Memory Issues
- Thread starter JmmyW
- Start date
Wow - this one still going?
Not an opinion - it is a fact that he did the right thing when it came to the report he received from MM
People can have opinions on anything else but that right there is an undeniable fact - 98 does not matter one bit - he did what he should have
Which is obvious to anyone familiar with the process.
"What Joe Paterno did is exactly what we train people in his situation to do."
That's a direct quote from one of the NFP ED's.
And if it blows up, you have to look yourself in the mirror the rest of your life. If you are good at compartmentalizing, no problem.
It's not a question of reporting and letting someone do their job; rather it's reporting and someone screws the pooch. That's when your approach creates issues.
By the same token, you do more than you are supposed to and you can screw the whole thing up, even if the guy did it. You have to do your part and trust that the others will do theirs.
Oh I do, but you don't want to hear it which is why you won't let it go. You're somehow bothered by me saying mistakes were made. I don't need your validation on this as it is just my opinion.
If you were to ask any other DA in the country I doubt they'd tell you they needed a confession from an abuser in order to prosecute.
Well - that's what Harmon said - and I have no idea how any of that works. The entire Gricar thing & 1998 is yet another rabbit hole to go down.
It's interesting the OAG didn't pursue this kind of questioning further.
No Barry. Adam Talafierro. He turned into a politician with the same scruples as the rest of those types. Very sad when people raised on Success with Honor throw all those principles right into the trash in favor of "Me first" "I must win at all costs, including scuttlebutting my integrity" .
What most are saying is, it's ridiculous to continue to obsess on people who did what they were supposed to do with the scant info they had, and not move forward to analyze the people who work directly with at-risk kids on a regular basis, supposedly have the proper training, and whiffed on using that specialized training.
What I learned and what everyone should have learned? The TRAINED PROS missed it. Several times, with plenty more info than any non-child-specialist college administrators and athletics personnel.
That should give anyone pause. Most of us decided it was important to point out the utter hypocrisy of PAOAG pursuing these ridiculous charges against the least common denominators in the equation, leaving the fractured CHILD systems as is, so more kids are guaranteed to be abused.
The final lesson is, they fail on a regular basis, which means John Q public like you and me need to train ourselves and anyone around us who will listen, or there will be a never-ending cycle of Pillar predator?-blame everyone else. Training? Kids? Not important . Lather Rinse Repeat.
Case in point? Nassar. MSU and USA Gym personnel could have taken the training and maybe some of those young girls could have been saved earlier. Because they would have learned to do so , from a proper prosecution of the Sandusky case.
Respectfully, and referring to Mike's testimony and other known facts, then why in Mike's civil case against PSU did he allow his attorney to place all the blame at the feet of Spanier, Schultz and Curley, when it was others at PSU that actually did Mike AND the rest of them wrong, financially and otherwise? I found that kind of backstabbing others (also scapegoated) "just to win my case" strategy to be extremely self-serving. He should have collared his attorney and told him to do that case the proper way, focusing on the PSU administrative decisions by those OTHER than the ones no longer there (and also unable to defend themselves) , in other words, the actual Penn State personnel that directly caused Mike's mistreatment.
Last edited:
I agree that calling police was a rational option.
However, I disagree with your last sentence, "But the idea that to do so would have been wrong or impossible, or breaking some rule is not reasonable."
There is at least one argument that illustrates that calling police may have broken protocol unless certain other things happened first. And I admit this argument gets pretty messy and nuanced. Bear with me.
It's important to highlight one of the key differences between the 1998 and 2001 incidents. In 1998, a mother got concerned after hearing her son showered with Sandusky so she first contacted her son's therapist (Dr. Chambers) to make sure she wasn't nuts, and then she contacted Penn State police (and Chambers made a Childline report). In 2001, the Child was not identified. There was no complaining parent, guardian, or child.
