I'll take CYA for $400, Alex. Tough to live with yourself if you're the lead detective who let a serial pedophile get away.
Erickson Note: McQueary "more vivid...ten years later"
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
I'll take CYA for $400, Alex. Tough to live with yourself if you're the lead detective who let a serial pedophile get away.
Complete bullshat - Gricar had NO CASE once the DPW issued their Formal Report not only absolving Sandusky but explicitly declaring his shower behavior (including contact w/ the child while both were naked) to be perfectly normal given the coach / mentor - mentee relationship and the specific situation. DPW was TSM's licensor & regulator in addition to being the State's highest authority on such matters - you are simply nuts if you really believe DPW explicitly absolving Sandusky did not eviscerate Schreffler's/Gricar's case and Schreffler says precisely this in article I linked.
I'll take "A$$wipe & $hit-for-brains - Quite the Combination" for $1,000, Alex.
DPW is the regulator that published a Formal Investigative Report on a licensed and regulated party that not only failed to "indicate" Sandusky despite Sandusky admitting he was wrong and blaming it on "poor judgement" but went the extra step of outright absolving him of any guilt in writing and declaring his naked bear-but "perfectly normal under the circumstances. I'm afraid you're hopelessly confused as per usual as Schreffler did everything he could in an attempt to bring Sandusky to justice but couldn't overcome the corrupt cronyism at DPW/CYS and TSM that acted to not only protect, but also enable, Sandusky and his "little problem".
Why do you think Gricar threw Arnold off the 1998 case? She knows where a lot of skeletons are hid, and she's not doing much talking except to say:
“There are aspects of the Sandusky case this grand jury ignored and that will bite them in the ass if the case goes forward.”
From what I understand, whoever questioned her in the Grand Jury was pretty hard on her, and the insinuation was that they didn't like what she was saying. I wonder why?
My guess is Gricar was compromised, and Lauro was the State's henchman. He made sure Sandusky was treated with kid gloves.
I think John Seasock absolved Sandusky. Its not clear who brought him in. Was likely not state DPW.
I personally believe Gricar intentionally sank the case. He had enough evidence to prosecute an average joe but not sandusky. He might win conviction but hed be a wanted man in Centre County. I think he looked for an excuse not to bring charges. However i also think he was keeping an eye on jerry...i think there may have been a resolution reached where he was supposed to seek help. Obviously didnt work out if that was the case. Just my opinion based on a number of weird stuff gricar did with that case...seems suspicious to me.
Hey Towny,
Don't want to put words in your mouth but I thought for sure on TOS you indicated Harmon was aware of 2001 very soon after it happened, If that is the case how certain of this are you and I don't know why that isn't extremely significant.
If Harmon knew, then police WERE involved. Certainly he could claim he was dirfected by Schultz et al to deep six the allegations, but I thought he testified he was not aware of 2001. Woul4dn't that be perjury?
As long as your over here could you clear that up for us
Don't want to put words in your mouth but I thought for sure on TOS you indicated Harmon was aware of 2001 very soon after it happened, If that is the case how certain of this are you and I don't know why that isn't extremely significant.
If Harmon knew, then police WERE involved. Certainly he could claim he was dirfected by Schultz et al to deep six the allegations, but I thought he testified he was not aware of 2001. Woul4dn't that be perjury?
As long as your over here could you clear that up for us
Yea, well you would "think" wrong as Schreffler's Case File makes quite clear. Seasock was absolutely brought in by DPW/CYS - John Miller of Centre County CYS scheduled the meeting with Seasock and the boy (V6 from SWIGJ Presentment). Lauro informed Schreffler that DPW/CYS was having Seasock interview the boy. Schreffler, at the direct request of Karen Arnold, contacted Lauro and asked that Seasock not speak with the boy yet...and asked him to cancel interview scheduled for later that same day. Lauro told him to call Miller. Schreffler called Miller and Miller agreed to cancel Seasock interview and suspend rescheduling indefinitely. Miller called back 5 minutes later and informed Schreffler that the Seasock interview had not been cancelled and would go off as scheduled later that day at the direct instruction of Lauro's boss in Harrisburg. You keep trying to conflate UPPD's investigation with DPW's Investigation just because they are sharing information with one another - they are independent investigations. One is a Formal Investigation of a CSA allegation by a State-Level Regulator (DPW is TSM's Licensor & Regulator as a Childcare Charity) made via DPW's Statewide Child Abuse Hotline (this CSA Report was made by Allycia Chambers, the child's personal psychologist, who identified herself as such and a "Madatory Reporter" under CPS Codes. She also identified that she normally would have made report to local DPW County-Level CYS Office, but Centre County CYS. Office was conflicted in this case as to both the perp and his charity, TSM, due to longstanding multi-contract business relationships, so she was reporting directly to DPW.). The other was a local investigation following up on the report of a mother who asked a local municipal Law Enforcement entity, the University Park, PA Police Department, to look into a suspicious incident involving her child and Sandusky which took place on PSU's Campus inside a PSU Athletic Facility with "controlled access". Neither authority was beholden to the other in regards to their independent investigations and each did as they saw fit as Schreffler's Case File makes abundantly clear. But you are completely full of $hit that there is any doubt as to who Seasock was working for - he was contracted by DPW and is referenced throughout DPW's Formal Report especially in regards to their Findings - one of which was to completely absolve Sandusky/TSM of any wrongdoing whatsoever and explicitly state that's his behavior was normal given the situation and relationship (another of Seasock's wonderful conclusions in the DPW Report is that he's never heard of a situation where a man suddenly becomes a pedophile in his 50s and uses this as additional strong-support of his conclusion that Sandusky is completely innocent of any wrongdoing, not a pedophile and clear reason not to "indicate" Sandusky which they are supposed to do if there is even a hint of a doubt about the behavior in question - e.g., DPW is supposed to ere in favor of protecting Children not the adult since their sanction is not a criminal investigation and their Findings are held confidential from the general public and are only acessible on a "need to know" basis by child service related organisations.).
Where is the direct, compelling, objective evidence anything EVER happened on the Penn State Campus?
I know I've already said this, but at 25 pages I will repeat it. There is no cover up, or conspiracy to withhold information on Sandusky, without the involvement of McQueary and his father.
Somebody would have to explain to me how Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier could conspire to keep Sandusky's action hidden without involving the only witness and the first person he told.
Somebody would have to explain to me how Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier could conspire to keep Sandusky's action hidden without involving the only witness and the first person he told.
Because McQueary spoke to the OAG before they did and their stories didn't match. The "cover-up/conspiracy" is alleged to have taken place in 2010, not 2001.
Cover up of what in 2010? Alleged by who? The cover up of a pedophile is alleged to have taken place in 2001 not 2010.
You're the one saying, "huh?" -- too funny. Their is no allegation by the PA OAG that a "cover up" of a crime in 2010 occurred, you are quite mistaken. The allegation from the OAG is a that a crime was covered up in March 2002 (to show you how weak their case is), not 2001. The prosecution only changed that FACT when they were PROVEN WRONG by the defense (again LMFAO). The real "cover-up" took place in 1998 and it was not by C/S/S which is why the corrupt tyrants who did enable and abed Sandusky in both 1998 and then again in 1999 (granting him Emeritus Status "for distinguished service" when he didn't even qualify for it and a sweetheart retirement deal that provided full and unlimited access to PSU's Campus and Facilities for his personal charity, TSM, where he was the most powerful "control person"). In other words, the False Narrative "framing" of C/S/S is nothing but an extension of the "cover-up" by the very people who aided and abetted Sandusky in 1998 and prevented him from being prosecuted and were DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 2001 by putting Sandusky and his personal fraud charity directly on PSU's Campus.
+1
While JS might have been using campus facilities to groom the kids, he didn't get away with his crimes for so long by being stupid and committing them in public. Whenever you ask a troll which victims specifically were abused on campus, they NEVER respond. We know that nothing happened with Victim #2 in the shower, we know the janitor story is a hoax. Are there any other claims of abuse on campus?
Was that mistakenly directed at me? Doesn't seem like the proper response for my post.
So many of the usual topics and arguments repeated over and over in this thread and others like it. What about Wendell Courtney? Seems to be a forgotten man.
Questions for MM or his brother. 1) was MM ever molested/approached as a child, perhaps even by Sandusky? That might explain his hysterical response and inability to speak coherently the night of the incident. 2) What did MM say on the phone to JM during that frantic call that elicited the response.............Come home, my son! I would doubt it started with "Dad, I just saw JS raping/molesting/abusing a young boy in the Lasch Shower! Pehaps JM was showing early signs of dementia as early as 2001 3) Did MM really ever walk into the shower area and directly see Sandusky in any form of direct contact with V2 or were his only glances....reflected through the mirror? From testimony and the Lasch layout, I always thought MM's first glace was in the mirror and that put JS at the farthest shower, while the "locker door slam" causing the boy to stick his head out would put them in the nearest shower (were they couldn't be seen in the mirror from the locker area due to the angle). It seems more likely that besides walking to his locker bench and walking out after slamming to door, MM never crossed the hall to the shower area even though some testimony suggests he did.
4) The "Rudy" movie ended at 9:30, I am not buying that MM thought it would be a good time to put his sneakers in the locker story. When and were did MM buy/get the sneakers and do the phone records show the time and length of the call to the house? 5) Was your Mother alive in 2001 and living with JM at the time. I would like to know what was said to her at the time or soon after if MM confided in her.
Any comments of additional questions, please add on as I am afraid there will never be any trials and this message board will be the only source of any new information regarding this tragedy.
4) The "Rudy" movie ended at 9:30, I am not buying that MM thought it would be a good time to put his sneakers in the locker story. When and were did MM buy/get the sneakers and do the phone records show the time and length of the call to the house? 5) Was your Mother alive in 2001 and living with JM at the time. I would like to know what was said to her at the time or soon after if MM confided in her.
Any comments of additional questions, please add on as I am afraid there will never be any trials and this message board will be the only source of any new information regarding this tragedy.
What was MM doing in the hours prior to his visit to the locker room? Had he been drinking and, if so, how much? What else was on his mind that day?
