Good JZ interview - over an hour [link]

[StinkStankStunk]

I must say, the paper-thin analysis of some is very disturbing.

If one feels - if one is 100% convinced - that Jerry Sandusky is a predator, who "got what he deserved", fine.
Great.
One should not - logically - feel compelled to have ANY sympathy whatsoever wrt Jerry Sandusky.


BUT:

Forget about who's name is on the top of the docket sheet.
Forget about what crime is listed under "OFFENSE"


To extrapolate the Sandusky situation to simply not caring that we - ALL OF US - are subject to such a corrupted system of Judicial and Prosecutorial misconduct. To not caring about the "brown-shirt tactics" of those who are supposed to represent Justice in our society......that should just make us weep.

If due to your feelings and conclusions about Sandusky, and whatever actions he may have undertaken - whatever they may be - you are willing to condone and live under a system of "Justice" that we have seen play out in front of our eyes. Played out in bright shining colors and flashing lights.

If you are OK with that system of Justice....because "well, he's a f&cking pervert who got what he deserved"....God help us all.

A corrupt system of Justice does NOT effect only the folks who you may think are "f&cking perverts who got what they deserved".
It doesn't stop being corrupt and vile whenever it deals with folks who you DON'T think are "f&cking perverts who got what they deserved".

________________________________


I mentioned the Jack Gatos autobiography earlier.

The story is a compelling, and sad, and redeeming one. Folks should read it.

The synopsis was that you have a young man who "f&cked up". He was guilty of a crime.

But, the corrupt actions of the Prosecutors AND the Judge AND (in this case) the Parole Board all conspired to ruin a young man's life.....when it was clearly uncalled for.

If not for the compassionate and selfless acts of a simple man, a small cog in the entire process, his life would have been ruined.....but, thanks to one man who exemplified decency and the willingness to lend a hand, the young man who "f&cked up" ended up living a productive, meaningful, impactful, positive life.

This is real life folks. SHIT LIKE THIS HAPPENS EVERY DAY.....and probably more here in "our little corner of the world" than it does in many other places.

For years, we have seen this crap "up close and personal"....in a way that very few folks - aside from those who were the victims of this type bastardized Justice system - ever do

Do we not care?

Apparently not....if Genius-Talk like this prevails:

"I agree, his trails (sic) weren't that fair....you know what?....I really don't give a f***." PSUPALY

If so, God help us.....because he's the only one left.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Forget about Sandusky......he is OUT of the equation.....gone....a complete non-issue:

Now:

In Philadelphia, last month, six retail establishments - 4 Bar/Restaurants, a Convenience Store, and a Hardware Store - were robbed at gunpoint.

In each case, one of the Proprietors was on premises when the robberies occurred.

A suspect is arrested....and is placed in a lineup.

One-by-one, the Proprietors are brought in to view the lineup, and asked "Do you recognize the man who robbed you at gunpoint?"

Each Proprietor says "No, I can't say for sure"

...........................................................

A week later, a Wealthy Benefactor - who claims to be "sick and tired of crime in our city" - publicizes an offer to reimburse each of the Proprietors who was robbed - - - when and if the perpetrator(s) are convicted.

...........................................................

Now, the Prosecutors bring the Proprietors in for another go at the lineups.

This time, they tell each of them that "Some of the other Proprietors have been able to identify the robber. They all said it was the 2nd guy from the left. Now, do you think you recognize the man who robbed you?"

Each Proprietor, in turn, now identifies the "2nd guy from the left".........who is then convicted to a 50 year prison sentence.

1 - Are you OK with that?

2 - Are you OK with that - - - - so long as you KNOW the "2nd guy on the left" is a non-good scumbag, whether he robbed that particular store or not.....because he MUST HAVE - FOR SURE - robbed at least a few of them?

3 - Are you OK with that - - - - if the "2nd guy on the left" is your son?