The next important thing to highlight is Paterno's last public words - his response to the last question in his interview by Sally Jenkins on 1/13/2012:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/paterno-interview/
JENKINS: Again, why didn't you follow up more (in 2002)?
PATERNO: I was shocked. And then I got pretty sad. I didn't know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise that I did. It didn't work out that way.
PATERNO: I was shocked. And then I got pretty sad. I didn't know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise that I did. It didn't work out that way.
Paterno said he was afraid to jeopardize what the University procedure was.
If you're like me, then you might wonder what procedure Paterno was talking about.
There were multiple investigations that should have uncovered those procedures:
- The Department of Education's Clery Act investigation
- The internal investigation initiated by Erickson appointing an ethics officer to review all procedures
- The NCAA's investigation in which they specifically asked Penn State what procedures were or were not followed
- Freeh's independent investigation in which he claimed to have reviewed all procedures
If you're thinking none of them, then you're right. I hope you're also wondering why that's the case. You'd think someone what have the intellectual curiosity to dig into what Paterno might've been talking about. Freeh even quoted Paterno's response above to Jenkins in his report - once in the executive summary at page 16, and again in the body of the report at page 77.
There was exactly one Penn State policy that addressed sexual assault in February 2001. Policy AD12, titled "Sexual Assault."
Before I get into that in more detail, here's some background on the various investigations that should have uncovered this. To be fair, Freeh included AD12 in a list of relevant policies at page 36 in his report, but he provided no analysis of it or even a copy.
### Clery Act Invetigation, Letter from Department of Education, 11/9/2011
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/DoE_Letter_110911.pdf
Among the items the DOE requested from Penn State:
2. A copy of the catalog and student handbook for the University and for each separate College, school, division, or location within PSU for the academic years 1998-2011; Indicate (flag/tab) the specific portion or location that relates to the Clery Act.
6. The relevant portion of any applications, brochures, disclosures, forms, and other publications related to the Clery Act that is normally distributed to 1) prospective students; 2) prospective employees; 3) first-time students; and, 4) new hires of the University and all Colleges, schools, etc. within PSU that address campus crime and campus security;
6. The relevant portion of any applications, brochures, disclosures, forms, and other publications related to the Clery Act that is normally distributed to 1) prospective students; 2) prospective employees; 3) first-time students; and, 4) new hires of the University and all Colleges, schools, etc. within PSU that address campus crime and campus security;
In theory, procedures related to sexual assault, suspected sexual assault, and any procedures related to the Clery Act would have been provided by Penn State to the DOE.
### Erickson’s ethics officer was supposed to review all policies, 11/11/2011
http://news.psu.edu/story/153710/20...erickson-shares-promises-penn-state-community
Among Erickson's promises to the Penn State community:
We will revisit all standards, policies and programs to ensure they meet not only the law, but Penn State's standard. To oversee this effort, I will appoint an Ethics Officer that will report directly to me.
And:
Penn State is committed to transparency to the fullest extent possible given the ongoing investigations. I commit to providing meaningful and timely updates as frequently as needed.
### NCAA letter to PSU (from Emmert to Erickson), 11/17/2011
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf
Among other things, the letter outlined four questions for PSU to answer by December 16, 2011, providing them 30 days to prepare answers. Among the questions asked:
2. How has Penn State exercised institutional control over the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report? Were there procedures in place that were or were not followed? What are the institution’s expectations and policies to address the conduct that has been alleged in this matter upon discovery by any party?
4. What policies and procedures does Penn State have in place to monitor, prevent and detect the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report or to take disciplinary or corrective action if such behaviors are found?
4. What policies and procedures does Penn State have in place to monitor, prevent and detect the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report or to take disciplinary or corrective action if such behaviors are found?
Indeed these questions are relevant in understanding what happened. As it turns out, PSU did request a delay in answering them until after Freeh’s report was released. In pressers after the Freeh report came out, Erickson mentions that it's time to answer the NCAA questions, and Emmett mentioned he was looking forward to getting the answers (since the Freeh report didn't answer them).
