LTE from former PSU Trustee...

[GTACSA]

Stop with the absurd spin. How much money did Penn State pay to the family of Melanie Spalla after she was murdered by the HUB lawn sniper? Or to Nicholas Mensah, who was shot in the abdomen? Or Valerie Christen, who was killed by a falling elm tree branch right next to the Willard Building? Or Aaron Stidd, who was maimed on Atherton Street by a drunk driving fellow Penn Stater, or the family of Richard Smith, who was killed in the same act?

You are equating those examples with Sandusky? Really?

 

[WeR0206]

You think that is helpful to your position? Wow!

Your contention that Schultz testified MM told him JS may have grabbed a kids privates is flat out false. The testimony I pasted shows it's what Schultz had in his mind about what may have been happening and NOT what MM actually reported to him--all that was reported to him was a late night shower that made him uncomfortable but he could only see them from behind and through a mirror, which apparently for him wasn't concerning enough for MM to call UPPD that night or ask Schultz to have them send someone to get his written statement.

Please provid the testimony to back up your claim or STFU and stop trying to make up your own facts to suit your convoluted weak ass arguments.

 

[getmyjive11]

Your contention that Schultz testified MM told him JS may have grabbed a kids privates is flat out false. The testimony I pasted shows it's what Schultz had in his mind about what may have been happening and NOT what MM actually reported to him--all that was reported to him was a late night shower that made him uncomfortable but he could only see them from behind and through a mirror, which apparently for him wasn't concerning enough for MM to call UPPD that night or ask Schultz to have them send someone to get his written statement.

Please provid the testimony to back up your claim or STFU and stop trying to make up your own facts to suit your convoluted weak ass arguments.

Why would Schultz suspect possible misconduct and not want police involved to investigate?

 

[wensilver]

I am going to try to shorthand this, simply because I suspect there is something I have wrong here. PMA, which has been for decades PSU's insurer, ALSO had a direct hand in selecting the B&I trustees who ran the University for decades. And these were the same decades, am I right about that?

Specifically, did we not find out a few weeks ago in the PMA vs. PSU case that from 92-99 there was an exclusion in place which meant that PSU was not covered for on campus child sex abuse during those years? Did the PMA-selected trustees during those years know about Sandusky? Did they exclude the coverage in order to limit PMA's exposure? Is it mere coincidence that the exclusion ended with the retirement of Jerry Sandusky?

Setting aside all other considerations, I cannot imagine why, during the 90s, a time when the President of the United States was accused of various forms of sexual harassment and abuse, a giant org like PSU willfully excludes from its liability coverage any claims for sex-related anything. I have never known of such an exclusion. Jerry Sandusky or no, you have no coverage if a grad assistant successfully hits on a 17 yo student? If a branch campus teacher hits on a 15 yo summer student? No coverage? That alone seems to be a negligent failure by the trustees to protect the assets of the University.

But if the PMA-selected trustees did not know about Jerry, then why did the exclusion end when he retired?
IF the PMA-selected trustees warned PMA about the risk of Jerry, and played along while PMA cut out the coverage, then they sold the University down the river, selecting the interests of their PMA backers over the interests of the University. I have always felt there were lots of people on the BoT who knew more about this than Joe did.

Kudos to Horst for fighting his lonely fight years ago. It did not work. Seems impossible to assume it could.
I could make lots of money in the insurance business if I had advance knowledge of where to find the risks and exclude them.

Why does PSU have the same risk insurer for all this time? How many times has this insurance business been sent out for bid since PMA became the insurer. Were there other times when oddball insurance exclusions popped up and PSU paid the claims itself? Another question: what was the premium paid to reinstate the coverage after Jerry retired?

Disclaimer--what I have written here is incendiary, I know. As I indicated, I may have the facts wrong. Happy to have that pointed out if it is true.

GTACSA aka getmyjive11 has derailed this thread with their obsession over 2001.

Back to the issue at hand ^^.

 

[WeR0206]

Why would Schultz suspect possible misconduct and not want police involved to investigate?

