what stuns me is the willingness of the trolls to parse every word from Joe, Curley, Schultz, Spanier to conclude they HAD TO KNOW. . . yet ignore how dozens of trained, certified PROFESSIONALS have avoided any scrutiny
CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
what stuns me is the willingness of the trolls to parse every word from Joe, Curley, Schultz, Spanier to conclude they HAD TO KNOW. . . yet ignore how dozens of trained, certified PROFESSIONALS have avoided any scrutiny
Again, they did "take the final step" and made a formal report of the incident to the "Care & Custody Entity" that had responsibility for the child in question, under whose AUSPICE Sandusky had the child in the first place and finally, a Licensed Childcare Entity who held an "Agency Relationship" with the PA Dept of Welfare (didn't only just hold an Agency Relationship with DPW, but was their biggest contractor in Centre County and one of, if not the biggest, in the entire State!)! Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law (the Law which governs "Reports to DPW's Child Abuse Hotline") absolutely SPECIFIES that a Formal Report to TSM / Raykovitz was a "qualifying report" to PA DPW's Child Abuse Hotline under MULTIPLE SECTIONS of "The Code" including TSM / Raykovitz having an "Agency Relationship" with DPW/CYS as well as multiple parties at TSM who had knowledge of the Formal Report from PSU being clear MANDATORY REPORTERS under the Code.
Continuing to say that PSU did not make a Formal Report to DPW's "Child Abuse Hotline" ("I can't figure out why they did so much around the issue and just never bothered to make a report to protective services.") is utterly false and a fallacious claim given that the ACTUAL Pennsylvania Law in question, the PA CPSL Code, is what FACTUALLY determines such things, not your's and other's fallacious claims regarding the matter.
Utterly absurd that you can't see that the BALL WAS DROPPED by Raykovitz / TSM under the prevailing PA Law and Code that we are discussing (i.e., a Formal Report of the Incident and matter did reach Raykovitz and TSM, who were REQUIRED to ADVANCE THE REPORT to DPW under MULTIPLE SECTIONS of the PA Code in question, but they FAILED to fulfill their LEGAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CODE!!!), but you continue to want to claim that PSU (i.e., GBS/GS/TC) failed in "Advancing the Report", which is patently absurd as they FACTUALLY did ADVANCE their report to DPW as a qualifying Report to the "PA DPW Child Abuse Hotline" as DEFINED under PA CPSL Code DESPITE having no LEGAL OBLIGATION to advance a Report of any kind regarding the matter!
Again, it is BEYOND CLEAR that the party and entity who "dropped the ball" in the process was RAYKOVITZ / TSM, not PSU / GBS, GS & TC!
Last edited:
Mr. Curley stated in court that he believed at the time Jerry had "boundary issues" but never suspected contemporaneously that Sandusky had victimized a child (or children).
I was hopeful we'd learn more about the contemporaneous info Curley & Schultz had, and this was one of the very few tidbits the trial provided -- a direct statement from Curley under oath about where his head was in 2001.
Last edited:
You do understand that people can read that and apply it to the 15-20 people that LaJolla Lion referenced.
All is true, but the difference is none of the above were aware of another report 3 years earlier. Right or wrong it may have very well changed their thought process.
If McQueary saw, or even thought he saw, Sandusky sodomizing or otherwise sexually abusing a child in the shower that night, not knowing of the incident three years before should in no way have changed his thought processes.
McQueary's father, Dranov, and Curley are in different positions. Their actions all necessarily are predicated on what McQueary told them. In Curley's case, he knew that Jerry was cleared of any (criminal) wrong doing three years before. If he took what McQeary described to him as Jerry romping in the shower, at night, in an otherwise empty building he could have interpreted it as Jerry engaging in the same inappropriate, idiotic behavior of three years ago; inappropriate, idiotic, but not illegal.
This is what confounds me: if McQueary and his father did not feel that Curley and Schultz properly followed-up on McQueary's report to them, what prevented them from going directly to the police themselves?