The topic of this letter came up in quite a few depositions in the Corman vs NCAA litigation (including Rodney Erickson, Gene Marsh, Mark Emmert, Donald Remy, David Berst and Bob Williams).
During sanction negotiations, this letter was set aside, apparently by agreement between Emmett & Erickson. Penn State never answered the questions in that letter.
### Frazier provides update on Independent Investigation, 1/20/2012
http://news.psu.edu/story/152386/2012/01/20/frazier-provides-update-independent-investigation
The following are partial remarks by Kenneth Frazier from the Jan. 20, 2012 Board of Trustees meeting:
In addition to working to uncover what occurred in the past, Judge Freeh and his team are thoroughly studying, reviewing and testing all of the University’s policies, procedures, compliance and internal controls relating to identifying and reporting of such sex crimes or misconduct. This examination includes, among other things, any failures or gaps in the University’s control environment, compliance programs and culture which may have enabled the alleged misconduct to occur, go undetected, and not be reported and addressed promptly and properly.
### Frazier provides update on Special Investigation Task Force, 5/4/2012
http://news.psu.edu/story/149114/20...ides-update-special-investigations-task-force
Freeh’s team also is reviewing all University policies, procedures and controls related to identifying and reporting sex crimes and misconduct, including failures or gaps that may have allowed alleged misconduct to go undetected or not be promptly reported and addressed.
The above is a condensed version of Freeh's remarks at the 5/4/2012 Board of Trustees meeting, at page 8 of the minutes:
http://www.psu.edu/trustees/pdf/may2012minutesbot.pdf
Additionally, as I previously have reported, besides working to uncover what occurred in the past, Judge Freeh and his team are thoroughly studying, reviewing and testing all of the University's policies, procedures, compliance and internal controls relating to the identifying and reporting of such sex crimes and misconduct. This examination includes, among other things, any failures or gaps in the University's control environment, compliance programs and culture which may have enabled the alleged misconduct to occur, go undetected, and not be reported and addressed promptly and properly.
So here we have Frazier promising his fellow board members and the Penn State community that Freeh would be conducting a comprehensive review and test of all university proceedures, to include a procedural gap analysis.
### Freeh's Press Release, 7/12/2012
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/Press_Release_07_12_12.pdf
Here is part of Freeh's press release on the day his report was released:
In our investigation, we sought to clarify what occurred, including who knew what and when events happened, and to examine the University's policies, procedures, compliance and internal controls relating to identifying and reporting sexual abuse of children.
### Freeh Report – What did it say about whether procedures were followed in 2001?
Freeh’s focus on PSU policies is largely centered on the Clery act compliance and the fact PSU did not have formal policies in place to ensure compliance with the Clery Act.
What Freeh failed to do was examine what policies were in place that Paterno might have consulted.
The Freeh Report, at page 36, listed AD12 in the list of relevant procedures. But it made no further mention of it. And he made no mention of the Sexual Assault Protocol.
### Freeh Claims to Have Performed Detailed Legal Analyses on the Clery Act and PA reporting requirements, 6/6/2016
Penn State's and Pepper Hamilton's Joint Memorandum of Law in Support of Privilege Claims in Paterno vs. NCAA
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...DUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PRIVILEGE CLAIMS.pdf
At page 5:
... the Freeh Report also contains detailed legal analyses of the Clery Act ...
The detailed legal analyses of the Clery Act provisions in the Freeh Report amounted to three pages (p.112-114) summarizing just four provisions of the Clery Act. This was hardly "detailed legal analyses".
### Penn State received the Department of Education's Clery Act Report, 11/3/2016
http://news.psu.edu/story/435576/20...receives-clery-report-us-department-education
In response to the Clery report, University leaders issued a statement that reads in part:
Penn State provided the federal government with unfettered access to all requested information in the Department of Education review. This review, in scope and duration, is unprecedented by the Department of Education. The review is focused on past incidents, policies and procedures from 1998-2011.
