ADVERTISEMENT

Lubrano post on Facebook

Poll! Is this GTACSA or Evan? ...
kv8aS.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: green2623
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?

I'm just speculating here, but I think since Sandusky was a resident of Centre County, Clinton County CYS probably provided them with a copy of the file.
 
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?

The key difference between 1998 and 2001 is that the victim's mother reported the incident to police in 1998.

Regarding the Sassano testimony about Centre County CYS having the 2008 victim 1 record, the investigators were already aware of that report. Sassano was testifying about going back to Centre County CYS after the date change from 2002 to 2001, and CYS said they had nothing at all except for the 2008 victim 1 report.

FYI - the Moulton report at p.35 indicates Centre County CYS did not have that victim 1 report any sooner than late 2010, at least 2 years after the report:

"There is no indication in the records, or through interviews, that before late 2010 anyone involved in the criminal investigation of A.F.'s allegations contacted Centre County CYS, DPW, Penn State, or the State
College police to ask about other allegations against Sandusky."
 
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?

Harmon was law enforcement.........you are very thick.
 
Joe's actual testimony is not on the public record. What is on the public record is a reading of Joe's grand jury transcript by AG prosecutor Bruce Beemer. In other words, it may not be accurate, especially "it was a sexual nature."

More likely, that passage was either screwed up in transcription or changed by the AG.

Many believe, given the amount of equivocating Joe was doing, that he said "was it a sexual nature?"

Joe could have also turned it into a question with just voice inflection which would not come through on a transcript unless the transcriber added the PS note. IOW, if you say "It was a sexual nature" with your voice rising, it becomes a question and a "?" should have been added.
 
In response to a Right to Know request for the 1998 investigation, UPPD released a note dated June 2, 1998 that says:

" At 1840 hours, PSO Schreffler requested an incident number for an ongoing investigation".

Now Gricar declined to prosecute that case before June 1...and Harmon told Schreffler on June 1 that the case was closed. Why, then, was Schreffler requesting an incident number on June 2 for an "ongoing case"? What's going on here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wensilver
Please allow me to summarize. He's a lying asshole.

Well, I can't help but notice he used to say 'report to cys or police.' And it was the police that got the qualifier as 'outside.' Just a bit different than what he's stating now, even if it was still wrong then too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
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 clearly haven't been paying attention. CYS in 2001 could most definitely received a report AND not lifted a finger to investigate.

Many families in Centre County would confirm that CYS ignoring complaints happens all the time. One mother told me that CYS often told her "unless you have blood or a dead body, we aren't going to investigate." This was after her step-daughter was forced to live with her abusive mother -- and attempted suicide -- twice.
 
You clearly haven't been paying attention. CYS in 2001 could most definitely received a report AND not lifted a finger to investigate.

Many families in Centre County would confirm that CYS ignoring complaints happens all the time. One mother told me that CYS often told her "unless you have blood or a dead body, we aren't going to investigate." This was after her step-daughter was forced to live with her abusive mother -- and attempted suicide -- twice.

doesn't PA CYS have some atrocious answer rate, where they don't even pick up the call most of the time??
 
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.
You are not the only one....
 
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?
Penn State Police is a full police department. They have jurisdiction over the area where the incident took place. If reported to PSU Police, the first 4 *are* off the hook as far as reporting is concerned. Harmon may not be if he was in the loop. Folks seem to think that PSU Police are rent-a-cops and the jurisdiction is in State College, but that's not the case. What you seem to be requiring would be like Philadelphia Police being required to report such an incident to Pittsburgh Police.
 
This has probably been asked and answered before and I missed it. Why is Joe's actual testimony not public record? Is there audio/video of it, or just transcripts? Regardless of what form, why would they have it read in instead of just submitting it however it was recorded?
 
This has probably been asked and answered before and I missed it. Why is Joe's actual testimony not public record? Is there audio/video of it, or just transcripts? Regardless of what form, why would they have it read in instead of just submitting it however it was recorded?
It was read into the record in the Dec 2011 prelim hearings. For health reasons, he was unable to attend and testify. It was agreed that his GJ testimony would be read.
 
It was read into the record in the Dec 2011 prelim hearings. For health reasons, he was unable to attend and testify. It was agreed that his GJ testimony would be read.
Yes, but we're unsure if it was CORRECTLY read into the record. Schultz's attorney filed a motion regarding at least one error that was read into the record. There may have been others, but I'd have to check.
 
Yes, but we're unsure if it was CORRECTLY read into the record. Schultz's attorney filed a motion regarding at least one error that was read into the record. There may have been others, but I'd have to check.
Agree. But Scott has not said a word since Dec 2011 that JVP's testimony was represented incorrectly.
 
I am aware of that. But one would think that would have been known walking out of the GJ

You are overestimating people. The fact of the matter is if the legal team & the spokesperson had put the GJ presentment allegations in chronological order prior to November 9th, 2011, they could have refuted the narrative of a PSU cover up enabling Sandusky's abuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eloracv
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT