OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)

[LaJolla Lion]

Why did you decide to insert CSA in your question? I'm not aware Jerry was accused of such in '98.

Well Schultz was as he had it in his notes and you were not on the the emails either, so don't sweat it. Schultz said it was wildly inappropriate at best and criminal at worst. Schultz also felt the need to bring up 98 to Spanier. Jerry was also told by the police to never shower again with any children again, but he did just that. JimmyW has posted that time and time again, it wasn't just the one kid...it was all kids and most normal people get that picture pretty quickly.

If you need to pretend these men were absolute morons so you can somehow feel better about yourself, have at it. Schultz stated he told Spanier on more than one occasion about 98 and the email was produced at his trial, why would he bother if it was nothing at all.....ooops again indy.

 

[Lattner]

Absolutely I would agree with that, but Schultz also said on more than once occasion too so something is still off there. I don't want to simply just make up a theory there, but LT seems pretty much dead on unless Schultz is lying. My point of accountability at that level still stands...not always fair either.

Schultz is a serial liar. Part of the reason the entire case will be discussed in classrooms forever.
Schultz’s attorney had filed a motion to quash , asking the court to dismiss the perjury charge against his client because the attorney general had not identified what false statement or statements Schultz had made to the grand jury.

Monday’s reply to that request said the attorney general provided a list of false statements to the defense .

Furthermore, “Schultz told so many lies during his Grand Jury testimony that it is unfair for the Commonwealth to allege and prove so many lies,” prosecutors wrote in the motion.

The prosecution’s motion made note of the fact that it had issued a subpoena to Penn State months ago for any evidence relating to Sandusky, his employment at the university and any investigation of his alleged criminal conduct. Yet it just received the secret file, which, according to prosecutors, was “created, maintained and possessed” by Schultz.

A statement released by a spokesperson for former FBI director Louis Freeh, the head of Penn State’s internal investigation into the university’s handling of the Sandusky allegations, said it was Freeh who handed over the emails to the attorney general’s office.

“The ongoing independent investigation led by Judge Freeh discovered these emails in the course of its work,” the spokesperson said. “These emails were then provided to the State Attorney General, consistent with the investigation’s prior commitment to share certain information. These materials will be fully discussed in the report to the Task Force, and beyond that Judge Freeh and the investigation team has no further comment.”

Schultz’s lawyer, Tom Farrell, and Caroline Roberto, Curley’s attorney, acknowledged Monday that high-level discussions took place between their clients and Spanier concerning allegations of child sex abuse against Sandusky.

“The information confirms that as they testified at the grand jury, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz conscientiously considered Mike Mc Queary’s reports of observing inappropriate conduct, reported it to the University President Graham Spanier, and deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct and handle the situation properly,” the statement said.

Penn State spokesman Dave La Torre said in a statement, "The University has responded to several subpoenas and gathered documents from many sources across the institution. As soon as any relevant documents were discovered, the University immediately provided them to the office of the Attorney General and the Freeh Group. Out of respect for the ongoing legal process, the University cannot discuss specific information as it pertains to these issues."

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Schultz is a serial liar. Part of the reason the entire case will be discussed in classrooms forever.
Schultz’s attorney had filed a motion to quash , asking the court to dismiss the perjury charge against his client because the attorney general had not identified what false statement or statements Schultz had made to the grand jury.

Monday’s reply to that request said the attorney general provided a list of false statements to the defense .

Furthermore, “Schultz told so many lies during his Grand Jury testimony that it is unfair for the Commonwealth to allege and prove so many lies,” prosecutors wrote in the motion.

The prosecution’s motion made note of the fact that it had issued a subpoena to Penn State months ago for any evidence relating to Sandusky, his employment at the university and any investigation of his alleged criminal conduct. Yet it just received the secret file, which, according to prosecutors, was “created, maintained and possessed” by Schultz.

A statement released by a spokesperson for former FBI director Louis Freeh, the head of Penn State’s internal investigation into the university’s handling of the Sandusky allegations, said it was Freeh who handed over the emails to the attorney general’s office.

“The ongoing independent investigation led by Judge Freeh discovered these emails in the course of its work,” the spokesperson said. “These emails were then provided to the State Attorney General, consistent with the investigation’s prior commitment to share certain information. These materials will be fully discussed in the report to the Task Force, and beyond that Judge Freeh and the investigation team has no further comment.”

Schultz’s lawyer, Tom Farrell, and Caroline Roberto, Curley’s attorney, acknowledged Monday that high-level discussions took place between their clients and Spanier concerning allegations of child sex abuse against Sandusky.

“The information confirms that as they testified at the grand jury, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz conscientiously considered Mike Mc Queary’s reports of observing inappropriate conduct, reported it to the University President Graham Spanier, and deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct and handle the situation properly,” the statement said.

Penn State spokesman Dave La Torre said in a statement, "The University has responded to several subpoenas and gathered documents from many sources across the institution. As soon as any relevant documents were discovered, the University immediately provided them to the office of the Attorney General and the Freeh Group. Out of respect for the ongoing legal process, the University cannot discuss specific information as it pertains to these issues."

ok jerot.

 

[Obliviax]

Schultz is a serial liar. Part of the reason the entire case will be discussed in classrooms forever.
Schultz’s attorney had filed a motion to quash , asking the court to dismiss the perjury charge against his client because the attorney general had not identified what false statement or statements Schultz had made to the grand jury.

Monday’s reply to that request said the attorney general provided a list of false statements to the defense .

Furthermore, “Schultz told so many lies during his Grand Jury testimony that it is unfair for the Commonwealth to allege and prove so many lies,” prosecutors wrote in the motion.

The prosecution’s motion made note of the fact that it had issued a subpoena to Penn State months ago for any evidence relating to Sandusky, his employment at the university and any investigation of his alleged criminal conduct. Yet it just received the secret file, which, according to prosecutors, was “created, maintained and possessed” by Schultz.

A statement released by a spokesperson for former FBI director Louis Freeh, the head of Penn State’s internal investigation into the university’s handling of the Sandusky allegations, said it was Freeh who handed over the emails to the attorney general’s office.