### The Clery Act Report makes no mention of policies in effect in 2001
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...center/cleryact/pennstate/PSCFPRD10327991.pdf
The Clery Act report on Penn State makes no mention of the specific policies that were in effect in 2001. However, there are a handful of extracts from the report that are important in understanding what the Clery Act requires.
At page 49:
One of the central precepts of the Clery Act is an acknowledgement of the fact that students and employees in a higher education setting will often opt to not report crimes directly to law enforcement and will instead choose to first, and perhaps solely, report to another trusted source. This required disclosure reflects that reality and stands for the principle that victims and witnesses should have these options and deserve to know where such reports can be directed and what actions will follow from filing a report.
At page 19:
Under the Clery Act, institutions are required to comply with the policies and procedures established by the institution.
### Clery Act, relevant extracts
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOD...11-title20-chap28-subchapIV-partF-sec1092.htm
Paragraph 8.B.(v) is most relevant, and describes one of the items that must be included in university sexual assault procedures:
8.B. The policy described in subparagraph (A) shall address the following areas:
8.B.(v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses.
8.B.(v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses.
"If the student so chooses." In other words, it is the victim's decision whether or not police are informed. Now, this isn't always the case. And the Clery Act gives universities flexibility in how they craft their procedures. But this is one of the basic elements.
This element was codified in a 1992 amendment to the Clery Act, known as the Federal Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights.
### The Federal Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights | Clery Center For Security On Campus
https://web.archive.org/web/2013081...ral-campus-sexual-assault-victims’-bill-rights
The Federal Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights:
- Survivors shall be notified of their options to notify law enforcement.
- Accuser and accused must have the same opportunity to have others present.
- Both parties shall be informed of the outcome of any disciplinary proceeding.
- Survivors shall be notified of counseling services.
- Survivors shall be notified of options for changing academic and living situations.
The Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights was signed into law by President George Bush in July of 1992. This law requires that all colleges and universities (both public and private) participating in federal student aid programs afford sexual assault victims certain basic rights. Schools found to have violated this law can be fined up to $35,000 or lose their eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs. Complaints about schools that have filed to comply with this law should be made to the U.S. Department of Education.
The “Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights” exists as a part of the campus security reporting requirements, commonly known as the Jeanne Clery Act.
The “Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights” exists as a part of the campus security reporting requirements, commonly known as the Jeanne Clery Act.
So how exactly did Penn State craft their sexual assault policy after these updates to the Clery Act? The sexual assault policy that was in effect in February 2001 was initially released in November 1996. That policy referred to a separate document, the Sexual Assault Protocol, for reporting guidance. That protocol was initially released in Fall 1995.
### Policy AD12 in effect in February 2001
Here's the Sexual Assault Policy in effect in February 2001 - "Policy AD12 Sexual Assault":
https://web.archive.org/web/20000817201026/http://www.guru.psu.edu/policies/ad12.html
Reporting requirements from the version linked above referred to the Protocol to Assist Victims of Relationship, Domestic and Sexual Violence. Here is the entire section on reporting from AD12:
REPORTING:
Guidelines for how and when to report sexual assault to University and/or law enforcement officials are contained in the Sexual Assault Protocol, copies of which are available from the Administrative Office of University Health Services. The Sexual Assault Committee, appointed by the Vice President for Student Affairs, will provide University-wide oversight for policy and procedures relating to sexual assault, including data collection, monitoring of trends and establishing educational programs designed to foster an environment that is intolerant of acts of violence.
Guidelines for how and when to report sexual assault to University and/or law enforcement officials are contained in the Sexual Assault Protocol, copies of which are available from the Administrative Office of University Health Services. The Sexual Assault Committee, appointed by the Vice President for Student Affairs, will provide University-wide oversight for policy and procedures relating to sexual assault, including data collection, monitoring of trends and establishing educational programs designed to foster an environment that is intolerant of acts of violence.
