Lubrano post on Facebook

[lionlurker]

I swear as God as my judge that I was thinking the very same thing. In fact, there was a moment there where I went and checked to see if that picture was a gag. Unbelievable.

First novel I ever read for enjoyment.... The World According to Garp by John Irving.

She looked good enough for Emmert, apparently. I hope the two bags were on nice and tight.

 

[WeR0206]

GT,
The child protective system hardly functions perfectly -- in fact, it's a mess.

The Tutko case revealed that CYS didn't notify the DA and police when they get sex abuse reports.

Dauphin CYS received a report by the Steele Elelmentary School that one of the Tutko children was inappropriately touched. CYS had no records of that incident. Dauphin CYS also failed to respond to other abuse reports, as well.

Here is an excerpt from John Yonchuk's blog.

In the Tutko case there are any number of issues you could point to that would constitute a five-alarm fire for child services. You could start with an accusation of potential child sexual abuse found on page 10 of report 3 shown here. Remember in the Sandusky case we were told that a lack of a report to law enforcement/child welfare in 2001 is the cause of continued abuse. This item plainly shows that a report is no guarantee of action. Strangely enough no one is sure what happened to this report, as the grand jury investigation states that “supporting documents….were never filed and cannot be located”.

That's exactly what I told him earlier in the thread but he doesn't want to hear it or have an honest conversation...he'd rather play semantics and throw out strawmen.

 

[Bayou Lion]

Here is what that testimony established. If CYS receives a report of suspected child abuse of a non sexual (ie criminal nature) it conducts an investigation on its own and if it makes a finding of unfounded, there is no record of the initial report.

If CYS receives a report of suspected child sexual abuse, it notifies the DA's office and the police department with jurisdiction which then conducts an investigation. If the investigation results in an unfounded finding the CYS would have no record of the initial report. However the police department would have the report and there was no such report for the 2001 incident with the Campus Police. ( Note the 1998 report was maintained in the files)

CYS would also investigate a child sex abuse case and come up with their own conclusion which may or may not be the same conclusion as LE.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Harmon keeps coming up as a central figure here. Everything about him needs to be drilled down on to get to the truth to either clear him or get this portion of the truth nailed down. Way too much smoke here.

 

[GTACSA]

GT,
The child protective system hardly functions perfectly -- in fact, it's a mess.

The Tutko case revealed that CYS didn't notify the DA and police when they get sex abuse reports.

Dauphin CYS received a report by the Steele Elelmentary School that one of the Tutko children was inappropriately touched. CYS had no records of that incident. Dauphin CYS also failed to respond to other abuse reports, as well.

Here is an excerpt from John Yonchuk's blog.

In the Tutko case there are any number of issues you could point to that would constitute a five-alarm fire for child services. You could start with an accusation of potential child sexual abuse found on page 10 of report 3 shown here. Remember in the Sandusky case we were told that a lack of a report to law enforcement/child welfare in 2001 is the cause of continued abuse. This item plainly shows that a report is no guarantee of action. Strangely enough no one is sure what happened to this report, as the grand jury investigation states that “supporting documents….were never filed and cannot be located”.

The bottom line is that we know the police were not notified. The only evidence to support CYS being notified is the equivocal testimony of Schultz and the equivocal statement of Courtney which you referenced.

The first person CYS would have interviewed had the report been made would have been MM; that didn't happen. I guess CYS could have completed the investigation without interviewing MM at all; no need to since the first hand eyewitness observations really weren't relevant to their investigation.

You can build your narrative on this house of cards, just don't expect objective people to buy into it.

When and if real facts come to light supporting your narrative I'll be on board. Until then it's all contrived.

 

[Marshall30]

The bottom line is that we know the police were not notified. The only evidence to support CYS being notified is the equivocal testimony of Schultz and the equivocal statement of Courtney which you referenced.

The first person CYS would have interviewed had the report been made would have been MM; that didn't happen. I guess CYS could have completed the investigation without interviewing MM at all; no need to since the first hand eyewitness observations really weren't relevant to their investigation.

You can build your narrative on this house of cards, just don't expect objective people to buy into it.

When and if real facts come to light supporting your narrative I'll be on board. Until then it's all contrived.

You doing double duty between here and PL pumpkinhead?