“The ongoing independent investigation led by Judge Freeh discovered these emails in the course of its work,” the spokesperson said. “These emails were then provided to the State Attorney General, consistent with the investigation’s prior commitment to share certain information. These materials will be fully discussed in the report to the Task Force, and beyond that Judge Freeh and the investigation team has no further comment.”

Schultz’s lawyer, Tom Farrell, and Caroline Roberto, Curley’s attorney, acknowledged Monday that high-level discussions took place between their clients and Spanier concerning allegations of child sex abuse against Sandusky.

“The information confirms that as they testified at the grand jury, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz conscientiously considered Mike Mc Queary’s reports of observing inappropriate conduct, reported it to the University President Graham Spanier, and deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct and handle the situation properly,” the statement said.

Penn State spokesman Dave La Torre said in a statement, "The University has responded to several subpoenas and gathered documents from many sources across the institution. As soon as any relevant documents were discovered, the University immediately provided them to the office of the Attorney General and the Freeh Group. Out of respect for the ongoing legal process, the University cannot discuss specific information as it pertains to these issues."

That information was early on. We saw that prosecution lied in several areas, hence so many charges getting thrown out by the judge and several more by prosecutors when they knew their case wouldn't carry a conviction.

Lets take this one issue: "Furthermore, “Schultz told so many lies during his Grand Jury testimony that it is unfair for the Commonwealth to allege and prove so many lies,” prosecutors wrote in the motion". It is a ridiculous statement. The prosecution didn't need to prove "so many lies", they just had to prove one.

But I do blame Schultz...of all the people associated, he is the guy responsible for campus security and dropped the ball.

 

[JmmyW]

Well Schultz was as he had it in his notes and you were not on the the emails either, so don't sweat it. Schultz said it was wildly inappropriate at best and criminal at worst. Schultz also felt the need to bring up 98 to Spanier. Jerry was also told by the police to never shower again with any children again, but he did just that. JimmyW has posted that time and time again, it wasn't just the one kid...it was all kids and most normal people get that picture pretty quickly.

If you need to pretend these men were absolute morons so you can somehow feel better about yourself, have at it. Schultz stated he told Spanier on more than one occasion about 98 and the email was produced at his trial, why would he bother if it was nothing at all.....ooops again indy.

Just wanted to add something about that 1998 admonition from police & DPW not to shower with children....

From Ditka's closing at the Spanier trial:

And what do we know happened in `98? Oh, we told him not to do it anymore. Guess it didn't work, because here we are in 2001 and they're back [p.72]

We'll just tell him: Don't come back. Because you know, `98 we told him: Don't do that. And here he is doin' it again. [p.81]​

CSS were never aware of that ban. That’s according to the Commonwealth’s own witness in the preliminary hearings - former PSU police chief Tom Harmon.

Preliminary hearing 7/29/2013, morning session, at pages 140-141:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...013 Preliminary Hearing Transcript 1 of 2.PDF

BY MR. FARRELL:

Q Do you know if anyone from the Department of Public Welfare knew that Jerry Sandusky was told he shouldn't shower with boys?
A Could you ask that again?

Q Well, do you know who was advised of the warning to Jerry Sandusky that he shouldn't shower with boys?
A I don't know for a fact other than the investigator was with Officer Schreffler when they talked to Jerry Sandusky.

Q The investigator from DPW?
A That's correct.

Q And you don't know, you don't know of your own knowledge whether anything was done to enforce that, do you?
A No.

Q And as far as you know, that was never told, that warning was never conveyed to Mr. Schultz, was it?
A Not to my knowledge.​

At no point in the Spanier trial was there evidence presented that Curley, Schultz, or Spanier were made aware of the 1998 police and DPW admonition to Sandusky to not shower with boys in the future.

And, as I recall the many times the prosecution highlighted (at Spanier's trial) that the 2001 ban on Sandusky bringing children to campus had no enforcement mechanism, I guess it should be no surprise that the prosecution didn't mention the police and DPW "ban" from 1998 had no enforcement mechanism either.

However, I think this particular issue also highlights a missed opportunity & communication issue between Harmon and Schultz. I believe if Schultz had known about that 98 admonition, he would have made sure 2001 was handled differently (or at least I hope so). Alternately, if Schultz had told Harmon about 2001, or if Harmon had demonstrated just a little curiosity why Schultz asked whether the 98 report was still in the archives in 2001, maybe those two would have communicated more and things would have happened differently. But that didn’t happen. And here we are.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Just wanted to add something about that 1998 admonition from police & DPW not to shower with children....

From Ditka's closing at the Spanier trial:

And what do we know happened in `98? Oh, we told him not to do it anymore. Guess it didn't work, because here we are in 2001 and they're back [p.72]

We'll just tell him: Don't come back. Because you know, `98 we told him: Don't do that. And here he is doin' it again. [p.81]​

CSS were never aware of that ban. That’s according to the Commonwealth’s own witness in the preliminary hearings - former PSU police chief Tom Harmon.

Preliminary hearing 7/29/2013, morning session, at pages 140-141:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/July 29, 2013 Preliminary Hearing Transcript 1 of 2.PDF

BY MR. FARRELL:

Q Do you know if anyone from the Department of Public Welfare knew that Jerry Sandusky was told he shouldn't shower with boys?
A Could you ask that again?

Q Well, do you know who was advised of the warning to Jerry Sandusky that he shouldn't shower with boys?
A I don't know for a fact other than the investigator was with Officer Schreffler when they talked to Jerry Sandusky.

Q The investigator from DPW?
A That's correct.

Q And you don't know, you don't know of your own knowledge whether anything was done to enforce that, do you?
A No.

Q And as far as you know, that was never told, that warning was never conveyed to Mr. Schultz, was it?
A Not to my knowledge.​

At no point in the Spanier trial was there evidence presented that Curley, Schultz, or Spanier were made aware of the 1998 police and DPW admonition to Sandusky to not shower with boys in the future.

And, as I recall the many times the prosecution highlighted (at Spanier's trial) that the 2001 ban on Sandusky bringing children to campus had no enforcement mechanism, I guess it should be no surprise that the prosecution didn't mention the police and DPW "ban" from 1998 had no enforcement mechanism either.