Policy AD12 simply refers to another document, the Sexual Assault Protocol, which provides reporting guidance. Copies of the Fall 2001 version of that document used to be available on the University website. They were removed at some point after 6/17/2012.
The version of the Sexual Assault Protocol that was in effect in February 2001 has more relevance to what Paterno might have been referring to when he said he was afraid to jeopardize university procedure. Unfortunately, there are no active internet links to that version. That doesn't mean I've been unable to dig up a copy.
### Sexual Assault Protocol in effect in February 2001
The following are excerpts from the Sexual Assault Protocol that was in effect in February 2001. To my knowledge, this version of the document is not publicly accessible on the internet.
At page 1 under "I. Philosophy":
Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the crime of rape, it is important to provide confidential services to victims. There is a reluctance on the part of most victims to seek services and to report: thus, it is especially important to provide those who come forward with a protected environment. When certain protocols require that the incident be reported, such as in the case of hospital treatment or injury resulting from the rape, the victim must be informed of the notification that must take place.
At page 3 under "II. Procedures, B. Staff Responsibilities, 1. Victim Contact":
At University Park
Centre Community Hospital Reports all sexual assaults to police. It is the victim's choice whether or not to talk to the police.
Centre Community Hospital Reports all sexual assaults to police. It is the victim's choice whether or not to talk to the police.
At page 4 under "Reporting to Law Enforcement Authorities":
The University encourages victims to report sexual assaults to law enforcement authorities. If the assault happened recently, whether or not to report to police is a decision the victim will need to make fairly soon.
At at page 5 in the same section under "(b) Reporting to Law Enforcement Authorities":
If the victim chooses to report, encourage her/him to make the phone call.
It should be obvious at this point that the language in the Sexual Assault Protocol exists largely as a result of the requirements dictated by the Clery Act, which is federal law.
This is where it gets messy. We're talking about university officials in 2001 who had no real experience or training in responding to allegations of child sexual abuse. However, there were established procedures for dealing sexual assault allegations in a university setting, whether it was among students, faculty, or staff.
And it was the Clery Act that provided guidance on the types of things that universities in general needed to include in their procedures that dealt with sexual assault. Unfortunately, that guidance was specific to adult (or university student) victims, not child victims. Worse yet, it was aimed at identifiable victims, or those who had access to and could read those university procedures. That's another key part of the Clery Act - not only do the procedures have to contain certain things, they must be readily available to the university community. Today, that means they must be on university websites & easy to find.
University procedures in 2001, in general, at least with regard to requirements set forth by the Clery Act, were never designed for child victims and certainly not unidentifiable child victims.
Sally Jenkins asked Paterno why he didn't follow up more. He said, in part, that he was afraid to jeopardize university. Was he talking about the Sexual Assault Protocol? Did he read it back in 2001? If so, he read the following phrases:
- Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the crime of rape, it is important to provide confidential services to victims.
- When certain protocols require that the incident be reported ... the victim must be informed of the notification that must take place.
- whether or not to report to police is a decision the victim will need to make fairly soon.
- If the victim chooses to report, encourage her/him to make the phone call.
- It is the victim's choice whether or not to talk to the police.
Now imagine it's you reading these phrases in 2001, without knowing anything about child sexual abuse, you have uncertainty about whether there was an assault, and you have no idea who the victim is? Would you have a clear idea on what to do? You'd probably hand it off to your boss. You might even show him this procedure and explain you're not sure if calling the police is the right thing to do. You might explain it's not really our right to make that decision. You might also say that we need to hear from the child and his parents. And if they do want to report, and they choose to, I don't think they're going to come to us, they'd probably go right to the police.