This spigot of Corruption doesn't turn on and off on command.....but, apparently, for some, their Sense of Justice does turn "on and off" depending on the situation.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

Justice for Chumlee !!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Yeah, I have been on Tom'd board for 2 decades and only after Jerry got sent to prison was this awful corrupt judicial system a huge problem. By PSU fans that only appeared here after this all occurred minus MtNittany. The system is not perfect at all, but this is not the case showing it failed. Not even close.

 

[pandaczar12]

Yeah, I have been on Tom'd board for 2 decades and only after Jerry got sent to prison was this awful corrupt judicial system a huge problem. By PSU fans that only appeared here after this all occurred minus MtNittany. The system is not perfect at all, but this is not the case showing it failed. Not even close.

I don't understand this point you continually try to make about people only caring about something after a certain event got their attention. It's called human nature. It doesn't help your argument at all.

 

[pandaczar12]

This is according to one study. As I stated earlier in this thread - Retrospective studies show rates of childhood sexual abuse ranging from 7-36% in females and 3-29% in males

How many kids could you have helped yesterday if you weren't trolling this message board? We don't need your stats, we don't need your lectures. We need you to help children by exposing the DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile.

You keep dodging my questions. It's almost as if you don't want to stop abuse. Why would a victim's advocate not be interested in stopping abuse? There really is only logical conclusion... I guess if there were no victims, they wouldn't need an advocate?

 

[GTACSA]

Yes, Sandusky was an agent of Clinton County CYS. Erin Rutt was a Clinton County CYS employee who was Clinton County CYS' coordinator for both the Big Brother Big Sister program and The Second Mile. Moulton p. 34

As to how that undermines the truth determing process, you can read their rationale on that and the other 253 pages and get back to me.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY SECOND AMENDED PCRA PETITION.pdf

I skimmed it and did not find it persuasive to support granting the requested relief. Unlike you I have general reference points from which to evaluate the petition and would be shocked if Sandusky were to prevail. Having said that, I've been shocked before.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I don't understand this point you continually try to make about people only caring about something after a certain event got their attention. It's called human nature. It doesn't help your argument at all.

Well there is that and no new evidence even hinting Jerry isn't a pedophile. Since you seem to think Jerry is where he needs to be, I'm not sure why what I say even bothers you at all. Odd, but it must be that whole gray area. You're right as this is human nature. Some fanatics can't handle what has occurred so they simply deny it.

 

[no1lion99]

Sorry for my tardy reply. But, I couldn't respond earlier today sufficiently off my phone. The original PCRA was dead in the water in the fall after Kane's hearing. Cleland certainly is aware of the "legal standards" you cite and would have dismissed the appeal then if it didn't meet the legal threshold. Not only did Cleland not dismiss the PCRA petition, he allowed the defense to produce a 2nd amended PCRA petition.

You've started to read the 2nd Amended petition, so you probably saw the petition cited § 3490.81 to demonstrate Clinton County CYS broke the law by running the investigation. I don't think that's even debatable, right?

§ 3490.81. Responsibilities of the Department and the county agency.

(a) When the suspected abuse has been committed by an agent of the county agency, the regional staff shall investigate the report under section 6362 of the CPSL (relating to responsibilities of county agency for child protective services) and this chapter. The regional staff may not do any of the following:

(1) Take protective custody.

(2) Petition the court.

(3) Provide services.

(b) If a report is determined indicated or founded and the regional staff determines that services are necessary, the regional staff, the county agency in the county where the abuse occurred and the county agency with custody or supervision of the child, if different, shall plan for social and rehabilitative services for the child and perpetrator. The plan shall identify which county is responsible for case management.

(c) Regional staff shall conduct the investigation regardless of the relationship of the agent to the subject child.



Source


The provisions of this § 3490.81 adopted December 20, 1985, effective January 1, 1986, 15 Pa.B. 4547; amended July 2, 1999, effective July 3, 1999, 29 Pa.B. 3513. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (211738) to (211739).

For several reasons, no I am not at all ready to concede that Clinton County CYS "broke the law" in their investigation, and I shall elaborate.