However, I think this particular issue also highlights a missed opportunity & communication issue between Harmon and Schultz. I believe if Schultz had known about that 98 admonition, he would have made sure 2001 was handled differently (or at least I hope so). Alternately, if Schultz had told Harmon about 2001, or if Harmon had demonstrated just a little curiosity why Schultz asked whether the 98 report was still in the archives in 2001, maybe those two would have communicated more and things would have happened differently. But that didn’t happen. And here we are.

It makes me wonder how Schultz knew it was wildly inappropriate or not....something doesn't add up there.

 

[indynittany]

....At no point in the Spanier trial was there evidence presented that Curley, Schultz, or Spanier were made aware of the 1998 police and DPW admonition to Sandusky to not shower with boys in the future......

HR 101, right? You'd think something as important as this would have been documented!

In part because it was never documented, we will never know for sure in what context that admonition occurred.

Was it like?:

"We'll be watching you, you sick SOB. Don't you let me catch you showering with kids again! You hear me?"

-or-

"You know, Mr. Sandusky, you're taking a huge risk when you shower with these kids, especially alone. This is a lawsuit just waiting to happen. One angry mom is all it would take. You dodged a bullet here. You really need to stop for your sake and TSM. BTW, if you have any extra tickets for the OSU game, I would really appreciate it?"

 

[BBrown]

He has a little small group of people who really want him to be right so no matter how many times he doesn’t deliver, they’ll just keep backing him. I posted Lucy pulling the football a few weeks back for a reason. Victim shaming is a great defense tactic but the trial is over with. There is no real cause currently to think anything will change.

Agree about the victim stuff too, even though I do believe some were there for the handout. But you are never going to win over the majority by blaming and shaming victims, I mean just look at what went on at FOX and the radio talk show guy that just got fired for the things they said.
What really pisses me off is that he (Ziegler) wont try a new strategy. He has some really good info regarding timelines and dare I say it medical stuff that would be a lot more thought provoking for the avg. reader.
Not to mention sticking to the print media because he's just too "volatile" for the radio and tv market.

 

[Chris92]

Just wanted to add something about that 1998 admonition from police & DPW not to shower with children....

From Ditka's closing at the Spanier trial:

And what do we know happened in `98? Oh, we told him not to do it anymore. Guess it didn't work, because here we are in 2001 and they're back [p.72]

We'll just tell him: Don't come back. Because you know, `98 we told him: Don't do that. And here he is doin' it again. [p.81]​

CSS were never aware of that ban. That’s according to the Commonwealth’s own witness in the preliminary hearings - former PSU police chief Tom Harmon.

Preliminary hearing 7/29/2013, morning session, at pages 140-141:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/July 29, 2013 Preliminary Hearing Transcript 1 of 2.PDF

BY MR. FARRELL:

Q Do you know if anyone from the Department of Public Welfare knew that Jerry Sandusky was told he shouldn't shower with boys?
A Could you ask that again?

Q Well, do you know who was advised of the warning to Jerry Sandusky that he shouldn't shower with boys?
A I don't know for a fact other than the investigator was with Officer Schreffler when they talked to Jerry Sandusky.

Q The investigator from DPW?
A That's correct.

Q And you don't know, you don't know of your own knowledge whether anything was done to enforce that, do you?
A No.

Q And as far as you know, that was never told, that warning was never conveyed to Mr. Schultz, was it?
A Not to my knowledge.​

At no point in the Spanier trial was there evidence presented that Curley, Schultz, or Spanier were made aware of the 1998 police and DPW admonition to Sandusky to not shower with boys in the future.

And, as I recall the many times the prosecution highlighted (at Spanier's trial) that the 2001 ban on Sandusky bringing children to campus had no enforcement mechanism, I guess it should be no surprise that the prosecution didn't mention the police and DPW "ban" from 1998 had no enforcement mechanism either.

However, I think this particular issue also highlights a missed opportunity & communication issue between Harmon and Schultz. I believe if Schultz had known about that 98 admonition, he would have made sure 2001 was handled differently (or at least I hope so). Alternately, if Schultz had told Harmon about 2001, or if Harmon had demonstrated just a little curiosity why Schultz asked whether the 98 report was still in the archives in 2001, maybe those two would have communicated more and things would have happened differently. But that didn’t happen. And here we are.

What's missing from all of this? CYS and DPW didn't notify TSM in writing that their founder was the subject of an investigation like they were mandated to do.

 

[BBrown]

I am very interested in hearing Ralph's reaction to the latest developments. We have heard the story from Ziegler's perspective and I would like to hear things from Ralph's perspective. However, given the apparent divorce between Ziegler and Cipriano, it may be some time before we hear from Ralph.

I wonder what sort of credit that Zig will give Ralph when he posts the article. I also wonder if there will be any legal issues associated with posting the article on a web site. Zig did say that he wasn’t going to post the source documents at this time. This leads to a couple of questions. When, if ever, will the source documents be published and who was/were the source(s) for the PSU settlement documents?

There is a reason everyone seems to "divorce" themselves from Zielger.

 

[BBrown]

It makes me wonder how Schultz knew it was wildly inappropriate or not....something doesn't add up there.

JMO but Schultz was always the one I "distrusted" the most out of Curley and Spanier.

 

[Lattner]

Just wanted to add something about that 1998 admonition from police & DPW not to shower with children....

From Ditka's closing at the Spanier trial:

And what do we know happened in `98? Oh, we told him not to do it anymore. Guess it didn't work, because here we are in 2001 and they're back [p.72]

We'll just tell him: Don't come back. Because you know, `98 we told him: Don't do that. And here he is doin' it again. [p.81]​

CSS were never aware of that ban. That’s according to the Commonwealth’s own witness in the preliminary hearings - former PSU police chief Tom Harmon.

Preliminary hearing 7/29/2013, morning session, at pages 140-141:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/July 29, 2013 Preliminary Hearing Transcript 1 of 2.PDF

BY MR. FARRELL:

Q Do you know if anyone from the Department of Public Welfare knew that Jerry Sandusky was told he shouldn't shower with boys?
A Could you ask that again?

Q Well, do you know who was advised of the warning to Jerry Sandusky that he shouldn't shower with boys?
A I don't know for a fact other than the investigator was with Officer Schreffler when they talked to Jerry Sandusky.

Q The investigator from DPW?
A That's correct.

