"And very typically, my advice was followed."
So everything is pointing to a report having been made.
There isn't any way to prove a report wasn't made, correct?
BOMBSHELL: Exculpatory Evidence Removed From Schultz File
- Thread starter mathprof
- Start date
So everything is pointing to a report having been made.
There isn't any way to prove a report wasn't made, correct?
This depends on your field, but in many fields, if you take information with you (even copies) after you leave the organization you would be in SERIOUS trouble.
Last edited:
Right, so there are two options:
1) Courtney is telling the truth, in which case DPW was almost certainly contacted (based on all the evidence we have).
2) Courtney is lying to cover his ass (i.e. he didn't advise that and conveniently there is not documentation that he advised that).
Either way, C/S/S followed the advise of counsel.
Complletely agree. It just seems odd this player-coach beef would come up in the context of the Sandusky prosecution.
If you are going consider the thought of Courtney lying as an option, then you would also have to consider the idea that Schultz is lying as well wouldn’t you? That would be another option.
If he was going to lie would his lie be "I absolutely reported it! 100% Definitely reported it. No doubt in my mind" rather than "Gee, I think it was reported but I don't remember any details."
Again, none of this is definitive, but if you look at the totality of the information we now have it seems almost certain it was reported.
Likewise, if one of them was going to report it you would expect them to have it documented somewhere. You just can’t trust memory.
On a related note, I’m sitting in a waiting room waiting for my brother to emerge from his colonoscopy. On the ride here he was talking about the colonoscopy he had 15 or so years ago and how our friend Jeff took him to it. When I told him that I took him to that he didn’t believe me. I am absolutely 100% certain that I took him but he has no recollection of it at all.
Your anecdote about memory illustrates why the statute of limitations is so important. And another BS aspect of this case (i.e. changing the date to get in it under the SOL, then changing it back to the actual date, but then ignoring the fact that it was outside the SOL).
It was labeled "possible child abuse." WC was called by GS before he spoke to MM. You know this. To answer your question, I'll bet a district has occasion once if not several times a year to discuss possible instances of child abuse. An elementary school child who appears with bruises....you don't think that happens a great deal? LOL
You are painting yourself into a very small corner.
I have stated from the very beginning.....I don't know if Sandusky is innocent. I do firmly believe that most of the claimants are lairs.....this is a fact since they changed their stories at least once. Therefore, they stole (and their lawyers) money from PSU claiming either things that didn't happen or they changed dates locations and level of abuse to obtain a larger monetary settlement from PSU. It is likely that if AM is not V2, that none of them were entitled to funds from PSU.
Unless MM can see around corners, he SAW almost nothing that he testified to.
I know he was a compromised witness. I do believe that he was upset/ concerned that JS was showering in the evening at Lasch, with no one else present.
I do know that two widely respected medical professionals listened to his story and what he witnessed IN REAL TIME and did not think it was worthy of reporting to CYS or LE.
They suggested an administrative report to JVP. From that point on, that is how it was treated. Many people one million miles and years removed from the actual event......including you.....claim to know how the whole thing should have been handled.
I was not there. Nor were you. But I do know this......I knew JVP and Tim Curley well enough to know there are no finer men who walk this earth. I truly trust their judgement and their character. If you want to throw your money on Mike McQueary, be my guest. He can sell you the image of the little boy in the shower and a few other images on his cell phone.
MM, JM and Dr. D., never(and any of them could have made an anonymous call) had issue with how the matter was handled until PSP and OAG came calling, 10 years later.
Hell, Jack Raykovitz, who not only was CEO of TSM but was a contractual employee of CYS testified that Tim came to the right place to report. But hey......keep trying.
It is also likely if AM is v2 (as most people who have seriously investigated/researched the story have concluded) that none of the claimants were entitled to funds from PSU.
totally agree. they ALL blew it (MM, father, dranov, courtney, etc. etc. etc.). But the press needed a scape goat and someone that would sell clicks. So they settled on JVP but you couldn't have JVP unless your first blamed it on Schultz, Curley and Spanier.
My answer to your question is that none of the PSU related cases holds water when considered individually.