Hopefully someday we can hear from Curley and Schultz to know exactly what happened, from their perspective.
yeah kind of weird how that state has effectively muzzled them for 6+ years
Or at LEAST expressing the slightest bit of dissatisfaction when MM and JM had follow up convos with TC and Schultz respectively. But nope, not one peep out of anyone in the McQueary clan about JS still being a free man after MM made a report that he was 99% sure JS raped a kid.
Either MM played revisionist history or MM and family are some real cold, disconnected bastards.
We all know the MM excuse for not going to police himself. His side claims it's because they were told by the college admins it was looked into but nothing could be done so MM apparently just shrugged his shoulders and went on with his life, even appearing in TSM and easter seals events with JS.
Uh, uh. Anyone with half a brain who made a report to administrators of witnessing a crime should, at a minimum, expect contact from an investigator to go over the report and ask additional questions. If that didn't happen, the question is why? How can the matter be "looked into" without someone coming to me for information?
Oh, I forgot, I did say that the someone had to have half a brain.
The DPW wasn't aware of "another report 3 years" earlier? Complete & utter nonsense yet again! The PA CPSL Code SPECIFIES that PSU's Report to Raykovitz / TSM (a report that PSU was under NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT to make) was a QUALIFYING REPORT to the "DPW Child Abuse Hotline" under the prevailing Code (i.e., the precise matter we are currently FACTUALLY discussing)! Again, you are mistaken that the DPW was completely unaware "of another report 3 years earlier" via the VERY SAME "DPW Child Abuse Hotline"! You can continue to claim that Raykovitz / TSM had no legal obligation under the code to ADVANCE PSU's Report to the DPW, who they had an "AGENCY RELATIONSHIP" with as DPW's largest contractor in Centre County as well as one of the lagest DPW Contractors, if not the largest, in the State (as well as being required to advance under multiple other sections of The Code including Mandatory Reporter status), but simply repeating your claim over and over again, does not make it any less crap relative to ACTUAL FACTS and the ACTUAL CODE!
The only reason I can think of for him not calling authorities is that he didn't realize it was a lot more than horseplay. After all, even Dranov said he wasn't told anything that warranted calling the police.
My biggest criticism of C&S is that they didn't document MM's report. That's HR 101. Just think if they took notes of what they were told and had MM sign off on it. We wouldn't be having this conversation
If C&S were doing their job they would have barred JS from bringing kids into the Lasch Building after 1998. After 2001 they should have barred JS from all campus facilities.
Neither Curley nor Schultz had the authority to execute such a remedy.
They had the authority to request that it be done. If somebody higher up says no it's on them.
Bar him for a non-event ('98), as determined by LE and CYS/DPW?
Refresh my memory... did '98 happen on campus? Was that an East Locker Area event?
Pump your breaks. Never said the DPW wasn't aware and I have no clue how you even attempted to make that leap, but you did. Dr. D, MM, and his father weren't unlike Tim and company. Did you even read what I replied to? I don't think you did or you totally misinterpreted something....in a very bad and disturbing way.
Now read this. Tim knew of 98. MM, Doctor D, and his father did not as far as I know....you understand? Pretty simple statement.
Hindsight certainly makes things a lot clearer. That said, standard operating procedure should dictate that all reports are thoroughly documented.
No argument on that point. A clear & obvious error.
HR has played a high profile role in its absence from Penn State throughout this ordeal.
Last edited:
It should be noted that '98 was deemed unfounded primarily because of a counselor's evaluation that said it couldn't find evidence that Jerry was a pedophile.
This counselor involvement is remarkably similar to the psychiatrists the Catholic Church would turn to when they sent their priests for evaluations. Often, however, the Church wouldn't inform the evaluator of the subject's prior history. In addition, the evaluator would interview the subject and ask him if he was attracted to children. Not surprisingly, the subject would often answer 'no'. The evaluator would then claim they couldn't find evidence of pedophilia, and the subject would get returned to the ministry.
This is exactly the same thing that happened with Seasock. He wasn't told about any prior history with Jerry (hence his statement that he'd never heard of a 52 year-old becoming a pedophile)...and according to Matt Sandusky's book Seasock interviewed Jerry and asked him if he was attracted to boys and he said 'no'. And that was it...Seasock drew up a report claiming he couldn't find evidence of pedophilia. Note that that is not the same as saying Jerry's not a pedophile. In fact, Seasock telling Schreffler "you can't walk away from the investigation" was a clear sign he was concerned.