Q And you don't know, you don't know of your own knowledge whether anything was done to enforce that, do you?
A No.

Q And as far as you know, that was never told, that warning was never conveyed to Mr. Schultz, was it?
A Not to my knowledge.​

At no point in the Spanier trial was there evidence presented that Curley, Schultz, or Spanier were made aware of the 1998 police and DPW admonition to Sandusky to not shower with boys in the future.

And, as I recall the many times the prosecution highlighted (at Spanier's trial) that the 2001 ban on Sandusky bringing children to campus had no enforcement mechanism, I guess it should be no surprise that the prosecution didn't mention the police and DPW "ban" from 1998 had no enforcement mechanism either.

However, I think this particular issue also highlights a missed opportunity & communication issue between Harmon and Schultz. I believe if Schultz had known about that 98 admonition, he would have made sure 2001 was handled differently (or at least I hope so). Alternately, if Schultz had told Harmon about 2001, or if Harmon had demonstrated just a little curiosity why Schultz asked whether the 98 report was still in the archives in 2001, maybe those two would have communicated more and things would have happened differently. But that didn’t happen. And here we are.

What ban?
Schultz's duties included oversight of the university police. He testified that he was aware of the 1998 incident and acknowledged similarities between it and the 2002 allegations. But according to the grand jury report, Schultz "never sought or reviewed a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the university did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for specifics. No one ever did. Schultz expressed surprise upon learning that the 1998 investigation by University Police produced a lengthy police report. Schultz said there was never any discussion between himself and Curley about turning the 2002 incident over to any police agency." The graduate assistant was also never questioned by police.

• Sandusky was told he could no longer bring children into Penn State's football facility in light of the 2002 incident, and the executive director of The Second Mile was made aware of that fact, in addition to the incident. Schultz testified that Spanier had approved this decision. Schultz also said he believed he and Curley had informed a "child protection agency" about the 2002 incident. Curley also admitted "the ban on bringing children to the campus was unenforceable," in the words of the report.

• Records show that the 2002 incident was never reported to the Department of Public Welfare, Children and Youth Services, or the university police, in violation of state law.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

JMO but Schultz was always the one I "distrusted" the most out of Curley and Spanier.

Yeah, his words and his notes don't seem to mesh very well IMO. If it was really nothing in 98 like some believe, why keep notes and inform the President of the 98 incident in 2001?

 

[indynittany]

Yeah, his words and his notes don't seem to mesh very well IMO. If it was really nothing in 98 like some believe, why keep notes and inform the President of the 98 incident in 2001?

Just doing his job.

 

[BBrown]

Yeah, his words and his notes don't seem to mesh very well IMO. If it was really nothing in 98 like some believe, why keep notes and inform the President of the 98 incident in 2001?

IDK. If it was me I probably would have kept something that, possibly, inflammatory around just in case.
But is that just 20/20 hindsight on my part? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[BBrown]

Just doing his job.

Yea thats kind of what I was thinking as well.

 

[Obliviax]

What ban?
Schultz's duties included oversight of the university police. He testified that he was aware of the 1998 incident and acknowledged similarities between it and the 2002 allegations. But according to the grand jury report, Schultz "never sought or reviewed a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the university did so. Schultz did not ask the graduate assistant for specifics. No one ever did. Schultz expressed surprise upon learning that the 1998 investigation by University Police produced a lengthy police report. Schultz said there was never any discussion between himself and Curley about turning the 2002 incident over to any police agency." The graduate assistant was also never questioned by police.

• Sandusky was told he could no longer bring children into Penn State's football facility in light of the 2002 incident, and the executive director of The Second Mile was made aware of that fact, in addition to the incident. Schultz testified that Spanier had approved this decision. Schultz also said he believed he and Curley had informed a "child protection agency" about the 2002 incident. Curley also admitted "the ban on bringing children to the campus was unenforceable," in the words of the report.

• Records show that the 2002 incident was never reported to the Department of Public Welfare, Children and Youth Services, or the university police, in violation of state law.

Unenforceable because it was part of the emeritus status granted to JS and signed off on by the Rodney Erickson. The only way to get it revoked, IIRC, was to remove emeritus status which was tantamount to taking away tenure (read, a lengthy process). So he, Curley, was stating that it was unenforceable short of taking away Emeritus status.

 

[Zenophile]

Unenforceable because it was part of the emeritus status granted to JS and signed off on by the Rodney Erickson. The only way to get it revoked, IIRC, was to remove emeritus status which was tantamount to taking away tenure (read, a lengthy process). So he, Curley, was stating that it was unenforceable short of taking away Emeritus status.

Curly even attempted to get Sandusky's keys after news of the grand jury allegations and was overruled by Baldwin.

 

[Connorpozlee]

HR 101, right? You'd think something as important as this would have been documented!

In part because it was never documented, we will never know for sure in what context that admonition occurred.

Was it like?:

"We'll be watching you, you sick SOB. Don't you let me catch you showering with kids again! You hear me?"

-or-

"You know, Mr. Sandusky, you're taking a huge risk when you shower with these kids, especially alone. This is a lawsuit just waiting to happen. One angry mom is all it would take. You dodged a bullet here. You really need to stop for your sake and TSM. BTW, if you have any extra tickets for the OSU game, I would really appreciate it?"

It wasn’t just showering with alone with kids. It was showering alone with a kid and hugging in the process. What is your take on that Indy? Honestly.

 

[L.T. Young]

You have to remove your hindight bias. In 1998 Graham would have been CCed on an email about how the proper authorities investigated and cleared JS. For someone who has so many other things to worry about, he could easily just gloss over that.

Schultz told him about it personally. Stop acting like he was just copied in on an email. Spanier’s lawyers would have made sure the jury knew it was just emails if that were the case.

There’s an email that Spanier replied to in 2001 that includes “I would inform him we’re aware of the first situation”. It’s simply not possible that they didn’t discuss 98 in 2001. Nothing could have been more relevant. Spanier is clearly lying.

And 98 isn’t some excuse for how they handled 2001. That’s why they lied about it. They knew Jerry had problem and decided to kick to TSM. In a perfect world TSM would have reacted properly and reported it regardless of what Curley said.