1. While I can certainly read the statutes I am not in any way a lawyer or legal expert. These are often complicated laws with many cross references and substantial case law that I have no knowledge of or access to. HOWEVER....

2. CPSL in Pennsylvania is codified into law under 23 PA CS 63. Chapter 63 shows that Clinton County CYS was well within its rights to investigate Sandusky. To Wit:

§ 6361. Organization for child protective services.

(a) Establishment.--Every county agency shall make available child protective services within the agency.


§ 6362. Responsibilities of county agency for child protective services.

(a) General rule.--The county agency shall be the sole civil agency responsible for receiving and investigating all reports of child abuse made pursuant to this chapter, specifically including, but not limited to, reports of child abuse in facilities operated by the department and other public agencies, for the purpose of providing protective services to prevent further abuses to children and to provide or arrange for and monitor the provision of those services necessary to safeguard and ensure the well-being and development of the child and to preserve and stabilize family life wherever appropriate.

§ 6365. Services for prevention, investigation and treatment of child abuse.

(a) Instruction and education.--Each county agency shall make available among its services for the prevention and treatment of child abuse instruction and education for parenthood and parenting skills, protective and preventive social counseling, outreach and counseling services to prevent newborn abandonment, emergency caretaker services, emergency shelter care, emergency medical services and the establishment of self-help groups organized for the prevention and treatment of child abuse, part-day services, out-of-home placement services, therapeutic activities for child and family directed at alleviating conditions that present a risk to the safety and well-being of a child and any other services required by department regulations.

(b) Multidisciplinary review team.--The county agency shall make available among its services a multidisciplinary review team for the prevention, investigation and treatment of child abuse and shall convene the multidisciplinary review team at any time, but not less than annually:

(1) To review substantiated cases of child abuse, including responses by the county agency and other agencies providing services to the child.

(2) Where appropriate to assist in the development of a family service plan for the child.

(c) Multidisciplinary investigative team.--A multidisciplinary investigative team shall be used to coordinate child abuse investigations between county agencies and law enforcement. The county agency and the district attorney shall develop a protocol for the convening of multidisciplinary investigative teams for any case of child abuse by a perpetrator involving crimes against children which are set forth in section 6340(a)(9) and (10) (relating to release of information in confidential reports). The county multidisciplinary investigative team protocol shall include standards and procedures to be used in receiving and referring reports and coordinating investigations of reported cases of child abuse and a system for sharing the information obtained as a result of any interview. The protocol shall include any other standards and procedures to avoid duplication of fact-finding efforts and interviews to minimize the trauma to the child. The district attorney shall convene the multidisciplinary investigative team in accordance with the protocol. The multidisciplinary investigative team shall consist of those individuals and agencies responsible for investigating the abuse or for providing services to the child and shall at a minimum include a health care provider, county caseworker and law enforcement official.


Now when looking for Chapter 3490 (of Title 55), you can only find it in the PA Code. The PA Code is somewhat different than a law enacted by the State Legislature. You can find information on that here.

Furthermore, Title 55 has not been codified into law by the legislature. Note that PA law skips from Title 54 to Title 57. Thus the legislature has only codified the Title 23 version of CPSL into actual state law. However, does that mean Title 23 supersedes Title 55? That I can't answer. Pointing to the FAQ section of the Code site you see this:

"3. What is the difference between a rule or regulation (on one hand) and a statute or law or act (on the other hand)?

The General Assembly enacts statutes by passing bills in the Senate and House
of Representatives and sending them to the Governor for approval. Some
statutes give an agency in the executive branch the authority to adopt rules to
further carry out the statute. Armed with this authority, the executive branch
agency adopts rules by following a rulemaking procedure."

Where does that leave us? I have no idea. As I said, I am not an expert on anything legal, nor do I have any particular insight as to which Title is the prevailing legal authority (though I suspect it is title 23, which is codified into law as opposed to Title 55 which appears to my untrained eye to be a "rule"). I have in the meantime asked for input from the lawyers I know and will gladly post their views when I get them.