The evaluation was basically bogus. And it was likely setup that way. The question is who did it? Who brought him in?
This counselor involvement is remarkably similar to the psychiatrists the Catholic Church would turn to when they sent their priests for evaluations. Often, however, the Church wouldn't inform the evaluator of the subject's prior history. In addition, the evaluator would interview the subject and ask him if he was attracted to children. Not surprisingly, the subject would often answer 'no'. The evaluator would then claim they couldn't find evidence of pedophilia, and the subject would get returned to the ministry.
This is exactly the same thing that happened with Seasock. He wasn't told about any prior history with Jerry (hence his statement that he'd never heard of a 52 year-old becoming a pedophile)...and according to Matt Sandusky's book Seasock interviewed Jerry and asked him if he was attracted to boys and he said 'no'. And that was it...Seasock drew up a report claiming he couldn't find evidence of pedophilia. Note that that is not the same as saying Jerry's not a pedophile. In fact, Seasock telling Schreffler "you can't walk away from the investigation" was a clear sign he was concerned.
The evaluation was basically bogus. And it was likely setup that way. The question is who did it? Who brought him in?
Last edited:
It wasn't a non-event. Something did happen; it just wasn't deemed criminal.
I don't agree that it was "primarily". Fact is, the cops staged TWO sting operations and the kid didn't support the story of a criminal event. Jerry was grooming, which is not a crime. Its like arresting a bank robber for casing out the bank branch. There was no case. The best they could have done is charge him in the hopes someone else comes forward and/or scare him to death. But that could have also open them up to a law suit as well.
The kids story did warrant charges, at least for corruption of minors. He described Jerry holding him up to the shower such that his butt and genitals were level with jerrys face...for 15 seconds...and there was physical contact, As Matt describes in his book, Jerry was always maneuvering kids so that his face was in that general area.
Jerry admitting he had done this with other kids should have warranted further questioning.
And there's a difference between the criminal side and the Dpw side in which grooming will indicate a case. The Seasock report prevented that from happening.
I'm quite sure that the outcome of this investigation was predetermined at the outset and was conducted accordingly.
Last edited:
Or they could have just revoked his ChildLine clearance or at LEAST restrict his 1:1 access to kids. They didn't need a criminal charge to do that.
DPW/CYS didn't seem concerned at all about JS giving bear hugs from behind in the showers with at least two different kids that they knew about in '98 V6 and B.K.. Yet according to the state prosecutors the college admins were supposed to treat a 2001 report of an inappropriate shower/hug by JS as a five alarm fire and threw the book at them even though their report to JR at TSM should have triggered TSM to make a report to CYS. Double standard much??
How's this for a bombshell...and for some reason its gone unnoticed. Matt's book says that Alycia Chambers spoke to the head of CYS about her pedophile diagnosis. According to Matt, that's when CYS claimed a conflict of interest and handed the case to DPW.
Yet they didn't leave the case; the head of CYS was conferring with Gricar into late May. If he knew of Chambers' report as Matt suggests, and yet CYS was still staying involved, that's a bombshell.
Maybe we could be enlightened if the entire police report and Seasock evaluation was disclosed.
I agree, if true that would be a bombshell. Has there been any corroboration of this by Chambers? I've always wondered why didn't Chambers and her colleagues who agreed with her '98 diagnosis make a big stink of things in 98 when they saw no restriction to JS' access to kids and also when PSU admins took all the heat for JS when the crap hit the fan in 2011 instead of DPW/CYS getting eviscerated?? Were they just too cowardly to step in front of the lynch mob??
The problem is the source of this claim is it's coming from MS, who has some pretty big credibility issues to put it mildly.
Exactly. Matt Sandusky's book (or anything from him) is a pretty dubious source.
I emailed her but she didn't respond. Perhaps Ray knows...I think he spoke with her some time ago.
Matt doesnt cite where it comes from but it seems an odd detail to make up or get wrong.
Last edited:
So, in summary: The only way this situation was ever going to be sorted out is with Penn State playing the part of the fall guy.
These agencies were never going to point fingers at themselves.