It’s not fair that the only people who paid for mistakes were essentially secondary players. That doesn’t absolve them of their mistakes, which includes lying.

 

[indynittany]

It wasn’t just showering with alone with kids. It was showering alone with a kid and hugging in the process. What is your take on that Indy? Honestly.

First, I agree and disagree with your premise.

In a he said/he said scenario, Sandusky could have been nowhere near the boy and the kid's mom could have sued and PSU would have settled no questions asked. IOW, it was the alone part that posed the most risk. Schultz shared that concern when he wrote the following in his notes: "Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch Bldg." "Avoid" is not the word I would have used if I was under the impression there was a victim or might be a victim of CSA. Be that as it may, the more important word here is "alone".

OTOH, yes, any physical contact in the shower is inappropriate. But kids get wound up especially when they're having a good time. '98 sounds creepy at best, but it really matters here that V6 and Jerry maintained a close, seemingly healthy, relationship until his indictment. In '01, Allan Meyers said he was sliding back and forth across the shower floor and that he and Sandusky were snapping towels. For all we know, it was just innocent fun and, to your point, may have been initiated by the boy. Then what do you do?

 

[indynittany]

...There’s an email that Spanier replied to in 2001 that includes “I would inform him we’re aware of the first situation”. It’s simply not possible that they didn’t discuss 98 in 2001. Nothing could have been more relevant. Spanier is clearly lying....

He's not clearly lying. He may simply have not remembered. This was not that big of a deal. Don't believe me? Just ask Captain Swim Trunks!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Schultz told him about it personally. Stop acting like he was just copied in on an email. Spanier’s lawyers would have made sure the jury knew it was just emails if that were the case.

There’s an email that Spanier replied to in 2001 that includes “I would inform him we’re aware of the first situation”. It’s simply not possible that they didn’t discuss 98 in 2001. Nothing could have been more relevant. Spanier is clearly lying.

And 98 isn’t some excuse for how they handled 2001. That’s why they lied about it. They knew Jerry had problem and decided to kick to TSM. In a perfect world TSM would have reacted properly and reported it regardless of what Curley said.

It’s not fair that the only people who paid for mistakes were essentially secondary players. That doesn’t absolve them of their mistakes, which includes lying.

Yeah that kind of sinks the old he just missed the email line.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It wasn’t just showering with alone with kids. It was showering alone with a kid and hugging in the process. What is your take on that Indy? Honestly.

What is also known as grooming as that was not and has never been normal.

 

[Connorpozlee]

First, I agree and disagree with your premise.

In a he said/he said scenario, Sandusky could have been nowhere near the boy and the kid's mom could have sued and PSU would have settled no questions asked. IOW, it was the alone part that posed the most risk. Schultz shared that concern when he wrote the following in his notes: "Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch Bldg." "Avoid" is not the word I would have used if I was under the impression there was a victim or might be a victim of CSA. Be that as it may, the more important word here is "alone".

OTOH, yes, any physical contact in the shower is inappropriate. But kids get wound up especially when they're having a good time. '98 sounds creepy at best, but it really matters here that V6 and Jerry maintained a close, seemingly healthy, relationship until his indictment. In '01, Allan Meyers said he was sliding back and forth across the shower floor and that he and Sandusky were snapping towels. For all we know, it was just innocent fun and, to your point, may have been initiated by the boy. Then what do you do?

Jerry admitted to hugging the boy in the shower in ‘98.

As to your last question, that is a really simple question to answer. You don’t get in the shower at the same time as the kid to begin with.

 

[pandaczar12]

Schultz told him about it personally. Stop acting like he was just copied in on an email. Spanier’s lawyers would have made sure the jury knew it was just emails if that were the case.

There’s an email that Spanier replied to in 2001 that includes “I would inform him we’re aware of the first situation”. It’s simply not possible that they didn’t discuss 98 in 2001. Nothing could have been more relevant. Spanier is clearly lying.

And 98 isn’t some excuse for how they handled 2001. That’s why they lied about it. They knew Jerry had problem and decided to kick to TSM. In a perfect world TSM would have reacted properly and reported it regardless of what Curley said.

It’s not fair that the only people who paid for mistakes were essentially secondary players. That doesn’t absolve them of their mistakes, which includes lying.

You’re entitled to your misguided opinion.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You’re entitled to your misguided opinion.

So basically GS was emailed of the situation in 98, referenced the situation in 98 in another email, and you're going to say LT was misguided after you said he was to busy to read it? This basically shows that the level of denial runs so GD deep on this board with a handful of posters. Even when people are proven 100% incorrect, they'll just blame the other guy instead of saying...well I didn't really know that. Then complain about how unfair the world is to them.

Hell you could have called Schultz a liar, but Spanier kind of sunk that theory down for you.

 

[didier]

Jerry admitted to hugging the boy in the shower in ‘98.

As to your last question, that is a really simple question to answer. You don’t get in the shower at the same time as the kid to begin with.

He even said his genitals might have touched the boy.

 

[mn78psu83]

He even said his genitals might have touched the boy.

And according to the boy, told him he was "going to squeeze his guts out."

 

[MtNittany]

New Pendergrast book review:


David Stoll: A rush to judgement?

Editor’s note: This commentary is by David Stoll, who is a professor of anthropology at Middlebury College. His books include “El Norte or Bust! How Migration Fever and Microcredit Produced a Financial Crash in a Guatemalan Town” and “Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans.”

Seven years ago, Americans were horrified to learn that a retired Penn State football coach had molested children on an almost industrial scale. Jerry Sandusky recruited thousands of potential victims, then groomed dozens of them, by running a program for troubled boys called Second Mile. His machinations unraveled after he was discovered having sex with a 13-year-old boy in a Penn State shower. The scandal was so large that President Obama called it “heart-breaking” and added that “the entire country [should] do some soul-searching.”

Sandusky was tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Penn State University has paid at least $109 million to his victims. A Penn State president has lost his job and been convicted of participating in a cover-up. The statue of Sandusky’s boss, coach Joe Paterno, has been removed from the Penn State campus. Yet Sandusky has always claimed to be innocent and is petitioning for a new trial.