The police can't investigate anything without a written statement/report from the one and ony witness. Also Schultz did whatever Courtney advised him to do, perhaps Courtney knew/looked up that for there to be a crime there'd have to be proof that JS grabbed a kids genitals with sexual intent not something that happened accidentally while wrestling/horsing around. Also you have to consider that JS groomed the entire community, including the trained professionals at TSM/CYS, that he would be the last person who would ever hurt a kid. Maybe this grooming was enough to make MM not be sure enough to file a written statement to UPPD.

Thus Courtney advised the best course of action, without a police report filed with UPPD and considering The folks at TSM were mandatory reporters and child care experts that employed JS, that TSM was the best place to inform and let them handle it and also to let them know they didn't want TSM kids in their damned showers anymore.

 

[Zenophile]

GTACSA aka getmyjive11 has derailed this thread with their obsession over 2001.

Back to the issue at hand ^^.

+1

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

An "eyewitness" who didn't see anything according to his sworn testimony.

Well, he DID see Rudy.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

That is is the quintessential example of equivocal testimony. Here are the facts as we know them. There was an investigation in 1998 of alleged inappropriate sexual behavior which Schultz was aware of in 2001. We have a report to Schultz that "Jerry might have grabbed the young boys genitals or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had." Schultz agreed that it would give him "pause or concern if an adult male and an underage male were in a shower and that the adult male grabbed the genitals of the younger male."

In the classic mode of Sandusky's response to the question of "are you sexually attracted to young boys" Schultz never testifies that he notified CYS. All he has is a "recollection" that "we asked the child protective agency to look into the matter" but he doesn't recall who asked the investigation to be done but "it might have been him" but "he doesn't recall." He doesn't remember to whom the request was made, an individual, the name of the agency or where it was located.

So yes I think what I posted was a fair characterization.

Well, given that the question involved the incident in "2002" perhaps his "recollection" was a bit fuzzy. After all, the correct year was 2001.

 

[getmyjive11]

The police can't investigate anything without a written statement/report from the one and ony witness. Also Schultz did whatever Courtney advised him to do, perhaps Courtney knew/looked up that for there to be a crime there'd have to be proof that JS grabbed a kids genitals with sexual intent not something that happened accidentally while wrestling/horsing around. Also you have to consider that JS groomed the entire community, including the trained professionals at TSM/CYS, that he would be the last person who would ever hurt a kid. Maybe this grooming was enough to make MM not be sure enough to file a written statement to UPPD.

Thus Courtney advised the best course of action, without a police report filed with UPPD and considering The folks at TSM were mandatory reporters and child care experts that employed JS, that TSM was the best place to inform and let them handle it and also to let them know they didn't want TSM kids in their damned showers anymore.

That's a terrible theory. You report the incident to police and let them worry about if it is a crime or if it isn't. You tell them that MM is the witness and let them obtain a statement from him. Why do you think that PSU has to do the legwork in the investigation? That doesn't make any sense. There is zero risk for reporting this to police... let them figure it out.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

You and Jive keep harping on about how C/S/S should have reported to the police. I think it is important to note that according to current PSU policy as documented in the mandatory annual child abuse training, calling the police would not be indicated in this circumstance.

Here are the steps of the current process:

1. Call 911 IF A CHILD IS IN IMMINENT DANGER. Obviously this would not apply to C/S/S in 2001 for several reasons:
a) there was no identified victim
b) MM was unsure what he witnessed
c) it was days after the incident
If MM thought the child was being assaulted he should have called 911 that night but not C/S/S after the fact.

2. Call Childline. Ideally MM would make this call since he was the witness. As we know based on the well-documented dysfunction in CYS there is no guarantee that this would change the outcome (see 1998 Lauro, Seasock et al.)

3. Follow-up with an online report to CYS. ( I am not sure if any documentation of these reports is maintained if the case is deemed "unfounded" (see #2)

4. File an internal report online at PSU.

so please stop this nonsense that they should have called the police. Unless there is a child in imminent danger these cases are supposed to be investigated by experts in child abuse. If a case is indicated the evidence would be turned over to law enforcement at that point. Here is where Raykovitz holds the biggest liability. the only way that the child in question could be identified at that time was through TSM. Raykovitz should have identified the child in question and then reported.

Crap, do you mean that after we paid millions and millions of dollars to Freeh, Mitchell, NCAA, Victims, et al that we still don't get it right per the "experts"?

