LTE from former PSU Trustee...

[pandaczar12]

No back peddle on the analogy, just explaining what was in front of your face but you failed to see. Even more amazing is that after I explained it you still don't understand.

BTW what were you rambling on about?

All back peddle on the analogy. I could explain it again in smaller words, but you still wouldn't understand. It's painfully obvious to everyone, but you fail to see it... just like pretty much everything you post about.

Why is it that you never respond to any challenges, you simply just deflect and distract? Why do you spend countless hours arguing a position that has no basis in reality, and keeps the children of PA in harms way? You keep saying that "none of this would have happened to Penn State had that phone call been made". But what REALLY would have stopped everything from happening is if the DPW/CYS/TSM had done their job anytime between 1998-2001. This is where you could focus your efforts, but you don't, because you don't actually care about past or future victims.

 

[pandaczar12]

Great, except that McQueary would have been the one driving the car. PSU administration would have been the guys being told after it happened.

He's already been called out on that terrible analogy, and he's already tried to back pedal.

 

[didier]

Has anyone tried looking on Facebook for individuals that worked at CYS back in the 90s/early 2000s?

 

[Zenophile]

I have always been genuinely curious: how does our merry band of astroturfer screen names select the threads in which they post? Are you assigned, or do you have some latitude?

Serious question.

 

[94LionsFan]

Schultz did not testify that CYS was contacted, only that he had some equivocal recollection that they may have been notified...

Don't think this is a fair characterization. These are all quotes from Schultz's testimony:
A: I also have a recollection that we asked the child protective agency to look into the matter.
...
A: I don't recall the details, but I can tell you that there was an investigation earlier that the child protection agency -- and I may have that technically incorrect but it was this agency that I'm referring to that conducted an earlier investigation. So my recollection would be in 2002 that they were asked to look into this allegation.
...
Q: It's your testimony that you believed the 2002 incident was reported to the same agency, that child protective services agency, for an investigation as the '98 one had been?

A: That's my recollection, yes.
...
A: The incident in 2002, again, I recall that it was also turned over to that same agency for investigation...

This part of his testimony can be found starting on page 212:
http://media.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/other/Curley-Schultz-Hearing-Transcript.pdf

 

[GTACSA]

Don't think this is a fair characterization. These are all quotes from Schultz's testimony:
A: I also have a recollection that we asked the child protective agency to look into the matter.
...
A: I don't recall the details, but I can tell you that there was an investigation earlier that the child protection agency -- and I may have that technically incorrect but it was this agency that I'm referring to that conducted an earlier investigation. So my recollection would be in 2002 that they were asked to look into this allegation.
...
Q: It's your testimony that you believed the 2002 incident was reported to the same agency, that child protective services agency, for an investigation as the '98 one had been?

A: That's my recollection, yes.
...
A: The incident in 2002, again, I recall that it was also turned over to that same agency for investigation...

This part of his testimony can be found starting on page 212:
http://media.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/other/Curley-Schultz-Hearing-Transcript.pdf

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.

 

[Zenophile]

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.

We still don't know.

 

[GTACSA]

We still don't know.

You may not know because you expect direct evidence of a negative (failure to report to CYS) You ignore circumstantial evidence from which failure to report to CYS can be inferred and established. Other than Schultz's painful GJ testimony there is no other evidence that CYS was notified.

So yes we know, as the record stands now, that there was no report to CYS. When you find other evidence that it was let us know.

 

[Zenophile]

You may not know because you expect direct evidence of a negative (failure to report to CYS) You ignore circumstantial evidence from which failure to report to CYS can be inferred and established. Other than Schultz's painful GJ testimony there is no other evidence that CYS was notified.

So yes we know, as the record stands now, that there was no report to CYS. When you find other evidence that it was let us know.

The burden of proof doesn't fall to me, amigo. 1. Fact: We don't know that a report was or wasn't made & won't know until a trial happens or charges are dropped.
2. Fact: you don't get to decide the status of #1.

 

[pandaczar12]

The burden of proof doesn't fall to me, amigo. 1. Fact: We don't know that a report was or wasn't made & won't know until a trial happens or charges are dropped.
2. Fact: you don't get to decide the status of #1.