 

[pandaczar12]

Well there is that and no new evidence even hinting Jerry isn't a pedophile. Since you seem to think Jerry is where he needs to be, I'm not sure why what I say even bothers you at all. Odd, but it must be that whole gray area. You're right as this is human nature. Some fanatics can't handle what has occurred so they simply deny it.

You seem to understand that you are making pointless arguments such as the one I pointed out. These arguments water down your message, doesn't that bother you?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You seem to understand that you are making pointless arguments such as the one I pointed out. These arguments water down your message, doesn't that bother you?

I guess it bothers you because maybe you're not as neutral as you pretend to be? You seem to follow everything I state, but never really offer an opinion...oh wait you did. It can never be proven, but he is where he needs to be, but it's a gray area. Pretty coherent I guess if you love walking on fences. I guess having opinions about opinions is your angle. At least people know where I'm coming from.

 

[pandaczar12]

I guess it bothers you because maybe you're not as neutral as you pretend to be? You seem to follow everything I state, but never really offer an opinion...oh wait you did. It can never be proven, but he is where he needs to be, but it's a gray area. Pretty coherent I guess if you love walking on fences. I guess having opinions about opinions is your angle. At least people know where I'm coming from.

How many times must I ask that if you respond to one of my posts, you please respond to the content of the post, and not just go off on an unrelated emotional rant? This is at least the third time in this thread. I realize that you have the majority of the responses to this thread (~1/8), but please try to pay attention.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

How many times must I ask that if you respond to one of my posts, you please respond to the content of the post, and not just go off on an unrelated emotional rant? This is at least the third time in this thread. I realize that you have the majority of the responses to this thread (~1/8), but please try to pay attention.

Oh it's cute how you try and lecture me when you don't hear or read what you want. Hugs and kisses and don't hit your nuts on that fence, walk straight and jump before you fall.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I am far from anonymous. Many here know my true identity and a 30 second google search will return my blog, twitter account (top result with my name), and facebook page likely. My twitter account states my real name: John Yonchuk. Once you have that you can certainly spend about another minute to find out that my undergraduate degree is from PSU (no surprise there) in Biology (1999) and my Masters degree is from Thomas Jefferson (2008) in Clinical Pharmacology. I now work in the field of early clinical discovery in respiratory biology (again verifiable via my LinkedIn page once you have my name). Those are all verifiable facts from a simple google search.

Contrast that with YOUR handle, which when googled returns top results of a bunch of message board posts (of which this thread is #2) all under the same handle. One claims a marine science degree, but without a name its pretty hard to verify.

.

I'm not really sure why you want to make this personal. Your name doesn't ring a bell with me, as I'm sure mine wouldn't with you. Frankly, it's quite creepy that you spent time googling me. Your credentials don't make you any more qualified to discuss this than mine do as we both have advanced degree in unrelated fields.

You are incorrect about a lot of your analyses of these studies, but obviously we are not communicating well via message board format (you are getting my point, and I'm not getting yours), so for the time being, let's agree to disagree. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Where did you receive your PhD? at PSU or UNC?



Since, apparently, as a PhD, you have limited or no access to research libraries, I have copied a few of Pennsylvania's numbers here for you:
r correctly]


Retrospective studies show rates of childhood sexual abuse ranging from 7-36% in females and 3-29% in males.

I got my PhD from UNC which is rated as the 5th best public university in the country (PSU is also great at #14).

I have access to a great research library which specializes in my field. I am not on a university campus, nor am I in academia, and my e-journal subscription are again, limited to my field (natural sciences).

Quoting statistics without showing the whole paper (especially the methods) is misleading. This is the game you have been playing all along.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Won't matter, they'd bring more victims and Jerry is in the same spot. Nothing is changing and if you were objective which you are not you would see this.

If they have so many more credible victims waiting the wings, why did they go with the 8 victims they did? Were those the strongest the had? If so, then I have to imagine "bringing in more victims" would not be the slam dunk you think it is.