 

[marshall23]

If Shultz or anyone @ PSU told Harmon, THE POLICE were notified. Harmon has been kept under wraps by The OAG. You might recall that he filed the first incident under "administrative." Which is a pretty good description of how MM's story was treated. That determination by the way, originated on the very night of the alleged incident, when MM, JM and Dr.D decided that a report to JVP was the proper avenue.
But, again since none of the PSU folks were mandated reporters, we must agree by informing JR, who ran TSM and did contract work for CYS, that Tim and Gary went over and above their legal duties in passing on the alleged incident.

 

[Ephrata Lion]

If Shultz or anyone @ PSU told Harmon, THE POLICE were notified. Harmon has been kept under wraps by The OAG.

BINGO!! PSU was crucified by EVERYONE for NOT informing THE POLICE! I don't know how many times I heard in the media...."If they would have only informed the police...." If it can be shown that the shower incident was brought to Harmon's attention - game, set, and match! But will anyone besides us be listening at that point?

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

The bottom line is that we know the police were not notified. The only evidence to support CYS being notified is the equivocal testimony of Schultz and the equivocal statement of Courtney which you referenced.

The first person CYS would have interviewed had the report been made would have been MM; that didn't happen. I guess CYS could have completed the investigation without interviewing MM at all; no need to since the first hand eyewitness observations really weren't relevant to their investigation.

You can build your narrative on this house of cards, just don't expect objective people to buy into it.

When and if real facts come to light supporting your narrative I'll be on board. Until then it's all contrived.

LOL.

 

[GTACSA]

If Shultz or anyone @ PSU told Harmon, THE POLICE were notified. Harmon has been kept under wraps by The OAG. You might recall that he filed the first incident under "administrative." Which is a pretty good description of how MM's story was treated. That determination by the way, originated on the very night of the alleged incident, when MM, JM and Dr.D decided that a report to JVP was the proper avenue.
But, again since none of the PSU folks were mandated reporters, we must agree by informing JR, who ran TSM and did contract work for CYS, that Tim and Gary went over and above their legal duties in passing on the alleged incident.

So your position is that instead of 4 Penn State officials who didn't report this to law enforcement and other legal authorities outside Penn State there were in fact 5. So how does that change the narrative across the country?

 

[Marshall30]

So your position is that instead of 4 Penn State officials who didn't report this to law enforcement and other legal authorities outside Penn State there were in fact 5. So how does that change the narrative across the country?

Why do you continue to be a Penn Live imbecile?

 

[GTACSA]

Why do you continue to be a Penn Live imbecile?

I just asked a pretty basis question. How does expanding the group of individuals at Penn State who didn't notify outside authorities from 4 to 5, including the Penn State Chief of Police, help Penn State? Do you have an answer?

 

[Marshall30]

I just asked a pretty basis question. How does expanding the group of individuals at Penn State who didn't notify outside authorities from 4 to 5, including the Penn State Chief of Police, help Penn State? Do you have an answer?

Yes. 4 did nothing wrong, Harmon is a rat.

 

[TheHumbleBuckeye]

Off topic, but it's Jerry's 72nd birthday today. Let's hope it's a miserable one.

 

[pandaczar12]

I just asked a pretty basis question. How does expanding the group of individuals at Penn State who didn't notify outside authorities from 4 to 5, including the Penn State Chief of Police, help Penn State? Do you have an answer?

Your question is moot because they had nothing to notify outside authorities about.

 

[simons96]

Your question is moot because they had nothing to notify outside authorities about.

is this a good time to remind this buffoon that the OAG concedes they were not legally required to report to the police in 2001, EVEN IF they were told of CSA (which is highly doubtful)??

 

[91Joe95]

The bottom line is that we know the police were not notified. The only evidence to support CYS being notified is the equivocal testimony of Schultz and the equivocal statement of Courtney which you referenced.

The first person CYS would have interviewed had the report been made would have been MM; that didn't happen. I guess CYS could have completed the investigation without interviewing MM at all; no need to since the first hand eyewitness observations really weren't relevant to their investigation.

You can build your narrative on this house of cards, just don't expect objective people to buy into it.

When and if real facts come to light supporting your narrative I'll be on board. Until then it's all contrived.