Does taking him to school ever get old for you? Because it certainly doesn't for me.

 

[Marshall30]

You may not know because you expect direct evidence of a negative (failure to report to CYS) You ignore circumstantial evidence from which failure to report to CYS can be inferred and established. Other than Schultz's painful GJ testimony there is no other evidence that CYS was notified.

So yes we know, as the record stands now, that there was no report to CYS. When you find other evidence that it was let us know.

Go back to Penn Live and spread your shit there Arnie.

 

[Zenophile]

Does taking him to school ever get old for you? Because it certainly doesn't for me.

 

[GTACSA]

The burden of proof doesn't fall to me, amigo. 1. Fact: We don't know that a report was or wasn't made & won't know until a trial happens or charges are dropped.
2. Fact: you don't get to decide the status of #1.

The burden of proof is on you if you want the public to change their opinion of Penn State. In that respect everyone gets to decide whether a report was or wasn't made and all the facts point to no report. It's really that simple.

 

[GTACSA]

Go back to Penn Live and spread your shit there Arnie.

And you were doing so well; like an alcoholic falling off the wagon. I'm confident your counselor will get you back on track.

 

[Zenophile]

The burden of proof is on you if you want the public to change their opinion of Penn State. In that respect everyone gets to decide whether a report was or wasn't made and all the facts point to no report. It's really that simple.

While that little pivot makes for a marvelous straw man, the CYS report ain't Schrodinger's Cat. It either was or it wasn't. And the public gets exactly as much say in that as you do.

 

[Marshall30]

And you were doing so well; like an alcoholic falling off the wagon. I'm confident your counselor will get you back on track.

 

[GTACSA]

While that little pivot makes for a marvelous straw man, the CYS report ain't Schrodinger's Cat. It either was or it wasn't. And the public gets exactly as much say in that as you do.

It wasn't a pivot and it wasn't a straw man. That you think it was points out why many posters don't understand the source of the negative Penn State reaction. The narrative has been set and that is leaders at Penn State were told of inappropriate sexual behavior with a young boy and they never reported it to the police. Some go further and say it wasn't reported in order to protect the football program, even though there really isn't any basis for that conclusion.

So when and if CSS are acquitted or have the charges dropped, the basic narrative remains in tact just like it did when Sandusky was acquitted of the sodomy charge. We need something to show that the report from McQueary was forwarded to the police or CYS or the DA. Unfortunately for us, absent that new evidence, nothing changes in re Penn State's perception in the public forum.

 

[Aoshiro]

It wasn't a pivot and it wasn't a straw man. That you think it was points out why many posters don't understand the source of the negative Penn State reaction. The narrative has been set and that is leaders at Penn State were told of inappropriate sexual behavior with a young boy and they never reported it to the police. Some go further and say it wasn't reported in order to protect the football program, even though there really isn't any basis for that conclusion.

So when and if CSS are acquitted or have the charges dropped, the basic narrative remains in tact just like it did when Sandusky was acquitted of the sodomy charge. We need something to show that the report from McQueary was forwarded to the police or CYS or the DA. Unfortunately for us, absent that new evidence, nothing changes in re Penn State's perception in the public forum.

Wrong. Sooner or later (finally looking sooner, now) the prosecution is going to have to show its evidence that 1) Curley and Shultz were told something they should have reported to some outside entity and 2) that they failed to report it.

Here's a newsflash for you: The prosecution cannot prove either of these things. When it becomes apparent that PA's biggest university has lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to a lie, there is going to be a stink.

 

[GTACSA]

Wrong. Sooner or later (finally looking sooner, now) the prosecution is going to have to show its evidence that 1) Curley and Shultz were told something they should have reported to some outside entity and 2) that they failed to report it.

Here's a newsflash for you: The prosecution cannot prove either of these things. When it becomes apparent that PA's biggest university has lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to a lie, there is going to be a stink.

In the court of public opinion it has already been proven by sworn testimony that they were told something that should have been reported to the police and there is nothing on the record that shows they did so. We need to show it was reported to the police in order to change the perception. Time will tell but I think you're being set up for a bigger disappointment.

