Erickson's Notebook Reveals Deceptions, Possible Crimes

[simons96]

The mishandling of the 1998 incident is 100% the fault of DPW. You are saying that university officials with zero expertise in this area should have effectively overruled DPW, which was so unconcerned that they took absolutely no steps to restricts Sandusky's interactions with children after the 1998 incident. You are putting the blame on the wrong institution.

there's the crux of the biscuit right there

 

[colt21]

Agree 100%. Due to the high visibility of this case, it would have been a great opportunity to educate people around the country about how nice-guy offenders groom not only children, but entire communities. But the Penn State Board of Trustees squandered that opportunity in favor of throwing Penn State football under the bus.

Absolutely!!
What we have here is quite simply (and as simple as it it it is 1 million times more sad), is evil folks taking advantage of a tragic situation and using their power and influence to settle person and political jealousies/scores. It is so juvenile it makes me sick.


And like I said....ANYONE who supports the false narrative created is only harming more children.

I know it's a political football (pun intended) to many of you but in real life, it's real children that have been harmed and will continue to be harmed until you just plain and simply fess up to the BS and lies.

I honestly do not know how these people can sleep at night knowing what they are doing.....its takes a special kind of evil person to do what they've done

 

[jjsocrates]

And like I said....ANYONE who supports the false narrative created is only harming more children.

I know it's a political football (pun intended) to many of you but in real life, it's real children that have been harmed and will continue to be harmed until you just plain and simply fess up to the BS and lies.

I honestly do not know how these people can sleep at night knowing what they are doing.....its takes a special kind of evil person to do what they've done

We have to face the possibility that some people are still pushing this false narrative about PSU football precisely because they don't want lax state agencies like DPW reformed. Just like the people defrauding investors typically don't WANT SEC reforms or a stronger SEC enforcement, there are plenty of people out there that don't WANT the DPW to keep a stronger eye on people like Sandusky. There are people out there that don't WANT the Second Mile to be investigated. There are people out there that are perfectly happy with the status quo, and keeping this as a PSU football story keeps that status quo in place.

So, if you're questing the motivations of those pushing the false narrative, and their logic appears tortuted and circular - they likely have an agenda that they're not sharing.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

Most of the PSU alums I know on the internet from the old days have given up on arguing with you guys, but definitely do not believe you're doing good work here. I'm frustrated that they don't argue back, because I think y'all's capacity to misinform people is greater than they think it is, but I'm far from alone.

So, what Alums, besides Karen Peetz, are in your corner?

 

[RentechCEO]

Actually, there are signs, and adults should know them so they can look out for them. It's very unfortunate the Freeh did not use his very loud megaphone to share this information with the general public. If he had, you and millions of other people would be aware of them now. Louis Freeh didn't do children any favors with his bullshit "cover up" crackpot conspiracy theory.

From the Clemente Report:

-----

Do you know an adult or older child who exhibits one or more of these red flag behaviors
for child sexual victimization?
 Doesn’t seem to understand what’s acceptable when it comes to personal space.
 Makes others uncomfortable by ignoring social, emotional or physical boundaries or
limits.
 Refuses to let a child set any of his or her own limits regarding boundaries or touch.
Uses teasing or belittling language to keep a child from setting a limit.
 Insists on hugging, touching, kissing, tickling, wrestling with or holding a child
whether or not the child wants this physical contact or attention.
 Frequently walks in on children/teens in the bathroom.
 Turns to a child for emotional or physical comfort by sharing personal or private
information or activities, normally shared with adults.
 Has secret interactions with teens or children (e.g., games, sharing drugs, alcohol, or
sexual material) or spends excessive time emailing, text messaging, writing to, or
calling children or youth.
 Insists on or manages to frequently spend uninterrupted time alone with a child.
 Misses or ignores social cues about others’ personal or sexual limits and boundaries.
 Often has a “special” child friend, maybe a different one from year to year.
 Spends most of his/her spare time with children and shows little interest in spending
time with someone their own age.
 Encourages silence and secrets in children.
 Seems “too good to be true,” i.e., frequently baby sits different children for free; takes
children on special outings alone; buys children gifts or gives them money for no
apparent reason.
 Allows children or teens to consistently get away with inappropriate behaviors.
 Is overly interested in the sexuality of children or teens (e.g., talks repeatedly about
the child’s developing body or interferes with normal teen dating).
 Frequently points out sexual images or tells dirty or suggestive jokes with children
present.
 Exposes a child to adult sexual interactions or images without apparent concern.
 Links sexuality and aggression in language or behavior, e.g., sexualized threats or
insults, like “whore” or “slut.”
 Makes fun of children’s body parts, describes children with sexual words like “stud”
or “sexy” or talks about the sexual activities of children or teens.
 Masturbates so often that it gets in the way of important day-to-day activities.
 Has an interest in sexual fantasies involving children and seems unclear about what’s
appropriate with children.
 Looks at child pornography or downloads/views internet pornography and is not
willing to show whether children are involved.
 Asks adult partners to dress or act like a child or teen during sexual activity.
 Minimizes hurtful or harmful behaviors when confronted; denies harmfulness of
actions or words despite a clear negative impact.