 

[pandaczar12]

"I think you mean "ex-member" of the family."

You don't understand the concept of family.

Equating an organization to family is flawed, which makes me believe you don't understand the concept of family. I did my best to make it work by introducing the term "ex-family".

One of my former employees returned to visit the other day, he retired after 48 years of service to the company. A welcome face who was beloved by all for experience, knowledge, and witty personality. We owe much of our success to him, even a few years after his retirement he still routinely gets phone calls for advice. He had to fill out paperwork, show 2 forms of ID, and be escorted his entire time in the building. Simply put, organizations are not family, once you leave, you are no longer a part, regardless of what happened before.

 

[pandaczar12]

That's a terrible theory. You report the incident to police and let them worry about if it is a crime or if it isn't. You tell them that MM is the witness and let them obtain a statement from him. Why do you think that PSU has to do the legwork in the investigation? That doesn't make any sense. There is zero risk for reporting this to police... let them figure it out.

But.... there was nothing to report to the police, and if there was MM should have done it. We've been over this already.

 

[GTACSA]

Equating an organization to family is flawed, which makes me believe you don't understand the concept of family. I did my best to make it work by introducing the term "ex-family".

One of my former employees returned to visit the other day, he retired after 48 years of service to the company. A welcome face who was beloved by all for experience, knowledge, and witty personality. We owe much of our success to him, even a few years after his retirement he still routinely gets phone calls for advice. He had to fill out paperwork, show 2 forms of ID, and be escorted his entire time in the building. Simply put, organizations are not family, once you leave, you are no longer a part, regardless of what happened before.

Did you ever meet an ex-Marine?

 

[marshall23]

Did you ever meet an ex-Marine?

Are you saying ex marines have unfettered access to all installations and bases manned by active duty marine corps personal? We have had a few domestic terrorists who are veterans, have we not? Showing someone respect for their prior service is appropriate. However, restrictions apply everywhere. I retired after 37 years in one school district and the stadium was named for me. I can't visit any school in the district without ID and being cleared at the door. This is the world we live in.

 

[Misder2]

Are you saying ex marines have unfettered access to all installations and bases manned by active duty marine corps personal? We have had a few domestic terrorists who are veterans, have we not? Showing someone respect for their prior service is appropriate. However, restrictions apply everywhere. I retired after 37 years in one school district and the stadium was named for me. I can't visit any school in the district without ID and being cleared at the door. This is the world we live in.

I think he's saying there's no such thing

 

[elvis63]

You can say retired Marine. Maybe formerly a Marine, but they're never ex Marines.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Are you saying ex marines have unfettered access to all installations and bases manned by active duty marine corps personal? We have had a few domestic terrorists who are veterans, have we not? Showing someone respect for their prior service is appropriate. However, restrictions apply everywhere. I retired after 37 years in one school district and the stadium was named for me. I can't visit any school in the district without ID and being cleared at the door. This is the world we live in.

Congrats on such a huge accomplishment! To have been such a positive influence that your school district named a stadium after you speaks volumes. I know you were making a point for the obtuse among us with your post but your accomplishment shouldn't be overlooked. Congrats, again!

 

[marshall23]

Congrats on such a huge accomplishment! To have been such a positive influence that your school district named a stadium after you speaks volumes. I know you were making a point for the obtuse among us with your post but your accomplishment shouldn't be overlooked. Congrats, again!

Thanks! I was fortunate when I retired. We were building the stadium at the time. The Supt. of Schools, one asst. Supt. and 4 board members were former player of mine. The ceremony came 14 days after I lost my wife to cancer. That put things in perspective. I'm not sure I was deserving. I know she deserved better.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

That's a separate question and has nothing to do with PSU's liability. There were many people who failed in this.

So, in other words, what you're telling us, baboon, is that you're not the least bit interested in children that are molested, beaten, raped, and killed by people who have no connection to Penn State football. You just want to know how much can be blamed on Joe Paterno. You really are a sick sack of ****.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Penn State did not concede liability in those cases; they only settled. Lawsuits are settled all the time and settlement is not synonymous with liability.