 

[Aoshiro]

In the court of public opinion it has already been proven by sworn testimony that they were told something that should have been reported to the police and there is nothing on the record that shows they did so. We need to show it was reported to the police in order to change the perception. Time will tell but I think you're being set up for a bigger disappointment.

I am consoled by the fact that you have been wrong every step of the way.
You will be wrong again.
The liars will be exposed.

 

[chrisrn1965]

In the court of public opinion it has already been proven by sworn testimony that they were told something that should have been reported to the police and there is nothing on the record that shows they did so. We need to show it was reported to the police in order to change the perception. Time will tell but I think you're being set up for a bigger disappointment.

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.

 

[Nellie R]

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.

I really doubt if the "Groundhog Day" people will be able to comprehend this no matter how many times they have been given this same information, which is probably over 100 times by now.

I also do not understand if they are SO concerned about the welfare of children, why they have not ever bothered to determine these facts for themselves, and why they are more concerned with PSU's "optics" to the "outside world" instead of using all of this factual info to TEACH it to the outside world, so more children can be saved.

 

[91Joe95]

In the court of public opinion it has already been proven by sworn testimony that they were told something that should have been reported to the police and there is nothing on the record that shows they did so. We need to show it was reported to the police in order to change the perception. Time will tell but I think you're being set up for a bigger disappointment.

That's not CSS' s fault or responsibility, that's the bot's lead by Lubert, Silvis, and the rest. You know it, and I know it, that you are deliberately trying to blame the wrong people for Penn State's perception problems, as if that is important compared to the welfare of children. Eh, its not like you ever feigned interest in the welfare of children.

 

[91Joe95]

I really doubt if the "Groundhog Day" people will be able to comprehend this no matter how many times they have been given this same information, which is probably over 100 times by now.

I also do not understand if they are SO concerned about the welfare of children, why they have not ever bothered to determine these facts for themselves, and why they are more concerned with PSU's "optics" to the "outside world" instead of using all of this factual info to TEACH it to the outside world, so more children can be saved.

That would first have to care about the welfare of children. Based on what I've seen from them, I would never conclude that about them.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

To be fair, Hintz is one of the biggest donors to PSU.

So was Paterno. If the statue can come down, so can any sign containing the names of one of the treacherous BOT members. So sad such a long, illustrious career had been marred.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

To getmyjive and GTACSA, I have browsed this site for months before actually joining it, and I have read many of your convoluted, nonsensical comments. I have tried to think of a lengthy reasoned rebuttal to what you've had to say, but now that I realize there is nothing to rebut but excessive flatulence, I can only come up with one thing.

 

[getmyjive11]

To getmyjive and GTACSA, I have browsed this site for months before actually joining it, and I have read many of your convoluted, nonsensical comments. I have tried to think of a lengthy reasoned rebuttal to what you've had to say, but now that I realize there is nothing to rebut but excessive flatulence, I can only come up with one thing.

View embedded media

Thanks for the kind words. Your story is fantastic as well.

 

[Zenophile]

It wasn't a pivot and it wasn't a straw man. That you think it was points out why many posters don't understand the source of the negative Penn State reaction. The narrative has been set and that is leaders at Penn State were told of inappropriate sexual behavior with a young boy and they never reported it to the police. Some go further and say it wasn't reported in order to protect the football program, even though there really isn't any basis for that conclusion.

So when and if CSS are acquitted or have the charges dropped, the basic narrative remains in tact just like it did when Sandusky was acquitted of the sodomy charge. We need something to show that the report from McQueary was forwarded to the police or CYS or the DA. Unfortunately for us, absent that new evidence, nothing changes in re Penn State's perception in the public forum.

I'm a Truther, not a Public Opinion Changer. I'll do my part to help with the latter, but my goal is the former.

 

[GTACSA]

I'm a Truther, not a Public Opinion Changer. I'll do my part to help with the latter, but my goal is the former.

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.

Think a little outside the box for a minute. Just because calling the police is not part of the protocol doesn't mean the police can't be notified.

If a Penn State grad assistant witnessed tonight what McQueary testified under oath that he witnessed in 2001 and he reported to Franklin who in turn notified Barbour etc. etc., rest assured that notification to the police would be part of the process.