 

[PSU2UNC]

that's cool

i'm sorry you feel compelled to stick up for a pedophile

if it was your kid, maybe you wouldn't care he got an extra 10 years or so.

eff him....eff him in the ear....eff him in the other ear.............that's what I think about Jerry and his injustice.

This is what makes me sad.

People like PSUPALY that get so incensed by this issue that they can't even think straight. Sure "eff" due process, lock up all suspected pedophiles without a trial. SMH.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

This is what makes me sad.

People like PSUPALY that get so incensed by this issue that they can't even think straight. Sure "eff" due process, lock up all suspected pedophiles without a trial. SMH.

Except Jerry had a trial. I don't recall PALY ever once stating lock everyone up without a trial. In fact he did not say that at all. He was talking about Jerry Sandusky who had a trial and was convicted on 45 counts. I would think you making things up about PALY kind of invalidates your entire post, does it not?

 

[Roxine]

I got my PhD from UNC which is rated as the 5th best public university in the country (PSU is also great at #14).

I have access to a great research library which specializes in my field. I am not on a university campus, nor am I in academia, and my e-journal subscription are again, limited to my field (natural sciences).

Quoting statistics without showing the whole paper (especially the methods) is misleading. This is the game you have been playing all along.

This is a publicly available report - AND I provided a link to the full document . https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cwo10_13.pdf#page=390

I simply pulled out the Pennsylvania numbers as a favor to you.

I encourage you (again) to read the entire paper. It might enlighten your self-acknowledged ignorance on the matter of child sexual abuse.

 

[LundyPSU]

Your assignment for this evening is to read all 254 pages and distill it into the Cliff Notes version for people like myself - lazy good for nothings who just can't read another filing.

Still waiting for my beer. But there is some interesting info in this filing about Chambers. I could be wrong, but I had previously believed that her only involvement in 1998 was in the original report to Childline and the letter sent to PSU police. Based on this filing, it seems that she was interviewed by the police. Need to review again to see if DPW was involved there too.

 

[mn78psu83]

Still waiting for my beer. But there is some interesting info in this filing about Chambers. I could be wrong, but I had previously believed that her only involvement in 1998 was in the original report to Childline and the letter sent to PSU police. Based on this filing, it seems that she was interviewed by the police. Need to review again to see if DPW was involved there too.

Need to review again to see if DPW was involved there too.

That would be of great interest, especially in light of Jerry Lauro's assertion that he never saw the report (okay, maybe, yeah right) and his great surprise (hard to believe if he had been present at any interview in 1998) at the conclusions drawn in her report. Is it possible that the police interview referenced took place in 2011? She was contacted in 2011.

 

[LundyPSU]

Need to review again to see if DPW was involved there too.

That would be of great interest, especially in light of Jerry Lauro's assertion that he never saw the report (okay) and his great surprise (hard to believe if he had been present at any interview in 1998) at the conclusions drawn in her report. Is it possible that the police interview referenced took place in 2011? She was contacted in 2011.

Didn't see anything about Lauro speaking to Chambers, however one would assume it happened since it was her report. Lauro did speak to V6's mother, who was advised by Chambers initially to call the police. This filing notes that Chambers interviewed V6 the same day police did and then she also spoke with police following that interview. Seems these both occurred after her original report to Childline.

 

[mn78psu83]

Didn't see anything about Lauro speaking to Chambers, however one would assume it happened since it was her report. Lauro did speak to V6's mother, who was advised by Chambers initially to call the police. This filing notes that Chambers interviewed V6 the same day police did and then she also spoke with police following that interview. Seems these both occurred after her original report to Childline.

I owe you a beer.

 

[PSUPALY]

This is what makes me sad.