Rudy! Rudy! Rudy! He might have been daydreaming about how different things would have been if Notre Dame had offered. Just a bit of speculation in keeping with the tone of the thread.
Can I play?
What's your favorite color?
If you were a super hero what would your powers be?
Superman v. The Hulk: Who wins?
Can God ask himself a question he cannot answer?
Paul Hornung in the NFL Hall of Fame. Explanation?
Do you wish now that you hadn't walked into the Lasch locker room when Sandusky was molesting that boy?
I've got a million if them.
No. The national condemnation is because they allegedly covered for Sandusky in 2001.
The question is who is responsible for their stories not matching? Curley and Schultz seem to me to be more consistent in their stories over 10 years time than McQueary.
To consistent if a story is often a sign of a lie. There's always different little changes but the same big picture when people are telling a story and the truth.
http://www.contactomagazine.com/articles/liarsigns0808.htm
See number 5. A simple easily repeated explanation is one indicator it a possible lie.
http://www.contactomagazine.com/articles/liarsigns0808.htm
See number 5. A simple easily repeated explanation is one indicator it a possible lie.
Easy.... they were more concerned about Mike's job and weren't confident in what Mike saw. If Mike was "certain" he saw a child being raped like he now claims, there is no way smart people like the McQueary's would be lulled into believing "nothing could be done". I suspect the truth is that Mike wasn't even a fraction as sure as he now claims to be and they were more than content to not rock the boat because of that and fear of Mike losing his coaching career. Worked out well for them...
He had no case at all... even against an average Joe. Ive been involved in CSA investigations and when the child is openly saying that nothing sexual ever happened or was even propositioned, you don't have squat. Against someone like Jerry Sandusky, you'd get laughed out of court by a jury.
That said, IMO, the issue isn't that he didn't have the evidence to move forward, it was that they never bothered to look very hard. I think you are right in that some of the detectives were trying to run an honest investigation, but were getting pressure from above and I'm not talking about Gricar.
I haven't followed this thread one iota. But, I didn't want to be left out. So, an inspirational song...
I don't disagree with your points here. But none of this points to a cover up. These are pertinent points that would be reasons for why there was not a cover up. My question is based on the premise that there was a cover up. How could it not include Mike McQueary?
Semi related question here. In the early 90's I worked for a human service group out of York County Pa. One day our CEO called all mgt into his conference room and announced that the County MH/MR program had shut down (due to serious accusations of sexual, financial and physical abuse) another provider in the area and had asked us to take over all their programs as of that afternoon. The company shut down was Provident Enterprises/The Comfort Home. They were later relieved of all County contracts. The president was a man named Genovese. Does anyone know if he is related to Genovese of The Second Mile?
The Second Mile Genovese was the #2 Executive at TSM - the President, Katherine Genovese, who also happened to be Jack Raykovitz's wife, JR was the CEO and most senior executive at TSM.
s
I'm not sure he ever said nothing sexual happened. He said he felt uncomfortable and that there might have been body contact when Sandusky picked him up. He did say there was no overt grabbing of genitals or touching but there were plenty of warning signs. The other kid said something similar. This repeat pattern, plus a ton of grooming signals, should have led, at least, to a continued investigation. Given Jerry worked around other kids the DA office should have been looking for other victims. They didn't even interview V6 themselves! And then Gricar gives Schreffler some nonsense about V6 been skittish, and Jerry's admissions not being admissions. I've spoken to a number of lawyers about this, and they all have told me this looks like Gricar intentionally suppressed it. I suspect that may be why the OAG is keeping it under wraps. A Sandusky cover-up involving a missing DA would make Nov 2011 look like a cakewalk as far as media coverage.
A number of people involved in 1998 are under a protective order not to speak about the incident. Gricar wasn't the only player involved in this decision. The Moulton report suggests 30-40 people at CYS were interviewed. Something's up. I personally believe 1998 explains almost everything that happened afterward. I don't think you can fully understand Mike's incident without knowing what happened in 1998 first.
I'm not sure he ever said nothing sexual happened. He said he felt uncomfortable and that there might have been body contact when Sandusky picked him up. He did say there was no overt grabbing of genitals or touching but there were plenty of warning signs. The other kid said something similar. This repeat pattern, plus a ton of grooming signals, should have led, at least, to a continued investigation. Given Jerry worked around other kids the DA office should have been looking for other victims. They didn't even interview V6 themselves! And then Gricar gives Schreffler some nonsense about V6 been skittish, and Jerry's admissions not being admissions. I've spoken to a number of lawyers about this, and they all have told me this looks like Gricar intentionally suppressed it. I suspect that may be why the OAG is keeping it under wraps. A Sandusky cover-up involving a missing DA would make Nov 2011 look like a cakewalk as far as media coverage.
A number of people involved in 1998 are under a protective order not to speak about the incident. Gricar wasn't the only player involved in this decision. The Moulton report suggests 30-40 people at CYS were interviewed. Something's up. I personally believe 1998 explains almost everything that happened afterward. I don't think you can fully understand Mike's incident without knowing what happened in 1998 first.
Last edited:
Baldwin advised them that they shouldn't even review their notes.
Similar threads