Without getting into the absurdity of charging someone for something after a new law was created, under the new law, is CYS an acceptable entity to report something to?

 

[91Joe95]

So your position is that instead of 4 Penn State officials who didn't report this to law enforcement and other legal authorities outside Penn State there were in fact 5. So how does that change the narrative across the country?

Why do you think its only about the narrative? It will be what it will be. The ones who should be worrying about that are the NCAA (and bot) for any potential damages they may be liable for.

 

[91Joe95]

Your question is moot because they had nothing to notify outside authorities about.

No, his question is relevant, highly relevant I might add, just not in the way he intended.

 

[GTACSA]

is this a good time to remind this buffoon that the OAG concedes they were not legally required to report to the police in 2001, EVEN IF they were told of CSA (which is highly doubtful)??

This buffoon doesn't care if anyone at Penn State was legally required to report MM's account to the police or any outside authorities. Penn State has been judged by the public because if its failure to report an alleged sexual crime against a child, regardless of whether Penn State was legally required to do so; but because the public feels it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately that is the big picture.

 

[simons96]

This buffoon doesn't care if anyone at Penn State was legally required to report MM's account to the police or any outside authorities. Penn State has been judged by the public because if its failure to report an alleged sexual crime against a child, regardless of whether Penn State was legally required to do so; but because the public feels it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately that is the big picture.

of course you don't care. that's why you're a buffoon. dirlirl.

 

[Woodpecker]

Tell me how defying the NCAA in the summer of 2012 would have convinced non-Penn Staters that Penn State didn't prioritize football above all else.

First off, I don't feel that "non-Penn Staters" should dictate anything that Penn State does. If they felt that way they would be wrong and what better way to show them than challenging the NCAA. Everyone (yes even you) knew that the NCAA had no place in this. None of their rules were broken and there was no evidence (including that toilet paper Freeh Report) that indicated such.

 

[Obliviax]

This buffoon doesn't care if anyone at Penn State was legally required to report MM's account to the police or any outside authorities. Penn State has been judged by the public because if its failure to report an alleged sexual crime against a child, regardless of whether Penn State was legally required to do so; but because the public feels it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately that is the big picture.

Funny...when you think you have a legal case, you argue legalities...when that falls apart, you argue PR. I'd suggest that the PR angle is already lost (thanks to PSU's legal eagles) and there is nothing anything else to lose.

Turn the tables now, sue the living shit out of them all. Schultz was the police, as his office description clearly says. Did he investigate? Who knows, but if not it was a failure on his part. Compartmentalize the damage and sue the shit out of everyone. That's the appropriate move at this point. The "ProJoe" crowd has now been energized because our narrative has been proven correct. its time to take that momentum to the next level.

 

[royboy]

This buffoon doesn't care if anyone at Penn State was legally required to report MM's account to the police or any outside authorities. Penn State has been judged by the public because if its failure to report an alleged sexual crime against a child, regardless of whether Penn State was legally required to do so; but because the public feels it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately that is the big picture.

As usual, you make a number of assumptions. I am pleased to see that one assumption seems to indicate that you are indeed a buffoon. I can't imagine a non-buffoon carrying this on to the extent you have.

"it's failure to report an alleged sexual crime against a child"
Was it an alleged sexual crime in 2001? Alleged by whom and to whom? And when?
In fact, was it a sexual crime? Is that known to be a fact?

"the public feels it was the right thing to do"
And why do they feel that? because they understand the circumstances well? Or because a concocted narrative of the events was made and allowed to stand.
The "public" probably felt the Duke lacrosse players had committed terrible crimes because of allegations, weak response by Duke administrators, and the lynch mob media mentality. Eventually, the truth came out and attitudes (some, not all) changed. The truth is worth fighting for.

 

[simons96]

As usual, you make a number of assumptions. I am pleased to see that one assumption seems to indicate that you are indeed a buffoon. I can't imagine a non-buffoon carrying this on to the extent you have.

"it's failure to report an alleged sexual crime against a child"
Was it an alleged sexual crime in 2001? Alleged by whom and to whom? And when?
In fact, was it a sexual crime? Is that known to be a fact?