People like PSUPALY that get so incensed by this issue that they can't even think straight. Sure "eff" due process, lock up all suspected pedophiles without a trial. SMH.

i think incensed is a strong word...lol.

dude, if Jerry can get himself a new trial....so be it....it's his right to do so. though....If he doesn't, i simply don't give an f*ck.....why?....because I'm 99.99% sure he's a pedophile.

and if said miracle occurs, and Jerry gets a new trial....then what?....he gets convicted on maybe 12 counts?...instead of 40+? .......well great for Jerry....still makes him pedophile, doesn't it?

so let's compare Jerry to Joe for a moment. I'm quite confident that Paterno is innocent of the egregious allegations against him (though, i'm in the camp of he should've done more....which to me, doesn't make him a bad person...just made a mistake)......Am I biased?....of course!....I want Paterno to be innocent and publicly accepted as such.

But then there's Jerry.........do I want Jerry, our famous ex-defensive coordinator to be innocent of the worst imaginable crimes?....YEAH....I really really wish that Jerry was NOT a pedophile and is completely innocent of these horrendous crimes.......but unlike Paterno, I'm quite confident the Jerry is guilty of being a sick pervert......so, that's enough for me to not give a flying frog's fat ass if Jerry gets new (fair) trial.

Jerry's a goddamn embarrassment.....he's the one that made all this sh*t happen.....not Paterno, not McQueary, not Curley, not Shultz, not Spanier.....it was effin Jerry!......and you nerds are crying foul that he didn't get a fair trial?.....dare I say...."that makes me sad"

 

[WeR0206]

Didn't see anything about Lauro speaking to Chambers, however one would assume it happened since it was her report. Lauro did speak to V6's mother, who was advised by Chambers initially to call the police. This filing notes that Chambers interviewed V6 the same day police did and then she also spoke with police following that interview. Seems these both occurred after her original report to Childline.

I find Lauro's claim that he never saw Chamber's report quite incredible. She sent her report to Schreffler "if only as corroboration" on 5/7 or 5/8. The only way Lauro wouldn't have seen it is if he never once spoke to Schreffler about the case or never once looked at Schreffler's case file (which included Chambers' report) when Lauro took over for Miller.

Plus, she called her report into DPW's own ChildLine right after meeting with V6 for the first time. So to me there is no way in hell Lauro didn't know about it.

In addition to that, the ADA Arnold and Schreffler asked DPW/CYS to not bring in a SECOND psych. to interview V6. Wasn't DPW/CYS curious to read the FIRST psych's opinion or did they just not even read it before they brought in their fixer --unlicensed Seasock???

It would be great to get Schreffler under oath and ask him exactly what Miller/Lauro knew about Chambers' report. Then compare his answers to what Lauro/Miller have to say about it.

 

[mn78psu83]

I find Lauro's claim that he never saw Chamber's report quite incredible. She sent her report to Schreffler "if only as corroboration" on 5/7 or 5/8. The only way Lauro wouldn't have seen it is if he never once spoke to Schreffler about the case or never once looked at Schreffler's case file (which included Chambers' report) when Lauro took over for Miller.

Plus, she called her report into DPW's own ChildLine right after meeting with V6 for the first time. So to me there is no way in hell Lauro didn't know about it.

In addition to that, the ADA Arnold and Schreffler asked DPW/CYS to not bring in a SECOND psych. to interview V6. Wasn't DPW/CYS curious to read the FIRST psych's opinion or did they just not even read it before they brought in their fixer --unlicensed Seasock???

It would be great to get Schreffler under oath and ask him exactly what Miller/Lauro knew about Chambers' report. Then compare his answers to what Lauro/Miller have to say about it.

I find Lauro's claim that he never saw Chamber's report quite incredible.

It stretches my credulity beyond the normal limit.

 

[BobPSU92]

that's cool

i'm sorry you feel compelled to stick up for a pedophile

if it was your kid, maybe you wouldn't care he got an extra 10 years or so.

eff him....eff him in the ear....eff him in the other ear.............that's what I think about Jerry and his injustice.

The lajolla lion school of illogical thought. Congratulations. You, too, go on the ignore list.

(And now you can incorrectly assume that I believe jerry to be innocent.)

 

[WeR0206]

I find Lauro's claim that he never saw Chamber's report quite incredible.

It stretches my credulity beyond the normal limit.