I agree there are signs but some of those like masterbating all the time is not going to be discovered in some interview as the pedo will conceal that info. The same is true for many of the other signs. Also, those signs alone or even in a few cases are not enough to warrant sanctions or restrictions against someone but it does tell you to keep an eye on them in some cases. That's why it is so important to report suspicious activity that adults have with children and then let those better trained investigate. The first mistake PSU made was keeping the 2001 incident "in-house". It should have been reported.

 

[RentechCEO]

The mishandling of the 1998 incident is 100% the fault of DPW. You are saying that university officials with zero expertise in this area should have effectively overruled DPW, which was so unconcerned that they took absolutely no steps to restricts Sandusky's interactions with children after the 1998 incident. You are putting the blame on the wrong institution.

DPW does not set policy for PSU. PSU could have and should have as comon sense risk mitigation set the policy I described above. Also, I don't think PSU was as clueless to all this as you say. Was Spanier that clueless with his background? No, I think PSU dropped the ball in '98 as well as the state.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

The first mistake PSU made was keeping the 2001 incident "in-house". It should have been reported.

You're assuming that it was not reported.

 

[RentechCEO]

Somewhat. But he was also interviewed by investigators in advance of his GJ testimony, so likely he had a pretty good idea. Either way, it seems Ms. Baldwin advised them not to prep.

I sort of look at it the same way with Joe's testimony to the GJ. No one "prepped" him (although some say they did prep him) but bring them in clean and let the questions go that way. It's not scripted then.

 

[RentechCEO]

You're assuming that it was not reported.

So far there is no evidence I am aware of that PSU reported the 2001 incident to either CYS or DPW. Please let me know if I am missing something.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

DPW does not set policy for PSU. PSU could have and should have as comon sense risk mitigation set the policy I described above. Also, I don't think PSU was as clueless to all this as you say. Was Spanier that clueless with his background? No, I think PSU dropped the ball in '98 as well as the state.

You're throwing around a lot of "I think" for things that you can not prove.

 

[RentechCEO]

Not sure where you are getting your information about 1998 and what JS admitted to. I generally agree that JS should have been spoken to by PSU about bringing kids into the facilities after the 1998 incident. We still don't know who at PSU besides Schultz and the police knew exactly what was being investigated.

As for the Chambers report, it was given to the police. But we don't know who else at PSU was aware or reviewed the report.

I thought he admitted to PSU police. Schultz mentioned it in his GJ testimony too. It would seem strange to me that if the second most high profile individual at PSU (heck I knew who Sandusky was) was being investigated for such a serious crime that the Police Chief and the "head of police" would read the report. If they didn't that's pretty negligent.

 

[RentechCEO]

You're throwing around a lot of "I think" for things that you can not prove.

Perhaps. PSU paid the victims so I think maybe they believe they dropped the ball as taking PSU to court would be the only way to get an adjudication of that issue correct?

 

[Aoshiro]

I agree there are signs but some of those like masterbating all the time is not going to be discovered in some interview as the pedo will conceal that info. The same is true for many of the other signs. Also, those signs alone or even in a few cases are not enough to warrant sanctions or restrictions against someone but it does tell you to keep an eye on them in some cases. That's why it is so important to report suspicious activity that adults have with children and then let those better trained investigate. The first mistake PSU made was keeping the 2001 incident "in-house". It should have been reported.

