saw nothing, it was done because MM saw something, but they were not sure what.

The reporting laws are in place for this type of situation. Call the police or the state agency and let them sort it out... I don't think any of the people involved are bad people, they just made a mistake, one they are all paying for now.....

Laughable nonsense - Dr. Dranov testified that he asked MM at least three separate times WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS IN PROGRESS if the police should be called. On each of the occasions, MM made statements that convinced Dr. Dranov not to call the police and that the child was NOT IN DANGER as MM had told him that he left the child with Sandusky at Lasch before he came over to his father's house! (i.e., only minutes prior to when he was speaking with his father and Dr. Dranov). MM's father testified that Mike had called him FROM THE SCENE before coming over to his house - during the conversation Mike told him about what he'd seen and heard and MM's father said he asked him point blank if Sandusky was doing anything untoward with the boy and Mike said NO!, but that he thought it was inappropriate that he was alone with the boy in the building and in the shower together. He then went to his father's house and told his Dad and Dr. Dranov that the boy was not in any danger when he left the Lasch Bldg and convinced them both that police did not need to be called by the story he told them. Why precisely would they recommend an AFTER THE FACT ADMINISTRATIVE HR REPORT to MM's employer if they thought the boy was being raped, when they could have still called police while the CRIME WAS IN PROGRESS after MM got to his father's house??? Your claim is so absurd and preposterous, it is beyond description.

Again, you're full of $hit that the 2001 CPSL Code required the PSU employees to report as Mandatory Reporters - beyond that, the PSU employees DID MAKE A REPORT THAT QUALIFIED AS A REPORT TO DPW UNDER CPSL despite them not being required by the law to do so. So you are doubly full of $hit on that one!

Lastly, what MM testified to the 30th SWIGJ was that he DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" the criminal sexual assault alleged by The State in their Indictments and "probable cause" paperwork (i.e., the 33rd SWIGJ Presentment was cited).....furthermore, he not only said he did not "see" or "eyewitness" the State's claimed crime, but that he NEVER told anyone he had. IOW, the State NEVER produced the "eyewitness" they claimed they had and was the only piece of direct, non-circumstantial evidence they cited in regards to the 2001 incident.

 

[DandyDonII]

Laughable nonsense - Dr. Dranov testified that he asked MM at least three separate times WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS IN PROGRESS if the police should be called. On each of the occasions, MM made statements that convinced Dr. Dranov not to call the police and that the child was NOT IN DANGER as MM had told him that he left the child with Sandusky at Lasch before he came over to his father's house! (i.e., only minutes prior to when he was speaking with his father and Dr. Dranov). MM's father testified that Mike had called him FROM THE SCENE before coming over to his house - during the conversation Mike told him about what he'd seen and heard and MM's father said he asked him point blank if Sandusky was doing anything untoward with the boy and Mike said NO!, but that he thought it was inappropriate that he was alone with the boy in the building and in the shower together. He then went to his father's house and told his Dad and Dr. Dranov that the boy was not in any danger when he left the Lasch Bldg and convinced them both that police did not need to be called by the story he told them. Why precisely would they recommend an AFTER THE FACT ADMINISTRATIVE HR REPORT to MM's employer if they thought the boy was being raped, when they could have still called police while the CRIME WAS IN PROGRESS after MM got to his father's house??? Your claim is so absurd and preposterous, it is beyond description.

Again, you're full of $hit that the 2001 CPSL Code required the PSU employees to report as Mandatory Reporters - beyond that, the PSU employees DID MAKE A REPORT THAT QUALIFIED AS A REPORT TO DPW UNDER CPSL despite them not being required by the law to do so. So you are doubly full of $hit on that one!

Lastly, what MM testified to the 30th SWIGJ was that he DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" the criminal sexual assault alleged by The State in their Indictments and "probable cause" paperwork (i.e., the 33rd SWIGJ Presentment was cited).....furthermore, he not only said he did not "see" or "eyewitness" the State's claimed crime, but that he NEVER told anyone he had. IOW, the State NEVER produced the "eyewitness" they claimed they had and was the only piece of direct, non-circumstantial evidence they cited in regards to the 2001 incident.

So which one of the three defendants are you related to?

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

So which one of the three defendants are you related to?

So how much are the scumbag lawyers turned politicians and supposed "public servants" in the MontCo-Hershey GOP Junta Corruption Syndicate paying you to spin your made-up, anti-factual record yarns?