Lauro, Miller, Raykovitz, Genovese, et. al. are the people the media should have been hounding and crucifying but instead they wanted to have the juicy story of going after a famous football coach (who ironically actually did more to stop JS than any of the above), what a disgrace and wasted opportunity to fix PA's broken child welfare system.

For some bizarre reason folks like @Roxine don't seem to care at all about DPW/CYS/TSM/OAG's MASSIVE failures re: oversight of JS and his charity and want to preach to us on a message board as if we are somehow the people who need educated.

 

[no1lion99]

I'm not really sure why you want to make this personal. Your name doesn't ring a bell with me, as I'm sure mine wouldn't with you. Frankly, it's quite creepy that you spent time googling me. Your credentials don't make you any more qualified to discuss this than mine do as we both have advanced degree in unrelated fields.

Personal? You insinuated that I had an easier time throwing stones as anonymous:

It's easy to throw stones when you too are anonymous.

So I told you who I am, and gave you specific ways to verify that. Nowhere did I say it made more or less qualified than you, however at least now you have a verifiable way to confirm that I do indeed have the credentials and experience to evaluate scientific and statistical reports/studies. However I lack any verifiable way to be assured that you are anything other than a random internet handle. You may be Albert Einstein, or you may be a 12 year old in your parents basement. We just have nothing other than your word.

You are incorrect about a lot of your analyses of these studies, but obviously we are not communicating well via message board format (you are getting my point, and I'm not getting yours), so for the time being, let's agree to disagree. Enjoy your weekend

Then please point out some specifics. I am all ears. So far all you have really said is "25% is not possible" based on faulty logic an/or a misunderstanding of the statistic (I just very clearly explained it to you, yet you ignored it). It has nothing to do with the format and everything to do with a basic understanding of simple math, rudimentary statistics, and fairly rudimentary scientific analysis. So I am left with two options; you have no clue what you are talking about or you choose to believe for some unknown reason. I have no real idea what your overall stance is, but its pretty clear at this point that discussing the statistics behind child abuse is fruitless endeavor.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

The lajolla lion school of illogical thought. Congratulations. You, too, go on the ignore list.

(And now you can incorrectly assume that I believe jerry to be innocent.)

Another human who doesn't like what he hears and sticks his finger in his ears. Lalalala. The truth hurts, best to ignore it or just deny it. Good for you Bob. You should get some Justice for Jerry shirts to wear so everyone understands what a humanitarian you are.

 

[pandaczar12]

Oh it's cute how you try and lecture me when you don't hear or read what you want. Hugs and kisses and don't hit your nuts on that fence, walk straight and jump before you fall.

See, you did it again!

What I want to read or hear is a reply that is on topic, and is not just a chance for an emotional rant.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

See, you did it again!

What I want to read or hear is a reply that is on topic, and is not just a chance for an emotional rant.

You keep posting about me, not an actual topic. See you just did it again. Hypocrisy, isn't it great?

 

[pandaczar12]

This is a publicly available report - AND I provided a link to the full document . https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cwo10_13.pdf#page=390

I simply pulled out the Pennsylvania numbers as a favor to you.

I encourage you (again) to read the entire paper. It might enlighten your self-acknowledged ignorance on the matter of child sexual abuse.

How many kids could you have helped today if you weren't trolling this message board? We don't need your stats, we don't need your lectures. We need you to help children by exposing the DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile.

You keep dodging my questions. It's almost as if you don't want to stop abuse. Why would a victim's advocate not be interested in stopping abuse? There really is only logical conclusion... I guess if there were no victims, they wouldn't need an advocate?

 

[pandaczar12]

You keep posting about me, not an actual topic. See you just did it again.

You are not actual topic? You said it, not me.

 

[no1lion99]

Still waiting for my beer. But there is some interesting info in this filing about Chambers. I could be wrong, but I had previously believed that her only involvement in 1998 was in the original report to Childline and the letter sent to PSU police. Based on this filing, it seems that she was interviewed by the police. Need to review again to see if DPW was involved there too.