Once Penn State notifies the police of the McQueary report, bans Sandusky from bringing children on campus, perhaps implements some type of standing BOLO in the University Police, and follows any other responses which their attorneys might advise, leadership would have taken all reasonable steps to make sure the 2001 incident never happened again on Penn State property which would have protected the University from future liability. Note that one of those steps was implemented, unfortunately it had minimal stand alone impact.

All those non-Penn Staters whose opinions you cherish so dearly are saying that Penn State did concede liability in those allegations from the 70s. So which is it? Are they wrong this time, or are you?

 

[GTACSA]

All those non-Penn Staters whose opinions you cherish so dearly are saying that Penn State did concede liability in those allegations from the 70s. So which is it? Are they wrong this time, or are you?

Please explain how you reached the "cherish" description? I think I know how your mind got there, but I'll reserve judgment if you'd care to clarify.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

"When questioned about it, the witness claimed to being alright with the way it was handled."

Some like to make this a major point without realizing that there is another side of the coin. If you believe that McQueary's sworn testimony is nothing but lies, then there isn't another side of the coin. But if you believe that he told the truth about what he saw, the explanation for his response is pretty basic.

I work for my dream employer at an entry level position with prospects of moving on up to a big time position. I witness what McQueary testified he saw and I report it to my head of the department and subsequently to the big time players. No one from CYS or the police contact me and my superior asks me if I'm alright with the way it's being handled. (No police or CYS involvement)
I've got two choices; say yes and as a "team player" keep my prospects in tact or say no, press for CYS/police involvement and place my immediate career as well as long term prospects in jeopardy.

My point for your consideration is that his reaction to that question can't be a reason you form your opinion as to the veracity of his testimony. That determination has to be based on other reasons.

So now your latest argument is that it's Penn State football's fault for offering dream positions to entry level employees. So if they had only paid subminimum wage, scheduled MM for crappy hours, treated him like crap, and embarrassed him in front of customers and other employees, he'd have been more likely to accurately report what he witnessed to police immediately.

Do you lie awake at night to think up stupid comments you plan on posting here the next day?

 

[pandaczar12]

Did you ever meet an ex-Marine?

Irrelevant point.

Since others have already taken you to task, I will take it easy on you.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Please explain how you reached the "cherish" description? I think I know how your mind got there, but I'll reserve judgment if you'd care to clarify.

All hail the King!

 

[L.A.Lion]

You are equating those examples with Sandusky? Really?

No, genius, I'm comparing PSU's nonexistent largesse for various tragedies to illustrate the absurdity of your claim that shelling out PSU's money in the face of tragedies for which PSU is not responsible is the right thing to do.

Child sex abuse is repugnant and inflicts lifelong scars and suffering on the victims. But your posturing and air of moral superiority in intimating that being murdered on campus or maimed for life by a fellow student like Aaron Stidd was is somehow beneath the conversation is equally disgusting. You're a real piece of work.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Perhaps everyone else ought to step out, turn off the lights, and leave GTASCA and GetMyJive alone for some "quality time"

Assuming they are not actually the same person, it seems they may be desirous of a little alone time with some hand lotion and a box of tissues

Can Bruce Heim reserve a room for them at the Hilton Garden Inn?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The police can't investigate anything without a written statement/report from the one and ony witness. Also Schultz did whatever Courtney advised him to do, perhaps Courtney knew/looked up that for there to be a crime there'd have to be proof that JS grabbed a kids genitals with sexual intent not something that happened accidentally while wrestling/horsing around. Also you have to consider that JS groomed the entire community, including the trained professionals at TSM/CYS, that he would be the last person who would ever hurt a kid. Maybe this grooming was enough to make MM not be sure enough to file a written statement to UPPD.

Thus Courtney advised the best course of action, without a police report filed with UPPD and considering The folks at TSM were mandatory reporters and child care experts that employed JS, that TSM was the best place to inform and let them handle it and also to let them know they didn't want TSM kids in their damned showers anymore.