"the public feels it was the right thing to do"
And why do they feel that? because they understand the circumstances well? Or because a concocted narrative of the events was made and allowed to stand.
The "public" probably felt the Duke lacrosse players had committed terrible crimes because of allegations, weak response by Duke administrators, and the lynch mob media mentality. Eventually, the truth came out and attitudes (some, not all) changed. The truth is worth fighting for.

probably would have been prudent for Schultz to consult with legal counsel at the time about what needed to be reported.

(oh wait, he did)

well the easiest way to address this would be for the University to waive ACP so we know what exactly was discussed

(oh wait, they won't)

well thank God Sandusky was convicted of IDSI in that case

(oh wait, he wasn't)

since the victim testified at trial that he was, in fact, molested

(oh wait, he didn't)

and of course the alleged victim never made a statement denying any sexual contact that evening

(oh wait, he did)

you have to wonder why buffoons ignore these simple facts to embrace a narrative not founded in reality.

 

[GTACSA]

As usual, you make a number of assumptions. I am pleased to see that one assumption seems to indicate that you are indeed a buffoon. I can't imagine a non-buffoon carrying this on to the extent you have.

"it's failure to report an alleged sexual crime against a child"
Was it an alleged sexual crime in 2001? Alleged by whom and to whom? And when?
In fact, was it a sexual crime? Is that known to be a fact?

"the public feels it was the right thing to do"
And why do they feel that? because they understand the circumstances well? Or because a concocted narrative of the events was made and allowed to stand.
The "public" probably felt the Duke lacrosse players had committed terrible crimes because of allegations, weak response by Duke administrators, and the lynch mob media mentality. Eventually, the truth came out and attitudes (some, not all) changed. The truth is worth fighting for.

I am getting bored but I will address your question.

MM reported activity which constituted a sexual crime and for which JS was convicted. (And yes I know that 1 count was a NG verdict)

Unfortunately the truth your are seeking, that nobody at Penn State was aware of the activity MM witnessed, has been refuted by sworn testimony from Joe and MM. And the public, and many Penn State people know that; we don't like it but it is what it is.

 

[NittPicker]

MM may have created this entire mess by overstating what he saw 10 years after the fact, putting the entire university in hot water, when in 2001 none of this was viewed as such a serious matter and for a very good reason.

Since we've all had a peek behind the curtain and have learned how sleazy the OAG investigators were, it's a distinct possibility they "encouraged" MM to remember things the way the investigators wanted them to be remembered. Recall the talk of MM having wagering problems?? Also, recall stories of MM sexting photos of his genitals to women?? I can imagine the very real possibility of the OAG telling MM something like, "I know you say you can't remember what exactly happened Mike but we think Sandusky has been abusing kids and you witnessed him raping a boy in the shower. By the way, we know about your gambling and sexting. Some of it may by illegal but we're not going to charge you with anything right now. Who among us hasn't done the same thing, right?? So now think hard again about what you saw in the shower 10 years ago and tell us what really happened."

 

[WeR0206]

MM reported activity which constituted a sexual crime and for which JS was convicted

Not according to Dr. D, JM (in the 12/16/11 prelim JM specifically says that MM never reported a crime/rape/etc. but something that was at least a very inappropriate action), C/S/S/P, and JR. JS being convicted of crimes re: V2 11 years later doesn't prove anything about what these men were told or knew in 2001. It's called hindsight bias. The only reason the state was able to get convictions re: V2 was b/c they were able to establish a pattern with other victims.

nobody at Penn State was aware of the activity MM witnessed, has been refuted by sworn testimony from Joe and MM

People at PSU were aware of the incident (and treated it seriously) it's just that they weren't told that MM thought JS was molesting/abusing a boy but that he saw an inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable and he wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing. MM actually admitted at the 12/16/11 prelim that he WASN'T 100% SURE WHAT WAS GOING ON (which contradicts his 2010 statement to OAG).

If he was sure (as he claims in his 2010 OAG statement), why didn't he ever file a written statement to UPPD or express dissatisfaction with the admins when they followed up?

The parts of Joe's GJ testimony where he mentions "sexual in nature" and "fondling" were essentially speculation by Joe since right after saying those words he said "I don't know what you'd call it", etc.