Sandusky was reported in 1998. CYS & DPW didn't take it seriously. There's no reason to believe that they would've seen 2001 any differently.
In fact, we don't know that Sandusky wasn't reported in 2001. That's what the prosecution alleges. Schultz's recollection is that it was reported to the same agency that handled the 1998 incident. Pennsylvania has one of the worst records in the country of following up on reports of abuse against children. People can report suspicions over and over again, but if CYS doesn't do anything about those reports, it doesn't matter at all. Are you familiar with the Tutko case?

This mess isn't Penn State's fault. This mess is the fault of child welfare agencies in PA that refused to believe that Sandusky could be a pedophile and didn't take reports about him seriously,.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

So far there is no evidence I am aware of that PSU reported the 2001 incident to either CYS or DPW. Please let me know if I am missing something.

Cute, but it doesn't work that way. You made a claim about what was PSU's 1st mistake (in your opinion). As such, for your claim to be proven correct the onus is on you to prove that PSU did not, in fact, make a report.

 

[Aoshiro]

DPW does not set policy for PSU. PSU could have and should have as comon sense risk mitigation set the policy I described above. Also, I don't think PSU was as clueless to all this as you say. Was Spanier that clueless with his background? No, I think PSU dropped the ball in '98 as well as the state.

You are not being reasonable. You are unfairly viewing this incident through magical mystical hindsight glasses.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Perhaps. PSU paid the victims so I think maybe they believe they dropped the ball as taking PSU to court would be the only way to get an adjudication of that issue correct?

I'm trying to save you from your own arguments, but you keep resorting to "I think."

PSU paying the victims proves nothing, at least with regards to what you think.

 

[RentechCEO]

Cute, but it doesn't work that way. You made a claim about what was PSU's 1st mistake (in your opinion). As such, for your claim to be proven correct the onus is on you to prove that PSU did not, in fact, make a report.

Fair enough. Hasn't the state maintained no such report was made? Haven't CSS been charged with failure to report? Wasn't the expungment issue addressed at the prelim? If such a report was made why would the state charge otherwise? I get your point and that will be addressed more definitively at trial. However, the evidence (or lack thereof) to date seems to show PSU did not report it.

 

[Aoshiro]

Fair enough. Hasn't the state maintained no such report was made? Haven't CSS been charged with failure to report? Wasn't the expungment issue addressed at the prelim? If such a report was made why would the state charge otherwise? I get your point and that will be addressed more definitively at trial. However, the evidence (or lack thereof) to date seems to show PSU did not report it.

What specific evidence is there that Penn State did not report it? Remember, the prosecution has the burden of proving its allegation.

 

[RentechCEO]

I'm trying to save you from your own arguments, but you keep resorting to "I think."

PSU paying the victims proves nothing, at least with regards to what you think.

Yes that is opinion but PSU paying the victims rather than fighting it out in court shows me that PSU and I have the same opinion. The only way to find out otherwise, meaning PSU didn't drop the ball in 1998, would be for PSU to let the claims go to trial. They chose not to so I guess we'll never know based on a court decision but in my opinion they did drop the ball. Is that better?

 

[RentechCEO]

What specific evidence is there that Penn State did not report it? Remember, the prosecution has the burden of proving its allegation.

DPW and CYS said there was no report or record.

 

[Aoshiro]

Yes that is opinion but PSU paying the victims rather than fighting it out in court shows me that PSU and I have the same opinion. The only way to find out otherwise, meaning PSU didn't drop the ball in 1998, would be for PSU to let the claims go to trial. They chose not to so I guess we'll never know based on a court decision but in my opinion they did drop the ball. Is that better?

Victim 6 did not settle and Penn State is fighting discovery as the case moves towards trial. If the story that the Penn State trustees sold the world is true, why would they fight discovery?

 

[Aoshiro]

DPW and CYS said there was no report or record.

Did they? Where did they say that? Can you point us to the relevant testimony?

 

[RentechCEO]

You are not being reasonable. You are unfairly viewing this incident through magical mystical hindsight glasses.

Not really. If I received a report that said a person was a likely pedophile and had been investigated for CSA showering with a child then I would put restrictions I mentioned above into place. This is basic risk management.

 

[bjf1984]

Not really. If I received a report that said a person was a likely pedophile and had been investigated for CSA showering with a child then I would put restrictions I mentioned above into place. This is basic risk management.

 

[jjsocrates]

So far there is no evidence I am aware of that PSU reported the 2001 incident to either CYS or DPW. Please let me know if I am missing something.