You're the one who needs to "pump their breaks" with all of your FALSE ACCUSATIONS aimed at people who didn't even have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to report anything in regards to MM's "HR Administrative Report" to PSU. DPW is RESPONSIBLE for Reports made to the "DPW Child Abuse Hotline" as defined by the PA CPSL Code! You are completely WRONG that a REPORT was not made to DPW in 2001 as DEFINED UNDER the PA CPSL Code - the GOVERNING LAW regarding the matter we are discussing.
The PA CPSL Code defines the "REPORT" made by PSU to Raykovitz / TSM as a QUALIFYING REPORT under MULTIPLE SECTIONS of the governing Code including the FACT that Raykovitz/TSM held an "Agency Relationship" with DPW and were not just any Contracted-Agent of DPW, but the LARGEST DPW CONTRACTED-AGENT in Centre County (and one of the largest, if not the largest, DPW Contracted-Agents in the entire State!). DPW is RESPONSIBLE for the FAILURES of its contracted "Agents" - including the Agent's FAILURE to meet its LEGAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW. PSU, TC, GS and GBS are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the FAILURES of DPW's CONTRACTED-AGENTS under the law, least of all the DPW's Agents FAILURE to meet their LEGAL OBLIATIONS to the DPW under the law!
You keep claiming that it is PSU's and PSU's Administrator's "fault" that the DPW's own Agents via Contract FAILED the DPW by DROPPING THE BALL on this matter and not FULFILLING their LEGAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW to ADVANCE PSU's indisputable REPORT to them regarding Jerry Sandusky's authorized, but potentially INAPPROPRIATE, after-hour use of PSU's Locker-Room Facility while hosting a TSM "Friends Fitness" participant!
You keep saying DPW/TSM had no knowledge of 1998, which is false -- you want to play both sides against the middle with your crap and it is utterly laughable! You are aware that PA CPSL Code REQUIRES that the DPW make a "Safety Plan" to protect the participants when an individual at the Charity is "under investigation" as JS was in 1998? (let alone when the party being investigated is the FOUNDER of, and most-powerful regulatory-listed "Control Person" at, the Charity!).
In addition, the PA CPSL Code prescribes a much more rigorous process when the Individual being investigated is working with an entity that has an "AGENCY RELATIONSHIP" with DPW? And the DPW absolutely understood that JS/TSM had an "Agency Relationship" with DPW/CYS as EVIDENCED by the fact that an "Investigator" from the Harrisburg State-Level DPW Agency Headquarters, Jerry Lauro, was sent to Lead the DPW Investigation rather than use anyone at the DPW's local Centre County CYS Office, which is where the investigator would normally come from if there had not been a "COI" with TSM/JS (Sandusky created all kinds of Conflicts for the local County-Level DPW CYS Office as he was not only the Founder and most-powerful Control Person at TSM, but he also had gained custody to double-digit children directly via DPW & The State via Adoption and Foster-Parenting Programs! These DPW/CYS "Conflicts" had also been pointed out by the "Mandatory Reporter" who made the DPW Child Abuse Hotline Report in 1998, Alycia Chambers!).
In summary, it is utterly laughable, ridiculous and specious to claim that DPW and their DIRECT AGENT, TSM, didn't know about, or were made known of, 1998 and 2001, but you keep making this same specious claim over and over and over again - go figure!?!?
Last edited:
"I've always wondered why didn't Chambers and her colleagues who agreed with her '98 diagnosis make a big stink of things in 98 when they saw no restriction to JS' access to kids and also when PSU admins took all the heat for JS when the crap hit the fan in 2011 instead of DPW/CYS getting eviscerated??"
Because she wanted more business from the state. These psychological diagnosis are best guesses, at best. It is voodoo science. There isn't any level of proof, just a feel or tendencies. If she blew that up, she could forget about the state calling her in for paid gigs again.
The reason why these people weren't arrested, like Curley and Schultz, is because they couldn't undermine MM's testimony like C&S could.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2024 Transfer Portal Thread -- Spring Window Edition
- Latest: Chickadee34
-
Football Happy Valley United announces Retain The Roar NIL campaign
- Latest: Chickadee34