Joe did however go on to state (in both his GJ testimony and written statement to the media) that the one thing he KNEW FOR SURE was that MM was upset and that some type of inappropriate action was taken by JS in the shower. That's it...and it completely lines up with what JM, Dr. D, and CSS all said under oath.

 

[Evan Ceg]

First off, I don't feel that "non-Penn Staters" should dictate anything that Penn State does. If they felt that way they would be wrong and what better way to show them than challenging the NCAA. Everyone (yes even you) knew that the NCAA had no place in this. None of their rules were broken and there was no evidence (including that toilet paper Freeh Report) that indicated such.

Lots of non-Penn Staters have major impact on Penn State's welfare. Pennsylvania legislators, foundation officials, government grant makers, federal and state regulatory agencies, various accrediting bodies, sports and higher education media, companies that buy sponsorships, parents and students considering what university to attend, to name a few. Anyone who says, "To hell with what the public thinks," when it comes to the welfare of a public university, is foolish.

The public in those days wouldn't have had much sympathy for the jurisdictional issue that Penn State would have correctly asserted. And Ray and Emmert weren't admitting anything in the summer of 2012 about the NCAA's lack of jurisdiction. Had we defied the NCAA that July, I believe the reaction of the national media and the public would have simply been, "Penn State is so obsessed with its football program that it won't take its medicine. It will defend its football program at all costs."

There were only a couple sportswriters that were floating the jurisdictional issue and their stance was that Penn State deserves to be punished but the NCAA has no legal right to administer the punishment. In the immediate wake of the Freeh Report, everyone just wanted blood, legalities be damned, and no one outside of the folks here was challenging the validity of the Freeh Report.

 

[Woodpecker]

Lots of non-Penn Staters have major impact on Penn State's welfare. Pennsylvania legislators, foundation officials, government grant makers, federal and state regulatory agencies, various accrediting bodies, sports and higher education media, companies that buy sponsorships, parents and students considering what university to attend, to name a few. Anyone who says, "To hell with what the public thinks," when it comes to the welfare of a public university, is foolish.

Fair enough

The public in those days wouldn't have had much sympathy for the jurisdictional issue that Penn State would have correctly asserted. And Ray and Emmert weren't admitting anything in the summer of 2012 about the NCAA's lack of jurisdiction. Had we defied the NCAA that July, I believe the reaction of the national media and the public would have simply been, "Penn State is so obsessed with its football program that it won't take its medicine. It will defend its football program at all costs."

Not sure about the "at all costs" part but ultimately the courts would have had to rule in Penn State's favor. I think that would carry more weight than the instant surrender approach to getting public opinion on your side.

There were only a couple sportswriters that were floating the jurisdictional issue and their stance was that Penn State deserves to be punished but the NCAA has no legal right to administer the punishment. In the immediate wake of the Freeh Report, everyone just wanted blood, legalities be damned, and no one outside of the folks here was challenging the validity of the Freeh Report.

What can I say but, uh OK. But I still don't think those are reasons to simply bend over and take it

 

[Aoshiro]

The public in those days wouldn't have had much sympathy for the jurisdictional issue that Penn State would have correctly asserted. And Ray and Emmert weren't admitting anything in the summer of 2012 about the NCAA's lack of jurisdiction. Had we defied the NCAA that July, I believe the reaction of the national media and the public would have simply been, "Penn State is so obsessed with its football program that it won't take its medicine. It will defend its football program at all costs."

There were only a couple sportswriters that were floating the jurisdictional issue and their stance was that Penn State deserves to be punished but the NCAA has no legal right to administer the punishment. In the immediate wake of the Freeh Report, everyone just wanted blood, legalities be damned, and no one outside of the folks here was challenging the validity of the Freeh Report.

That being the case, the trustees probably shouldn't have told Louis Freeh to thrash Penn State football, eh?

 

[91Joe95]

Lots of non-Penn Staters have major impact on Penn State's welfare. Pennsylvania legislators, foundation officials, government grant makers, federal and state regulatory agencies, various accrediting bodies, sports and higher education media, companies that buy sponsorships, parents and students considering what university to attend, to name a few. Anyone who says, "To hell with what the public thinks," when it comes to the welfare of a public university, is foolish.