### Almost Done
I've written about parts of this before, in the context of how a deposition of Freeh might have played out:
https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/freeh-deposition-in-paterno-v-ncaa-lawsuit/
I got some feedback on that blogpost from Jim Clemente. He summed up the issues quite well and noted the procedural gap that existed. Here is part of what he said:
It's clear the Clery Act & PSU Policy wasn't meant for child sex cases. In those cases it is never up to the child whether a report should be made. So it is in fact a gap that existed & should have been addressed.
Problem is most Universities did not consider themselves "youth serving organizations " when in fact they were.
Adult students are and should be capable of making informed decisions about whether or not to report sexual assault, rape, etc. but children should never be involved in that process. The law is meant to protect them. They are not developmentally capable of making such a decision.
Problem is most Universities did not consider themselves "youth serving organizations " when in fact they were.
Adult students are and should be capable of making informed decisions about whether or not to report sexual assault, rape, etc. but children should never be involved in that process. The law is meant to protect them. They are not developmentally capable of making such a decision.
Importantly, Penn State fixed the procedural gap that existed.
Among the first (and perhaps best) recommendation Freeh made was that the university should create a procedure specific to reporting child abuse. At page 130-131, in Chapter 10 on recommendations, in the subsection on policies and procedures, he noted: "the absence or poor enforcement of policies relating to the protection of children".
Even before the Freeh report was released, Penn State adopted one of his early recommendations. Namely, to institute a new policy aimed specifically at reporting suspected child abuse. It's policy AD72 which was approved on 5/14/2012. You can find a copy of it at the end the Freeh Report, at page 254.
Why haven't we seen this type of discussion and analysis before? It's obvious a procedural gap existed. It's equally obvious that this procedural gap was effectively closed. Is it simply that the explanation is too nuanced? Had Freeh put forth a similar analysis in his report, how do you think the public would have received it? Or did Freeh have a narrative he had to stick to? Did Penn State seek out the sanctions and the Consent Decree so they wouldn't have to answer the NCAA questions? Did the Department of Education avoid this type of discussion in their Clery Act Report on Penn State? Did the DOE purposely avoid this discussion by their own choice? Is it possible this was addressed in the preliminary DOE report that Penn State was given in 2013 to comment on? Why did it take more than three years for the final DOE report to be made public?
### One more thing
Penn State's internal ethics officer, the DOE, the NCAA, and Freeh aren't the only investigators that failed to allow this information to become public.
At the 12/16/2011 preliminary hearing, during cross-examination of McQueary, there was this brief exchange at page 103:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...chultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf
Q: In all of the conversations, meetings you've had with Coach Paterno since that first time you talked to him about this incident, he never said the police should have been called?
MR. BEEMER: Objection to the relevance of what Coach Paterno said should have been done.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BEEMER: Objection to the relevance of what Coach Paterno said should have been done.
THE COURT: Sustained.
It seems not even the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General was interested in hearing the answer.
/sorry for the length, and the tendency to overload on quotes, and the rambling; I wish I had more answers
@JmmyW , I've tweeted this a bazillion times to not only followers but also all media writing errant reports on the so-called "Clery fines" , along with copies of the applicable clauses. I will not copy all of it here, but suffice to say there are probably 50 of them total, which of course, you and anyone else who are followers of my account probably read at the time they were written?
The CLERY ACT simply does not apply to the Sandusky case, nor did it ever.
I also had a lengthy tweet exchange with S Daniel Carter, the main writer of the Clery Act, from about from late October 2016 to 11/06/2016 . I provided him the law as it exists, excerpts from the DOE's report, and it was shown that the DOE knew they had no basis for finding any PSU reporting violations based on the Clery Law. Mr. S. Daniel Carter basically then said well, I'm not the DOE (in other words you are correct), then wrote a corrective article at Huffpost to clarify that the DOE's fines had little to nothing to do with the Sandusky case.