Good thing that DPW and CYS are not required to keep "evidence" of EVERY report made to them. In fact, they regularly expunge the records of any report made to them that they find to be without merit. How convenient for them...so all the OAG has to do to make Penn State look guilty is make the 2001 incident sound a lot worse than it actually was.

Its very likely PSU made a report to DPW in 2001, and DPW quickly closed the report, thereby removing all "evidence" that a report was ever made. It would have done so if the report was of an incident similar to 1998. In order to protect DPW's mishandling of the case, the 2001 incident needed to be hyped up and portrayed as having been much worse than it actually was.

The fact that you DIDN'T KNOW that DPW regularly expunges reports from its record is telling to say the least.

 

[jjsocrates]

Fair enough. Hasn't the state maintained no such report was made? Haven't CSS been charged with failure to report? Wasn't the expungment issue addressed at the prelim? If such a report was made why would the state charge otherwise? I get your point and that will be addressed more definitively at trial. However, the evidence (or lack thereof) to date seems to show PSU did not report it.

These questions are hopelessly naive.

 

[bamasota]

Good thing that DPW and CYS are not required to keep "evidence" of EVERY report made to them. In fact, they regularly expunge the records of any report made to them that they find to be without merit. How convenient for them...so all the OAG has to do to make Penn State look guilty is make the 2001 incident sound a lot worse than it actually was.

Its very likely PSU made a report to DPW in 2001, and DPW quickly closed the report, thereby removing all "evidence" that a report was ever made. It would have done so if the report was of an incident similar to 1998. In order to protect DPW's mishandling of the case, the 2001 incident needed to be hyped up and portrayed as having been much worse than it actually was.

The fact that you DIDN'T KNOW that DPW regularly expunges reports from its record is telling to say the least.

How is it that there is evidence that a report was made in 1998, yet there has not been any evidence presented that one was made in 2001? Was this due to actions taking place as a result of 1998 that were not taken in 2001?

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Yes that is opinion but PSU paying the victims rather than fighting it out in court shows me that PSU and I have the same opinion. The only way to find out otherwise, meaning PSU didn't drop the ball in 1998, would be for PSU to let the claims go to trial. They chose not to so I guess we'll never know based on a court decision but in my opinion they did drop the ball. Is that better?

Is that [your argument] better?

Not even close.

You substituted "shows me" and "in my opinion" for "I think." That's like using a thesaurus to change a word or phrase, and thinking that it improves the entire thrust of a sentence.

PSU electing to not fight victim claims in court proves absolutely nothing about whether PSU did or did not drop the ball in 1998.

In addition, nothing you've stated in this response does a thing to prove any of the claims you made about PSU in the initial post of yours to which I responded:

"DPW does not set policy for PSU. PSU could have and should have as comon sense risk mitigation set the policy I described above. Also, I don't think PSU was as clueless to all this as you say. Was Spanier that clueless with his background? No, I think PSU dropped the ball in '98 as well as the state."

 

[JmmyW]

Not really. If I received a report that said a person was a likely pedophile and had been investigated for CSA showering with a child then I would put restrictions I mentioned above into place. This is basic risk management.

The key word in your post is "if". Officer Schreffler is the one who received Chambers report on 5/8/1998 about her assessment that Sandusky was showing signs of a likely pedophile. The police chief Tom Harmon is the one who communicated with Schultz. Harmon testified that he was unaware of both Chambers and Seasock's reports; the conclusion being that he was unaware of at least Chambers report. Harmon also testified that he did not communicate to Schultz that Schreffler and the DPW's Jerry Lauro interviewed Sandusky (on 6/1/1998) and told him not to shower with boys (with Sandusky saying he wouldn't). So there was certainly a failure to communicate in 1998 which might've changed how 2001 played out. This isn't the only oddity surrounding Harmon; see more here https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/harmon-testimony-notes/

 

[Aoshiro]

How is it that there is evidence that a report was made in 1998, yet there has not been any evidence presented that one was made in 2001? Was this due to actions taking place as a result of 1998 that were not taken in 2001?

The 1998 incident was reported directly by the mother to Penn State police, and Penn State police kept a record. As far as I know, CYS and DPW did not retain any record of the 1998 incident even though they were both involved.

For whatever reason (although I certainly have my own ideas), Mike McQueary didn't call the police in 2001. Therefore, there is no police record.

 

[bamasota]

The 1998 incident was reported directly by the mother to Penn State police, and Penn State police kept a record. As far as I know, CYS and DPW did not retain any record of the 1998 incident even though they were both involved.