Now Vermont science writer Mark Pendergrast has exhaustively re-examined the evidence against America’s most infamous serial pedophile. His conclusion? Media reports were seriously misleading and Sandusky is probably innocent — the victim of a sex panic like the one that jailed seven teachers at the McMartin Preschool in California, until eventually they were exonerated.

According to Pendergrast’s new book, “The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgement,” the central fallacy in the Sandusky prosecution was victim testimony obtained through repressed-memory therapy. What could be wrong with a therapeutic technique? The idea of recovering lost memories dates back to Sigmund Freud, who held that experiences can be so traumatic that the victim completely forgets about them.

Nowadays, such claims are regarded as junk science by psychologists who do scientific research on memory. Memories of a severe trauma are precisely the kind of memory that is almost impossible to erase. On the rare occasions when a severe trauma is completely forgotten, it is usually because of brain injury, as in the 1989 rape of Central Park jogger Trisha Meili.

In the view of critics, repressed-memory therapy should have been discredited by the collapse of the McMartin Preschool indictments and similar cases. But it wasn’t. Its assumptions continue to feel like common sense to many Americans. These include, not just (some) therapists, but survivor networks who still believe in Freudianism. They reason that childhood sexual abuse is the cause of a wide range of psychological symptoms. Certainly, this can be the case. But if sufferers cannot recall any such abuse, should therapists focus on encouraging them to recover memories of same? Not if you look at laboratory experiments which show how easily sincere but false memories can be fostered by authority figures, social pressure and self-interest.

Pendergrast has been part of this psychology debate since the1990s. He even published a book which has now been updated and reissued as “Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die.” In his new parallel book on the Sandusky case, Pendergrast reviews all the publicly available testimony against the Penn State coach. Judging from what he can find, no victim ever made a sexual accusation against Sandusky until one troubled boy was put through three years of therapy by a psychologist who believed in repressed memories.

As for the famous sex in a locker room shower, contrary to media reports, this was not based on eyewitness evidence. At the time of the incident, the witness reported only suspicious sounds; the alleged victim insisted that he and Sandusky were merely snapping towels. As for the witness’ memory that he had actually seen a sexual act, this came only a decade later. Yet once media alarm bells forced the police into action, their interrogators pressured several more youth to confess to sex with Sandusky. As soon as million-dollar liability payouts became a possibility, tort lawyers produced still more victims.

What about Sandusky’s defense team? It consisted of two hometown lawyers who were so overwhelmed that they tried to resign — the judge ordered them to continue. Neither they nor Sandusky had ever heard of repressed-memory therapy, so this never came up in his trial.

Repressed memories, it should be emphasized, are very different from the memories that brought down Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, as well as sports doctor Larry Nasser, and that continue to be expressed by the #MeToo movement. Weinstein’s and Nasser’s victims did not require therapy to recall what had been done to them.

Unlike the #MeToo movement, sex panics are driven by suspicions and accusations that fail to withstand close inspection. Most sex panics target a stigmatized out-group such as a racial or sexual minority, not a mainstream figure. Yet Sandusky was the founder of a widely acclaimed program to provide father figures for boys. He was also the parent of six adopted children, all but one of whom vouch for his innocence, as does his wife of more than 50 years. How could a guy like this provoke a sex panic?

In “The Most Hated Man in America” (a perilous title given other obvious candidates), Pendergrast points to the role of Sandusky’s uninhibited body language. When Sandusky was growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, his parents ran a recreation center in which it was considered normal for adults and kids to rough-house and shower together. Sandusky kept both in his repertoire, along with full body hugs and a hand on a boy’s knee while driving a car. When objections arose, Sandusky was slow to conform to the mounting paranoia about physical contact in American culture.

At my local public school in Vermont, parent volunteers are explicitly forbidden from touching the children they help. As Americans swing back and forth between our fascination with pornography and our demand for surveillance, our demands for liberty and our demands for protection, it will be interesting to see if Pendergrast’s book helps Sandusky get a new trial.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

New Pendergrast book review:


David Stoll: A rush to judgement?

Editor’s note: This commentary is by David Stoll, who is a professor of anthropology at Middlebury College. His books include “El Norte or Bust! How Migration Fever and Microcredit Produced a Financial Crash in a Guatemalan Town” and “Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans.”

Seven years ago, Americans were horrified to learn that a retired Penn State football coach had molested children on an almost industrial scale. Jerry Sandusky recruited thousands of potential victims, then groomed dozens of them, by running a program for troubled boys called Second Mile. His machinations unraveled after he was discovered having sex with a 13-year-old boy in a Penn State shower. The scandal was so large that President Obama called it “heart-breaking” and added that “the entire country [should] do some soul-searching.”

Sandusky was tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Penn State University has paid at least $109 million to his victims. A Penn State president has lost his job and been convicted of participating in a cover-up. The statue of Sandusky’s boss, coach Joe Paterno, has been removed from the Penn State campus. Yet Sandusky has always claimed to be innocent and is petitioning for a new trial.

Now Vermont science writer Mark Pendergrast has exhaustively re-examined the evidence against America’s most infamous serial pedophile. His conclusion? Media reports were seriously misleading and Sandusky is probably innocent — the victim of a sex panic like the one that jailed seven teachers at the McMartin Preschool in California, until eventually they were exonerated.

According to Pendergrast’s new book, “The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgement,” the central fallacy in the Sandusky prosecution was victim testimony obtained through repressed-memory therapy. What could be wrong with a therapeutic technique? The idea of recovering lost memories dates back to Sigmund Freud, who held that experiences can be so traumatic that the victim completely forgets about them.

Nowadays, such claims are regarded as junk science by psychologists who do scientific research on memory. Memories of a severe trauma are precisely the kind of memory that is almost impossible to erase. On the rare occasions when a severe trauma is completely forgotten, it is usually because of brain injury, as in the 1989 rape of Central Park jogger Trisha Meili.

In the view of critics, repressed-memory therapy should have been discredited by the collapse of the McMartin Preschool indictments and similar cases. But it wasn’t. Its assumptions continue to feel like common sense to many Americans. These include, not just (some) therapists, but survivor networks who still believe in Freudianism. They reason that childhood sexual abuse is the cause of a wide range of psychological symptoms. Certainly, this can be the case. But if sufferers cannot recall any such abuse, should therapists focus on encouraging them to recover memories of same? Not if you look at laboratory experiments which show how easily sincere but false memories can be fostered by authority figures, social pressure and self-interest.