The public in those days wouldn't have had much sympathy for the jurisdictional issue that Penn State would have correctly asserted. And Ray and Emmert weren't admitting anything in the summer of 2012 about the NCAA's lack of jurisdiction. Had we defied the NCAA that July, I believe the reaction of the national media and the public would have simply been, "Penn State is so obsessed with its football program that it won't take its medicine. It will defend its football program at all costs."

There were only a couple sportswriters that were floating the jurisdictional issue and their stance was that Penn State deserves to be punished but the NCAA has no legal right to administer the punishment. In the immediate wake of the Freeh Report, everyone just wanted blood, legalities be damned, and no one outside of the folks here was challenging the validity of the Freeh Report.

Sounds nice, doesn't mean squat. Nobody's shutting down a multi-billion dollar public entity. I was going to say over the possible actions of a few people, but the reality is its not going to be shut down over anything.

 

[WDLion]

probably would have been prudent for Schultz to consult with legal counsel at the time about what needed to be reported.

(oh wait, he did)

well the easiest way to address this would be for the University to waive ACP so we know what exactly was discussed

(oh wait, they won't)

well thank God Sandusky was convicted of IDSI in that case

(oh wait, he wasn't)

since the victim testified at trial that he was, in fact, molested

(oh wait, he didn't)

and of course the alleged victim never made a statement denying any sexual contact that evening

(oh wait, he did)

you have to wonder why buffoons ignore these simple facts to embrace a narrative not founded in reality.

The only narrative GT is going to embrace is the one he wants to be true.

 

[simons96]

The only narrative GT is going to embrace is the one he wants to be true.

you really have to wonder what, if anything, could be presented to make him change his BS view of things

I say nothing will. He constantly shifts his facts, his arguments, his counter arguments . . . just a strong proponent of obfuscation

 

[Woodpecker]

just a strong proponent of obfuscation

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that

 

[StinkStankStunk]

you really have to wonder what, if anything, could be presented to make him change his BS view of things

I say nothing will. He constantly shifts his facts, his arguments, his counter arguments . . . just a strong proponent of obfuscation

He is......the Gold Medalist of the Circle-Jerk Olympics

 

[simons96]

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that

well maybe some day when you're more mature and sophisticated, your puny mind will get it.

btw, found a photo of GTA, taken from deep within the Fourth Reich bunker under the 13 hole as Jasna Polana as he and CDW, michnitwit, and CR666 prepare for their weekly meeting

 

[WDLion]

you really have to wonder what, if anything, could be presented to make him change his BS view of things

I say nothing will. He constantly shifts his facts, his arguments, his counter arguments . . . just a strong proponent of obfuscation

That's a reasonable conclusion.

 

[jjsocrates]

Sassano checked into this again after the date change. He was asked about it at the 7/30/2013 preliminary hearing, starting at page 25.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/July 30, 2013 Preliminary Hearing Transcript 2 of 2.PDF

FYI - the Moulton report did not cover any of this part of the investigation. His scope stopped at the initial filing of charges, with a few notes about victims 9 and 10 coming forward.

Interesting read, Jimmy. Curious that Sassano said that CYS had no record of the 1998 incident, because it was expunged...even though its pretty damn obvious that a report was made to CYS in 1998. Therefore, since Schultz/Curley are being charged for failure to report in 2001 because there was no record of a report being filed - why isn't someone also being charged for failure to report the 1998 incident as well? Even though its pretty damn clear that the 1998 incident WAS reported.

This is exactly why the state has no case.

Also - why did Sassano state that Centre County CYS had a record of the 2008 report made by victim 1? Didn't that incident take place in Clinton county? So wouldn't the Clinton county CYS be the ones to have that record?

 

[91Joe95]

I am getting bored but I will address your question.

MM reported activity which constituted a sexual crime and for which JS was convicted. (And yes I know that 1 count was a NG verdict)

Unfortunately the truth your are seeking, that nobody at Penn State was aware of the activity MM witnessed, has been refuted by sworn testimony from Joe and MM. And the public, and many Penn State people know that; we don't like it but it is what it is.

I didn't think you'd answer my question, and I'm reasonably sure its because you already knew the answer. Reporting to CYS does in fact meet the requirements for the law.

23 Pa.C.S. Section 6313

We all know what was testified to under oath regarding CYS record keeping procedures.