If you are part of CYS do you want it on the record that it is nonsense to call the police with a report of suspected sodomy of a child? Really?

 

[Marshall30]

Think a little outside the box for a minute. Just because calling the police is not part of the protocol doesn't mean the police can't be notified.

If a Penn State grad assistant witnessed tonight what McQueary testified under oath that he witnessed in 2001 and he reported to Franklin who in turn notified Barbour etc. etc., rest assured that notification to the police would be part of the process.

If you are part of CYS do you want it on the record that it is nonsense to call the police with a report of suspected sodomy of a child? Really?

You're a complete clueless bozo.

What if, maybe, perhaps.

Get back to Penn Live with your nonsense.

 

[91Joe95]

Think a little outside the box for a minute. Just because calling the police is not part of the protocol doesn't mean the police can't be notified.

If a Penn State grad assistant witnessed tonight what McQueary testified under oath that he witnessed in 2001 and he reported to Franklin who in turn notified Barbour etc. etc., rest assured that notification to the police would be part of the process.

If you are part of CYS do you want it on the record that it is nonsense to call the police with a report of suspected sodomy of a child? Really?

Think a little outside the box. You're biggest complaint is PR. Now, many of us find that absurd compared to the welfare of children, but that's you. You are busy blaming the people who had no say over that, as opposed to the bot, who you admit f'd up royally, and did take the actions that permanently f'd up psu's image. Some people might call your view downright batshit crazy.

 

[pandaczar12]

Think a little outside the box for a minute. Just because calling the police is not part of the protocol doesn't mean the police can't be notified.

If a Penn State grad assistant witnessed tonight what McQueary testified under oath that he witnessed in 2001 and he reported to Franklin who in turn notified Barbour etc. etc., rest assured that notification to the police would be part of the process.

If you are part of CYS do you want it on the record that it is nonsense to call the police with a report of suspected sodomy of a child? Really?

So you think MM saw a crime, based on his ever changing story, and are OK with him not calling the police. Yet you expect C/S/S/P to have called the police receiving a watered down account of what MM saw.

Just like how you don't want to talk about the failings of the DPW/CYS/TSM, where the real problems exist. You clearly have an agenda, it is most certainly isn't helping victims.

 

[royboy]

You're a complete clueless bozo.

What if, maybe, perhaps.

Get back to Penn Live with your nonsense.

Entirely right about GTACSA.

He failed to make real points. He then moved on to hypothetical scenarios and points. And he fails there, too.

If he's waiting for someone here to validate his theories, he's got a long wait.

 

[Marshall30]

Entirely right about GTACSA.

He failed to make real points. He then moved on to hypothetical scenarios and points. And he fails there, too.

If he's waiting for someone here to validate his theories, he's got a long wait.

I think he needs some Ex-Lax and a good crap, because he's loaded with it. He's a Penn Live and FOS troll. Goofballs like him ruined FOS.

 

[chrisrn1965]

Think a little outside the box for a minute. Just because calling the police is not part of the protocol doesn't mean the police can't be notified.

If a Penn State grad assistant witnessed tonight what McQueary testified under oath that he witnessed in 2001 and he reported to Franklin who in turn notified Barbour etc. etc., rest assured that notification to the police would be part of the process.

If you are part of CYS do you want it on the record that it is nonsense to call the police with a report of suspected sodomy of a child? Really?

When did MM testify under oath to witnessing sodomy? I know that anal rape was inserted into the grand jury presentment but that is not what he testified too. In addition you are assuming that he did not water down his story when telling C/S/S. Why is it that Dr. Dranov testified that MM did not describe a sexual assault?

The appropriate steps were outlined in my previous post. What would your hypothetical call to the police entail:

"Hello officer. Our grad assistant saw a former coach in the shower with a boy. He is upset and not exactly sure what was going on. No he did not feel the need to call 911 that night, nor did his father or physician friend. No we do not know who the boy was. I have no further details to report. No I am not sure that he witnesses a crime"

Ludicrous.

Raykovitz should have found how who the boy in question was and filed the report with CYS.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Entirely right about GTACSA.
He failed to make real points. He then moved on to hypothetical scenarios and points. And he fails there, too.
If he's waiting for someone here to validate his theories, he's got a long wait.