Pendergrast has been part of this psychology debate since the1990s. He even published a book which has now been updated and reissued as “Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die.” In his new parallel book on the Sandusky case, Pendergrast reviews all the publicly available testimony against the Penn State coach. Judging from what he can find, no victim ever made a sexual accusation against Sandusky until one troubled boy was put through three years of therapy by a psychologist who believed in repressed memories.

As for the famous sex in a locker room shower, contrary to media reports, this was not based on eyewitness evidence. At the time of the incident, the witness reported only suspicious sounds; the alleged victim insisted that he and Sandusky were merely snapping towels. As for the witness’ memory that he had actually seen a sexual act, this came only a decade later. Yet once media alarm bells forced the police into action, their interrogators pressured several more youth to confess to sex with Sandusky. As soon as million-dollar liability payouts became a possibility, tort lawyers produced still more victims.

What about Sandusky’s defense team? It consisted of two hometown lawyers who were so overwhelmed that they tried to resign — the judge ordered them to continue. Neither they nor Sandusky had ever heard of repressed-memory therapy, so this never came up in his trial.

Repressed memories, it should be emphasized, are very different from the memories that brought down Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, as well as sports doctor Larry Nasser, and that continue to be expressed by the #MeToo movement. Weinstein’s and Nasser’s victims did not require therapy to recall what had been done to them.

Unlike the #MeToo movement, sex panics are driven by suspicions and accusations that fail to withstand close inspection. Most sex panics target a stigmatized out-group such as a racial or sexual minority, not a mainstream figure. Yet Sandusky was the founder of a widely acclaimed program to provide father figures for boys. He was also the parent of six adopted children, all but one of whom vouch for his innocence, as does his wife of more than 50 years. How could a guy like this provoke a sex panic?

In “The Most Hated Man in America” (a perilous title given other obvious candidates), Pendergrast points to the role of Sandusky’s uninhibited body language. When Sandusky was growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, his parents ran a recreation center in which it was considered normal for adults and kids to rough-house and shower together. Sandusky kept both in his repertoire, along with full body hugs and a hand on a boy’s knee while driving a car. When objections arose, Sandusky was slow to conform to the mounting paranoia about physical contact in American culture.

At my local public school in Vermont, parent volunteers are explicitly forbidden from touching the children they help. As Americans swing back and forth between our fascination with pornography and our demand for surveillance, our demands for liberty and our demands for protection, it will be interesting to see if Pendergrast’s book helps Sandusky get a new trial.

Too bad Newsweek didn't see this review sooner.

 

[Connorpozlee]

New Pendergrast book review:


David Stoll: A rush to judgement?

Editor’s note: This commentary is by David Stoll, who is a professor of anthropology at Middlebury College. His books include “El Norte or Bust! How Migration Fever and Microcredit Produced a Financial Crash in a Guatemalan Town” and “Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans.”

Seven years ago, Americans were horrified to learn that a retired Penn State football coach had molested children on an almost industrial scale. Jerry Sandusky recruited thousands of potential victims, then groomed dozens of them, by running a program for troubled boys called Second Mile. His machinations unraveled after he was discovered having sex with a 13-year-old boy in a Penn State shower. The scandal was so large that President Obama called it “heart-breaking” and added that “the entire country [should] do some soul-searching.”

Sandusky was tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Penn State University has paid at least $109 million to his victims. A Penn State president has lost his job and been convicted of participating in a cover-up. The statue of Sandusky’s boss, coach Joe Paterno, has been removed from the Penn State campus. Yet Sandusky has always claimed to be innocent and is petitioning for a new trial.

Now Vermont science writer Mark Pendergrast has exhaustively re-examined the evidence against America’s most infamous serial pedophile. His conclusion? Media reports were seriously misleading and Sandusky is probably innocent — the victim of a sex panic like the one that jailed seven teachers at the McMartin Preschool in California, until eventually they were exonerated.

According to Pendergrast’s new book, “The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgement,” the central fallacy in the Sandusky prosecution was victim testimony obtained through repressed-memory therapy. What could be wrong with a therapeutic technique? The idea of recovering lost memories dates back to Sigmund Freud, who held that experiences can be so traumatic that the victim completely forgets about them.

Nowadays, such claims are regarded as junk science by psychologists who do scientific research on memory. Memories of a severe trauma are precisely the kind of memory that is almost impossible to erase. On the rare occasions when a severe trauma is completely forgotten, it is usually because of brain injury, as in the 1989 rape of Central Park jogger Trisha Meili.

In the view of critics, repressed-memory therapy should have been discredited by the collapse of the McMartin Preschool indictments and similar cases. But it wasn’t. Its assumptions continue to feel like common sense to many Americans. These include, not just (some) therapists, but survivor networks who still believe in Freudianism. They reason that childhood sexual abuse is the cause of a wide range of psychological symptoms. Certainly, this can be the case. But if sufferers cannot recall any such abuse, should therapists focus on encouraging them to recover memories of same? Not if you look at laboratory experiments which show how easily sincere but false memories can be fostered by authority figures, social pressure and self-interest.

Pendergrast has been part of this psychology debate since the1990s. He even published a book which has now been updated and reissued as “Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die.” In his new parallel book on the Sandusky case, Pendergrast reviews all the publicly available testimony against the Penn State coach. Judging from what he can find, no victim ever made a sexual accusation against Sandusky until one troubled boy was put through three years of therapy by a psychologist who believed in repressed memories.

As for the famous sex in a locker room shower, contrary to media reports, this was not based on eyewitness evidence. At the time of the incident, the witness reported only suspicious sounds; the alleged victim insisted that he and Sandusky were merely snapping towels. As for the witness’ memory that he had actually seen a sexual act, this came only a decade later. Yet once media alarm bells forced the police into action, their interrogators pressured several more youth to confess to sex with Sandusky. As soon as million-dollar liability payouts became a possibility, tort lawyers produced still more victims.

What about Sandusky’s defense team? It consisted of two hometown lawyers who were so overwhelmed that they tried to resign — the judge ordered them to continue. Neither they nor Sandusky had ever heard of repressed-memory therapy, so this never came up in his trial.