DOE had to twist around another obscure Federal law CFR 668.46 in order to proclaim a paltry $24K fine "due to Sandusky" and PSU's (CORRECT) handling of the information in 2001. There did not need to be any "crime log entry" at any time because 1. '98 The subject was not an imminent danger to any student or campus employees, all adults. 2. There was no victim report in 2001, and 3. none of these were deemed to be crimes until 2012, AFTER the period ending which DOE claimed to be examining. All of it was a dog and pony show.
DOE USED Clery to "get in the door" and poke around, just like all of these other agencies pretending to "do something" plus Freeh and NCAA and basically used the Sandusky case to look good.
Freeh/Pepper did not even quote the proper Clery reference in their "report".
Bottom line, what both of us are saying (and I thought I reported this Clery discussion here back when it was happening) is:
None of them had a valid basis for jumping on a bandwagon investigating PSU regarding the Sandusky case based on "media reports" and GJPs. This includes Moody's and their bond ratings and the Accreditation investigation as well.
The reason they never reported they did not find anything was because... it would be rather embarrassing to say "we didn't find anything wrong" . All of them had to make it look good that they had a legitimate reason for doing what they were doing.
IMHO every "agency" report should have started with the sentence: Because, we want to make it appear as if we are morally superior and are actually doing something relevant regarding the molestation of children from a children's charity called Second Mile that is not under the auspices of Penn State University, but under the charge of the State of Pennsylvania's Office of Attorney General , but please, don't look over there, because..... shiny objects and, you know... "football"
Last edited:
This detailed information would make an excellent blog post on SMSS / Ray Blehar's site- or added to JmmyW's site. Is it possible you could provide such? Otherwise, it would just drift down to the bottom of the fish tank sitting here - and that would be a shame.
Since there was never an accusation of criminal activity to begin with, kinda hard to prosecute a charitable saint over a bear ahug.
Interesting theory. Although I may have a simpler explanation. As you know the mandated reporter law in 2001 specified that only if the victim came forward were you required to report. So to a degree the PSU protocol still applied legally to CSA. The law also specified (& this is also how MRs were usually trained) that someone in Paterno's position was to report the incident to the person in charge of the area the incident took place. The AD Tim Curley would've been in charge of the athletic facilities. That 2nd person is then required to complete the procedures. Paterno's father was a lawyer. His son became a lawyer. Paterno himself almost went to law school. He was a by the book guy & almost certainly kept PA law books in his library. It very likely he reviewed these as well as the PSU handbook. This explains why Joe didn't Interfere. The law specifically told him to put it in Curley's hands. I wouldn't assume Joe remembered exactly why he handed it off as it seems he was foggy about most of it in his old age.
The mother wanted him arrested. The kid was reluctant because he enjoyed the perks he got from hanging out with him...but any DA or trained professional knows that and knows how to elicit more candid conversations from victims. Gricar never even interviewed him...and removed the woman who knew how to talk to victims of abuse. And there were two independent victims...and Jerry even confessed he had done this before. And there was body contact and possible genital contact (admitted by Jerry) which constitutes at minimum corruption of minor and unlawful contact charges.
There were a number of options available to Gricar. Relying solely on a confession from Sandusky is not a reasonable one.
You never fail to make up stuff Nellie, thanks for chiming in though. I simply posted a ? on Twitter wondering why Wendy only procured (or only posted) the Mike and Jack transcripts but never called it a conspiracy. Its also no big secret that Wendy works in close tandem with Maribeth and PS4RS.
So the question is WHY doesn't Wendy care about the Curely and Schultz transcripts? Is it because she doesn't care that THEY are lying and tried to change their story from their pleas, and because that goes against the good old "the media and OAG made up the whole thing". In the PS4RS narrative the only people who are ever "lying" and have a motive in this are the folks who make the admins look bad, except when they make themselves look bad. Then it's just an innocent mistake or no big deal that they don't care about.