Comparison of Documented timelines:

Freeh Report at P42:

04-MAY-1998:
7:43am - V6 mother calls Chambers - Chambers recommends report to authorities
11:00am - V6 mother calls Univ Pol and reports to Schreffler
11:30am: Schreffler interviews V6
"Later that day" - Chambers meets with V6
"That afternoon" - Schreffler contacted John Miller (CYS)
8:00pm - Police interview V6 friend

05-MAY-1998
DPW takes over case

07-MAY-1998
Chambers provides written copy of report to Schreffler


The Sandusky PCRA implies that in between the 11:30am interview and and the 3:00pm interview by Chambers that the police and Chambers spoke. However there is no record of this in Freeh. There is also no record in Freeh of another 9:10pm interview (page 7).

I am unaware of any other contacts by Chambers in the investigation.

 

[simons96]

Lauro, Miller, Raykovitz, Genovese, et. al. are the people the media should have been hounding and crucifying but instead they wanted to have the juicy story of going after a famous football coach (who ironically actually did more to stop JS than any of the above), what a disgrace and wasted opportunity to fix PA's broken child welfare system.

For some bizarre reason folks like @Roxine don't seem to care at all about DPW/CYS/TSM/OAG's MASSIVE failures re: oversight of JS and his charity and want to preach to us on a message board as if we are somehow the people who need educated.

neither does Jennifer Storm. wonder why that is . . .

in fact, I will take it a step further and ask anyone to name ONE PERSON who spent any amount of time hammering Paterno, Curley, et al for their "failures" to protect children, who has also been a critical voice of the state agencies who endemically fail to protect thousands of kids every single day

I'll wait.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

How many kids could you have helped today if you weren't trolling this message board? We don't need your stats, we don't need your lectures. We need you to help children by exposing the DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile.

You keep dodging my questions. It's almost as if you don't want to stop abuse. Why would a victim's advocate not be interested in stopping abuse? There really is only logical conclusion... I guess if there were no victims, they wouldn't need an advocate?

Well done right there. Big thumbs up. You showed her. Heading out for the weekend, but thanks for that post. Huge smile on my face knowing that you actually typed that.

 

[PSU2UNC]

This is a publicly available report - AND I provided a link to the full document . https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cwo10_13.pdf#page=390

.

I will be perfectly honest with you that I do not have the time to read all 400 pages of this document.

However, in reading the key findings, two things jump out at me:

1) This study is based on reports of child abuse/neglect; not convictions. Therefore, the number of actual cases is unknown. Perhaps the number of acquittals is offset by the number of unreported cases, but this is a major source of uncertainty in these data.
2) More importantly, these are studies on child maltreatment (i.e. child abuse and neglect) NOT just CSA, which is what we are talking about here. The annual rate reported was 0.9% for all maltreatment (9 in 1,000). Without knowing what percentage of this was CSA vs other types of maltreatment, it is impossible to adequately evaluate this statistic.

 

[simons96]

on a side note, pretty amazing the number of people posting to this specific thread who I have on ignore.

astonishing, really. I bet not one of them has petitioned their state rep to overhaul CYS/DPW

and yonchuck spends all day sucking up to Brian Cuban as they both giggle and tell lies about Ziegler like Mean Girls

 

[PSU2UNC]

Then please point out some specifics. I am all ears. So far all you have really said is "25% is not possible" based on faulty logic an/or a misunderstanding of the statistic (I just very clearly explained it to you, yet you ignored it). It has nothing to do with the format and everything to do with a basic understanding of simple math, rudimentary statistics, and fairly rudimentary scientific analysis. So I am left with two options; you have no clue what you are talking about or you choose to believe for some unknown reason. I have no real idea what your overall stance is, but its pretty clear at this point that discussing the statistics behind child abuse is fruitless endeavor.

I did not say that 25% is impossible. I said that 75% is impossible. See what I mean about you not understanding? I guarantee understand statistics at least as well as you do, and this doesn't have anything to do with statistics.

Oh, and congratulations. You are the first poster that I ever put on ignore. Nice work.