Here we are neck deep in minutia about whether PSU reported to CYS. Why? Is it because by not reporting the endangered the welfare of a child? No. It's because by not reporting it they did not cover their own asses.
I don't want to speak for Franco, but IMHO, V2 is what "anchors" the case to PSU. If AM is V2, it is fairly well established (again IMHO) that he is, at best, an unreliable witness (and at worst a prolific liar). If that V2/McQueary incident didn't actually happen, then there is nothing to tie this case to PSU and the civil suits against the University either don't happen or don't go anywhere.
What corner have I painted myself into? The administrators received a report from an employee that led them to consult legal counsel that the lawyer billed as possible sexual abuse. One of the administrator states that he believes it was reported to an agency. He doesn’t have any documentation to verify that. He should have documented it. If that’s the corner I’ve painted myself into I’m perfectly comfortable there.
I mean, I don’t even think it’s really debatable that it should have been documented by themselves if they made a referral is it?
Guilt or innocence of Sandusky is irrelevant to the simple, simple point of them documenting the phone call.
No, it’s because they stated that they believe it was referred but have no documentation to back that claim up.
Ok so I am not close enough to know if this story has merit but R.E. suggests it is "rather well known Carter left because MM ratted him out for cheating on his wife and was afraid Joe would fire him"
Think about that for a second. Is it possible to hold in your brain these two thoughts
1. Joe would fire Carter for cheating on his wife
2. Joe would would cover up or allow a cover up of JS molesting kids.
Certainly not for me.
So what? What difference does that make when no law was broken either way? The charge for which Tim plead guilty was for a law that didn't even exist in 2001!
Last edited:
Do you have proof that it was not reported? CYS wouldn't have the records anyway. I thought innocence was presumed in this great nation. Yet you keep going back into that corner. If you think there was abuse....why didn't Dranov report it? You know more than he does?
Here's where my brain goes.....MM ratted out anyone.....fir cheating on their wife..........holy shit
Maybe it was documented but removed from the “ secret file” by someone.... Baldwin? That’s when you know your screwed. Or the way he was treated, he’s the one who reported or was supposed to report.
Last edited:
Of course I do not have proof they didn’t report it. That’s a silly question. The fact that CYS wouldn’t have the records is exactly the reason why you document it yourself, if you did call them.
Innocence is presumed in this great nation. Curley and Schultz pled guilty time failing to protect the welfare of a child. If they had called CYS and documented it, they wouldn’t have been in the position to have pled guilty to that charge. That’s the point.
So what? Seriously? Your friend Tim Curley went to jail. If it had been documented he wouldn’t have gone to jail.
i don’t believe that any of the claimants are entitled to any PSU funds irregardless of whether or not AM is v2. I don’t believe that PSU should be liable for any damages independent of whether any of the claimants were harmed.
As I have said many times, I don’t believe any claimants were harmed; so I have 2 key reasons why I don’t think claimants are deserving of PSU funds. I believe that Ira Lubert and the PSU committed a serious breech of fiduciary responsibility to the tune of $130 million.
What child did they fail to protect? By saying they should have documented their contact with CYS, you are still saying they must prove their innocence.
BS! Somebody at PSU had to take the fall. They would have found something else. The charge for which Tim was coerced to plead guilty was for a law that did not even exist in 2001!
Last edited:
If they had documented proof that they made a call Curley wouldn’t have been the fall guy.
Tim Curley was not a mandated reporter. Jack Raykovitz and Dr. Dranov were. Why should Curley be charged? LOL Of the 3 Curley was the only one who did ANYTHING. By the way, please list the number of times someone has been convicted of endangering the welfare of a child that has NEVER been identified.
So they could prove what? That they are innocent. Did the state prove that they did not report? No.
Are you really arguing this point? So they could prove that they made a call to protect the welfare of a child.
Thanks. You too!
Let me ask you one question. What did Joe do to make him one of the fall guys?
JmmyW- were Schultz or Curley ever asked why they waited ~10 days before speaking to Mike?
Didn't this entire thread start 14 pages ago when ray indicated exculpatory evidence was removed. If so then it indeed was reported.