Repressed memories, it should be emphasized, are very different from the memories that brought down Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, as well as sports doctor Larry Nasser, and that continue to be expressed by the #MeToo movement. Weinstein’s and Nasser’s victims did not require therapy to recall what had been done to them.

Unlike the #MeToo movement, sex panics are driven by suspicions and accusations that fail to withstand close inspection. Most sex panics target a stigmatized out-group such as a racial or sexual minority, not a mainstream figure. Yet Sandusky was the founder of a widely acclaimed program to provide father figures for boys. He was also the parent of six adopted children, all but one of whom vouch for his innocence, as does his wife of more than 50 years. How could a guy like this provoke a sex panic?

In “The Most Hated Man in America” (a perilous title given other obvious candidates), Pendergrast points to the role of Sandusky’s uninhibited body language. When Sandusky was growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, his parents ran a recreation center in which it was considered normal for adults and kids to rough-house and shower together. Sandusky kept both in his repertoire, along with full body hugs and a hand on a boy’s knee while driving a car. When objections arose, Sandusky was slow to conform to the mounting paranoia about physical contact in American culture.

At my local public school in Vermont, parent volunteers are explicitly forbidden from touching the children they help. As Americans swing back and forth between our fascination with pornography and our demand for surveillance, our demands for liberty and our demands for protection, it will be interesting to see if Pendergrast’s book helps Sandusky get a new trial.

I was born in the 70s so I would not have first hand knowledge to answer this. We’re naked shower hugs between a grown man and a boy alone in the shower commonplace in the 40s and 50s?

 

[MtNittany]

I was born in the 70s so I would not have first hand knowledge to answer this. We’re naked shower hugs between a grown man and a boy alone in the shower commonplace in the 40s and 50s?

I wasn't around either. Are they worth life in prison in the 2000's?

 

[Lattner]

I agree...but this all supports my theory that he embellished his GJ testimony from what he told Joe, Curley and Schultz. By that point, he was caught between the police, public perception and the PSU administration. Embellishing these things that you point out, is just more embellishment; it is a pattern.

Curley and Schultz were told that MM saw something weird through a mirror but nothing criminal. He only suspected something criminal. For C & S, they didn't know who the victim was, JS wasn't saying, and MM didn't see anything criminal. Only with a ton of victims claiming abuse was it actionable. Once it became actionable, MM embellished his GJ testimony, at the urging of prosecutors, but that left PSU admin high and dry. MM had no idea the damage he was doing to erstwhile friends and co-workers.

Baldwin knew, and of course, found ways to avoid the situation.
In Baldwin’s grand jury testimony — given days before Spanier, Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, endangering the welfare of children, failure to report child abuse and conspiracy — prosecutors make clear that Penn State, whom she consistently claimed as her primary client, has waived its own attorney / client privilege.

That gave Baldwin, who served as university counsel from February 2010 through June 2012, wide latitude to speak about the university’s response to the Sandusky probe, which ran throughout that time period.

The only carve-out was any reference to her work with Schultz or Curley in preparation for their grand jury appearances the year before.

“We are willing to put Miss Baldwin in the grand jury without addressing any of the issues related to the testimony of Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley and conversations that she had with them about that testimony," then-Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina proposed before Baldwin took the stand.

That approach was immediately affirmed by Michael Mustakoff, an attorney then leading Penn State's cooperation with the Sandusky probe, and Charles De Monaco, a Pittsburgh attorney representing Baldwin.

Judge Barry Feudale, then the supervising judge of the Sandusky grand jury, agreed.

What followed were two hours of testimony in which Baldwin largely described a Penn State administration where, as previously spelled out in the Attorney General's “conspiracy of silence” presentment, she claimed she worked diligently to get information to Spanier about the Sandusky probe and related requests for information.

“The running joke in Old Main was that I had my own path up the stairs and across the rug to Graham’s office," Baldwin said. "Everything that I knew I was passing on to him so that he would be aware of everything that was going on with this particular matter.”

In time, she told prosecutors, she came to feel that she had been deceived by Spanier and his two top aides, including revelations in the Freeh Report that showed emails and other documents produced by the three leaders about Sandusky that weren’t passed along to investigators during the first phase of the probe.

“He lied to me,” she told Fina at one point, referring to Spanier.

The new grand jury transcripts were unsealed as part of creating a record for Hoover to review as he considers the former administrators’ bid to have charges that they tried to cover-up Sandusky’s sexual violations dismissed. In addition to Baldwin's testimony, PennLive obtained an unsealed transcript of Spanier's testimony from April 2011.

• Baldwin’s status is central to the prosecution's case, but it is not its only tool.

There are multiple other witnesses who testified at a preliminary hearing this summer, from former assistant football coach Mike McQueary, who directly told Curley and Schultz about a 2001 Sandusky assault, to former secretaries speaking about "secret" files that weren’t initially turned over.

 

[fizzyskittles]

I was born in the 70s so I would not have first hand knowledge to answer this. We’re naked shower hugs between a grown man and a boy alone in the shower commonplace in the 40s and 50s?

No, they weren't. I'm guessing wildly inappropriate would be the best case scenario.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I wasn't around either. Are they worth life in prison in the 2000's?

When you go to to molest kids, yep.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I wasn't around either. Are they worth life in prison in the 2000's?

If it was my kid in the shower, it would probably be worth life.

 

[Obliviax]

No, they weren't. I'm guessing wildly inappropriate would be the best case scenario.

Agree....but care givers for pre-teen boys who have grown up without fathers constantly talk about the problems boys have with grooming habits. Same is true for young girls growing up without mothers but this is addressed in schools and has much less volume. Bottom line, showing boys how to groom themselves is sometimes done in a shower. However, most volunteers would be smart enough to have another person present. But, I believe, this is another way JS skirted the line between creepy and illegal.

 

[MtNittany]

If it was my kid in the shower, it would probably be worth life.

Life? Or a few months and some serious probation? Life? When murderers are routinely paroled in less than 10 years?

 

[Connorpozlee]

Life? Or a few months and some serious probation? Life? When murderers are routinely paroled in less than 10 years?

I would probably handle it myself. Not that I would want to, but I am pretty sure that is my breaking point. Thankfully, I’ve never been at that point.