For whatever reason (although I certainly have my own ideas), Mike McQueary didn't call the police in 2001. Therefore, there is no police record.

Thanks for the clarification, did not realize there was a different path for the two incidences.

 

[bjf1984]

How is it that there is evidence that a report was made in 1998, yet there has not been any evidence presented that one was made in 2001? Was this due to actions taking place as a result of 1998 that were not taken in 2001?

 

[RentechCEO]

Did they? Where did they say that? Can you point us to the relevant testimony?

First you could look at pages 10 and 11 of the Grand Jury Presentment then look at the testimony of Anthony Sassano in the preliminary hearings.

 

[Aoshiro]

First you could look at pages 10 and 11 of the Grand Jury Presentment then look at the testimony of Anthony Sassano in the preliminary hearings.

Nope.

Where is the testimony of CYS and DPW personnel to the effect that they are certain that a report was not made of the 2001 incident?

Thanks.

 

[RentechCEO]

Victim 6 did not settle and Penn State is fighting discovery as the case moves towards trial. If the story that the Penn State trustees sold the world is true, why would they fight discovery?

I guess Victim 6 wants more money. From reading his complaint he is saying PSU dropped the ball in 1998. One of the things his lawyer alleges is exactly what I mentioned above. That is, having policies in place to keep Sandusky from one on one contact with children. Maybe, discovery will put PSU in worse light? Certainly PSU wouldn't fight releasing exculpatory evidence would they?

 

[Aoshiro]

I guess Victim 6 wants more money. From reading his complaint he is saying PSU dropped the ball in 1998. One of the things his lawyer alleges is exactly what I mentioned above. That is, having policies in place to keep Sandusky from one on one contact with children. Maybe, discovery will put PSU in worse light? Certainly PSU wouldn't fight releasing exculpatory evidence would they?

The same Penn State Board of Trustees) who required Freeh to give incriminatory evidence to the prosecution but did not require Freeh to give exculpatory evidence to the defense?

I think that you really don't understand what's going on

 

[RentechCEO]

Nope.

Where is the testimony of CYS and DPW personnel to the effect that they are certain that a report was not made of the 2001 incident?

Thanks.

Page 11 of the GJ Presentment states that DPW, CYS local and state records were subpoenaed and no records were found of a report made. Those organizations said there was no such report. I don't recall saying certain individuals testified from DPW or CYS but the organizations did respond to the subpoena that there was no report.

 

[RentechCEO]

The same Penn State Board of Trustees) who required Freeh to give incriminatory evidence to the prosecution but did not require Freeh to give exculpatory evidence to the defense?

I think that you really don't understand what's going on

I'm not talking about CSS but about PSU's lawsuit.

 

[bjf1984]

I guess Victim 6 wants more money. From reading his complaint he is saying PSU dropped the ball in 1998. One of the things his lawyer alleges is exactly what I mentioned above. That is, having policies in place to keep Sandusky from one on one contact with children. Maybe, discovery will put PSU in worse light? Certainly PSU wouldn't fight releasing exculpatory evidence would they?

It really is a conundrum:

What does the presence of SeminoleWarrior, mdahmus, tidegopher and the like tell us?

There can only be two options, and both are hard to believe........
Can an individual truly be so obtuse and stupid? OR Can an individual truly enjoy pretending to be so obtuse and stupid?

Neither seems likely......but one MUST be true.

 

[RentechCEO]

Good thing that DPW and CYS are not required to keep "evidence" of EVERY report made to them. In fact, they regularly expunge the records of any report made to them that they find to be without merit. How convenient for them...so all the OAG has to do to make Penn State look guilty is make the 2001 incident sound a lot worse than it actually was.

Its very likely PSU made a report to DPW in 2001, and DPW quickly closed the report, thereby removing all "evidence" that a report was ever made. It would have done so if the report was of an incident similar to 1998. In order to protect DPW's mishandling of the case, the 2001 incident needed to be hyped up and portrayed as having been much worse than it actually was.

The fact that you DIDN'T KNOW that DPW regularly expunges reports from its record is telling to say the least.

Actually, I'm aware of the expungment law but that was addressed by Anthony Sassano in the preliminary trial testimony. No CYS report exists for 1998 but a police report does and there is no police report for 2001. Sassano indicated those reports would be there as the law does not require them to be expunged.