She already said why she didn't ask for the Curley and Schultz transcripts. Read her post and STFU. Or just STFU.
While I will wait for the final transcripts to be sure, I am told a very different set of events from someone who sat with you during the trial.
1. As part of his plea deal Tim told the OAG on 3/17/2017 that Graham was part of the plan they developed on 2/25/01 but just before that in the trial Tim told the court that he wasn't sure if Graham was part of the plan.
That seems like a pretty big deal when the trial is about whether Graham did or did not do anything as part of the incident. Tim tells the OAG that he was involved in the plan, then he changes his mind on the stand in front of the jury.
2. On cross Schultz admitted to Silver that on 3/8/2017 that he had made a statemtent saying that Mike told him Jerry had his arms around the boy. Silver further asked if this was the first time he made such a statement to which Schultz replied correct.
Another pretty big deal. People have spent years trying to downplay what Mike said he saw, and now Gary says that Mike told him Jerry had his arms around the boy?
I would really like to see the transcripts to see what the actual statements were, along with a comparison to the plea hearing transcripts. Either way those are both very relevant to the case.
I know you have excuses for why these aren't big deals, so like I said, keep living the dream Linda.
I read the post, and I saw that she said she didn't care. I asked why she didn't care (and speculated about why).
Don't speculate. It illuminates your biases and stupidity.
I simply didn't care. I didn't want to spend the cash. It's not anything more than that.
Don't make it more than it is.
Everyone knows Second Mile has been in my sights for years now. I got my ass in front of 3 Attorney Generals on this issue & for a brief moment there - actually had a public official take action.
And then POOF!
The fact remains that Jack Raykovitz had the same knowledge as others and failed to pursue it. I have always been of the belief this entire epic shitstorm could have been avoided had Fina & Eshbach simply skipped down the reporting chain and nailed Dr. Raykovitz and Katherine Genovese. Everyone in public office would have won. We would have gotten relevant answers, and it wouldn't have spiraled into a Half a Billion dollar debacle destroying so many in its path - this is still a smoking ruin today.
Everyone knows how I feel, and I think I've been pretty vocal about it - probably to the annoyance of many here. (But thanks to Tom and the moderators for letting me vent my spleen here)
You want to pursue Tim & Gary's testimony - go ahead. Contact Dauphin County court reporting, make the request and pay for it. Anyone can do that.
There's no nefarious intent, conspiracy or some sort of agenda on my part - I can only concentrate on a few tracks to be outraged about - and it's always been the leadership at Second Mile & the conduct of my public officials.
I don't know what else to tell you.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. You know I share your outrage about TSM. I was simply asking the question. Your answer doesn't make much sense though. Your outrage is focused on TSM so Jacks testimony makes sense but then why Mikes? Mike never spoke to TSM directly, Tim did. So it seems that if you want to know what TSM knew and when then Tim's testimony would be very important. At the very least to compare what Tim said to what Jack said about their conversation.
Says the guy who clearly missed that I obviously HAD read the thread. Thanks for the tips.
There is a zero percent chance that your squawking has helped your credibility towards nailing TSM.
The supporters you attract tend to be be free Jerry types, weird single guys like Steve & Jeff still living with Mom. All transcripts aside, it'seems very odd that your fan base has that demographic.
Typo.....meant to type in ADAM T.
But you certainly are correct about this:
"...Very sad when people raised on Success with Honor throw all those principles right into the trash in favor of "Me first"..."
I doubt that you could even imagine how RIGHT I think that statement is
the Funchuckles Unhinged Lack of Self Awareness Tour continues . . .
invokes Success With Honor to justify how he verbally trashed candidates in a forum that featured Jay Paterno
you cannot make this stuff up, too good!
invokes Success With Honor to justify how he verbally trashed candidates in a forum that featured Jay Paterno
you cannot make this stuff up, too good!
Perhaps you could purchase the transcripts and then compare notes with @wensilver.
Similar threads