Actually, in this case the police can't investigate anything because Harmon WAS the "Mandatory Reporter" at PSU and would have had to make a report to DPW under Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law and let DPW make a determination (as they did in 1998) as the State-Mandated Judicial Authority on the topic given that all of the evidence provided was "circumstantial" (just like 1998) and the witness stated that he did not witness any kind of sexual act - he only thought that may have been what was going on. Both Schultz and Courtney say the authorities were told - given that Harmon is the "Mandatory Reporter" at PSU (including within their Clery Act Policies), this would suggest Harmon was told (as does Schultz requesting and receiving the 1998 File from Harmon!). In this case, PSU also reported the incident to Care Custody Charity who were "Mandatory Reporters" and PSU knew to be Mandatory Reporters. No matter how you add it up, PSU was reasonable in assuming that the authorities were told of 2001 as the reported it to multiple "Mandatory Reporters" under PA Child Protective Services Law, the governing statute for both the 1998 and 2001 incidents.

 

[WeR0206]

That's a terrible theory. You report the incident to police and let them worry about if it is a crime or if it isn't. You tell them that MM is the witness and let them obtain a statement from him. Why do you think that PSU has to do the legwork in the investigation? That doesn't make any sense. There is zero risk for reporting this to police... let them figure it out.

Nothing you wrote changes the following...If MM didn't wan't to make a police report then UPPD can't force him to make one. He only had 9 freaking YEARS to make one....not once did he ask Schultz to send someone to get his statement or express dissatisfaction with the fact that no one from UPPD came to get a statement from him when TC/Joe respectively followed up with him. Those failures are squarely on him since he was the one and only witness.

If for some bizarre reason MM felt making an official written statement to UPPD could hurt his future employment with PSU FB, he also had the option of making an anonymous call to ChildLine (an option which Dr D. and JM surely would have been aware of as medical professionals) and yet MM never even did that....hmmm....could it be that he wasn't really sure what they were doing and didn't want to make a false accusation to UPPD/CYS and instead was ok with the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM dealing with it from their end and PSU revoking JS' guest privileges? I think the answer to that question is quite clear.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Please explain how you reached the "cherish" description? I think I know how your mind got there, but I'll reserve judgment if you'd care to clarify.

Because you are the one so obsessed with what non-Penn Staters think of us. Especially given the fact that they don't have all of the facts of the case when passing their judgment. You keep insisting there's no way that anyone could have made a report to the police- and your "proof" is
1. that neither Curley or Schultz has stated so publicly
2. that's what every non-Penn Stater following the case believes.

And you're supposedly a lawyer? Do you tell your clients to run their mouths off in front of every microphone and camera they see while awaiting trial? Do you have the slightest inkling where that could possibly pose a problem for your client if they say the wrong thing, or they use a different preposition when talking to two different outlets? No, our brilliant counselor here thinks the only reason Curley and Schultz haven't said anything in public to date is because they have nothing to say. I think the next lawsuit should be against the institution that gave you a law degree, if you actually have one.

 

[GTACSA]

Because you are the one so obsessed with what non-Penn Staters think of us. Especially given the fact that they don't have all of the facts of the case when passing their judgment. You keep insisting there's no way that anyone could have made a report to the police- and your "proof" is
1. that neither Curley or Schultz has stated so publicly
2. that's what every non-Penn Stater following the case believes.

And you're supposedly a lawyer? Do you tell your clients to run their mouths off in front of every microphone and camera they see while awaiting trial? Do you have the slightest inkling where that could possibly pose a problem for your client if they say the wrong thing, or they use a different preposition when talking to two different outlets? No, our brilliant counselor here thinks the only reason Curley and Schultz haven't said anything in public to date is because they have nothing to say. I think the next lawsuit should be against the institution that gave you a law degree, if you actually have one.

I only referenced what non-Penn Staters think in order to illustrate that what most posters on this board are obsessed about will have no impact on how Penn State is viewed.

I just noticed your subsequent post. You have a very undisciplined mind.

 

[GTACSA]

Irrelevant point.

Since others have already taken you to task, I will take it easy on you.

Again it went went over your head; you missed not only my point but 2 other posts.

 

[Aoshiro]

I only referenced what non-Penn Staters think in order to illustrate that what most posters on this board are obsessed about will have no impact on how Penn State is viewed.

When the liars are exposed and some of them are Fortune 500 CEOs, the world will sit up and take notice just as the world took notice when the Hillsborough liars were exposed.
But you don't want that to happen, do you?

 

[GTACSA]

When the liars are exposed and some of them are Fortune 500 CEOs, the world will sit up and take notice just as the world took notice when the Hillsborough liars were exposed.
But you don't want that to happen, do you?

I want Penn State's name cleared as much as you or anybody; with the exception of Nellie who has no such interest and merely wants to use us as a punching bag for her agenda.

We just disagree an whether the facts which you think will be exposed will accomplish that.

 

[Aoshiro]

I want Penn State's name cleared as much as you or anybody; with the exception of Nellie who has no such interest and merely wants to use us as a punching bag for her agenda.

We just disagree an whether the facts which you think will be exposed will accomplish that.

I don't know how Penn State as an institution will be regarded when everything is exposed.
But Penn Staters will be vindicated for standing up for the truth and rejecting Louis Freeh's lies.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

When the liars are exposed and some of them are Fortune 500 CEOs, the world will sit up and take notice just as the world took notice when the Hillsborough liars were exposed.
But you don't want that to happen, do you?

Or the Enron liars or the Tyco liars or the Adelphia liars, etc.... People who think Dennis Kozlowski is not a lying scumbag crook, no different than other crooks, simply because he wears a suit are as bad as Kozlowski himself. There are tons of scumbag, lying, shameless, dirtball crook Fortune 500 CEOs that should be behind bars - just because they wear a suit while shamelessly lying, cheating and stealing while hiding behind the "Corporate Veil" and a raft of scumbag lawyers doesn't make them "decent" or even remotely moral / ethical people.....some of them are every bit as "indecent" and immoral as the criminals residing in the jails where they belong.

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

Actually, in this case the police can't investigate anything because Harmon WAS the "Mandatory Reporter" at PSU and would have had to make a report to DPW under Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law and let DPW make a determination (as they did in 1998) as the State-Mandated Judicial Authority on the topic given that all of the evidence provided was "circumstantial" (just like 1998) and the witness stated that he did not witness any kind of sexual act - he only thought that may have been what was going on. Both Schultz and Courtney say the authorities were told - given that Harmon is the "Mandatory Reporter" at PSU (including within their Clery Act Policies), this would suggest Harmon was told (as does Schultz requesting and receiving the 1998 File from Harmon!). In this case, PSU also reported the incident to Care Custody Charity who were "Mandatory Reporters" and PSU knew to be Mandatory Reporters. No matter how you add it up, PSU was reasonable in assuming that the authorities were told of 2001 as the reported it to multiple "Mandatory Reporters" under PA Child Protective Services Law, the governing statute for both the 1998 and 2001 incidents.

How dare you bring facts into this. Opinions carry more weight with the illiterate masses as seen by the reaction to the Freeh and Noonan opinions

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

I want Penn State's name cleared as much as you or anybody; with the exception of Nellie who has no such interest and merely wants to use us as a punching bag for her agenda.

We just disagree an whether the facts which you think will be exposed will accomplish that.

 

[Ski]

I want Penn State's name cleared as much as you or anybody; with the exception of Nellie who has no such interest and merely wants to use us as a punching bag for her agenda.

We just disagree an whether the facts which you think will be exposed will accomplish that.

We don't want Penn State's name cleared -- we want the truth. If that clears Penn State fine, if it damages Penn State's reputation more fine. Either way, that will only be settled by the facts being made public, not by the opinion of a hired gun. The more Penn State tries to hide from discovery, the more it looks truly guilty of something more than moral failure.

 

[getmyjive11]

But.... there was nothing to report to the police, and if there was MM should have done it. We've been over this already.

Sandusky was convicted of crimes. There was a naked man with an unrelated boy in a shower during a time when no one else was around. Plenty of reason to report.

 

[getmyjive11]

So, in other words, what you're telling us, baboon, is that you're not the least bit interested in children that are molested, beaten, raped, and killed by people who have no connection to Penn State football. You just want to know how much can be blamed on Joe Paterno. You really are a sick sack of ****.

Of course I care, which is why I call out those in here who attack the victims.

We were talking specifically about PSU's liability, which is why I posted what I did. I can't believe I have to explain that to you.