He went "rogue", abandoned the circle jerk and launched his "solo" career...

Of course, that could be getmyjive below the frame!

 

[Ski]

When did MM testify under oath to witnessing sodomy? I know that anal rape was inserted into the grand jury presentment but that is not what he testified too. In addition you are assuming that he did not water down his story when telling C/S/S. Why is it that Dr. Dranov testified that MM did not describe a sexual assault?

The appropriate steps were outlined in my previous post. What would your hypothetical call to the police entail:

"Hello officer. Our grad assistant saw a former coach in the shower with a boy. He is upset and not exactly sure what was going on. No he did not feel the need to call 911 that night, nor did his father or physician friend. No we do not know who the boy was. I have no further details to report. No I am not sure that he witnesses a crime"

Ludicrous.

Raykovitz should have found how who the boy in question was and filed the report with CYS.

Game, set, match.

 

[GTACSA]

When did MM testify under oath to witnessing sodomy? I know that anal rape was inserted into the grand jury presentment but that is not what he testified too. In addition you are assuming that he did not water down his story when telling C/S/S. Why is it that Dr. Dranov testified that MM did not describe a sexual assault?

The appropriate steps were outlined in my previous post. What would your hypothetical call to the police entail:

"Hello officer. Our grad assistant saw a former coach in the shower with a boy. He is upset and not exactly sure what was going on. No he did not feel the need to call 911 that night, nor did his father or physician friend. No we do not know who the boy was. I have no further details to report. No I am not sure that he witnesses a crime"

Ludicrous.

Raykovitz should have found how who the boy in question was and filed the report with CYS.

Anal intercourse between members of the same sex is sodomy. In the Preliminary Hearing, pages 13-14 of the transcript, McQueary testified he saw Sandusky behind a young boy having some type of sexual intercourse with the boy.

Since you affirmed that you stand by your previous post, then in the eyes of CYS it is nonsense to call the police where an adult male is observed to have had some type of sexual intercourse with a child. I'm sure the parents of children in the Commonwealth would feel reassured by that statement.

How about this hypothetical phone call to the police:

"Hello officer. Our grad assistant saw a former coach alone in the shower at the Lasch Building with a young boy at night. He thinks that the coach was having sexual intercourse with the young boy. The name of the grad assistant is Mike McQueary and his contact information is......................"

What is ludicrous is that you are saying that this phone call would not have resulted in a police investigation. But hey, maybe it doesn't in Pennsylvania, and parents of children in the Commonwealth can now be doubly reassured by that.

BTW, I agree Raykovitz should have contacted CYS.

 

[Marshall30]

Anal intercourse between members of the same sex is sodomy. In the Preliminary Hearing, pages 13-14 of the transcript, McQueary testified he saw Sandusky behind a young boy having some type of sexual intercourse with the boy.

Since you affirmed that you stand by your previous post, then in the eyes of CYS it is nonsense to call the police where an adult male is observed to have had some type of sexual intercourse with a child. I'm sure the parents of children in the Commonwealth would feel reassured by that statement.

How about this hypothetical phone call to the police:

"Hello officer. Our grad assistant saw a former coach alone in the shower at the Lasch Building with a young boy at night. He thinks that the coach was having sexual intercourse with the young boy. The name of the grad assistant is Mike McQueary and his contact information is......................"

What is ludicrous is that you are saying that this phone call would not have resulted in a police investigation. But hey, maybe it doesn't in Pennsylvania, and parents of children in the Commonwealth can now be doubly reassured by that.

BTW, I agree Raykovitz should have contacted CYS.

Go stick your finger in your ass, you Pitt goof.

 

[Aoshiro]

Anal intercourse between members of the same sex is sodomy. In the Preliminary Hearing, pages 13-14 of the transcript, McQueary testified he saw Sandusky behind a young boy having some type of sexual intercourse with the boy.

Since you affirmed that you stand by your previous post, then in the eyes of CYS it is nonsense to call the police where an adult male is observed to have had some type of sexual intercourse with a child. I'm sure the parents of children in the Commonwealth would feel reassured by that statement.
.

That was one of the few charges that the jury did not convict Sandusky on, so apparently they didn't believe McQueary's testimony.