ADVERTISEMENT

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

I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. In a vacuum (i.e. without any other allegations), I don't think a prosecutor would get a conviction on 1998 alone. In fact, I think a lot of the charges, in a vacuum, would be very difficult to successfully prosecute. And the OAG knew this which is why they went to great lengths to round up a roster of accusers (and had no issue with PSP manipulating potential victims during interviews).

You may be correct about them not being able to get a conviction on just the ‘98 incident. And I agree that a lot of the charges may have been difficult to prosecute successfully, independently. But these weren’t isolated incidents. There were two that even he admitted to. Showering and hugging the first boy. Then being witnessed showering alone with another boy a couple years later after agreeing to never do that again. There were others that said similar things. At the end of the day, he was convicted of sexually abusing them.
 
I can't argue with you. My focus has always been on the motive to protect TSM from scrutiny at the expense of PSU and Joe's reputation...with PSU's help! That's the real scandal here as far as I'm concerned.

As for Jerry, I question the methods used by the prosecution. If this was such a lay down case, why did they have to pull all the shit they did to make it? I have said from the beginning that these guys weren't going to try to take down JS if all they could prove was that he was creepy. In the end, I think that's all they had when you consider the questionable credibility of AF. I don't think the guy deserves to die in prison for being creepy, but I'm afraid that's what's going to happen.
If he was one of the worst serial pedophiles in history, why did they have to resort to so many shenanigans?
 
That link didnt work
Spencer: New Yorker article sheds light on pedophiles
AR-309209959.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

By GIL SPENCER,

POSTED: 09/20/12, 12:01 AM EDT | UPDATED: ON 09/20/2012

Meet Donald Silva: doctor, good friend, charmer and child molester. As a case study in the ability of pedophiles to fool people, his story is a chilling one.

After graduating from med school, Silva met a family with a 9-year-old boy named Eric to whom he was attracted. He took time to get to know the boy's parents. He ingratiated himself and wooed them as much as he wooed their son.

Despite warning signs, mostly noticed by Eric's mother, the parents allowed Eric to sleep at Silva's residence. After all, Silva had a fiancé and Eric's parents didn't know that Silva had already molested Eric on a ski trip the two of them took together earlier.

In a short 22-page autobiography, Silva wrote:

"I had recently broken up with Cathy (his girlfriend) when Evelyn, my future wife, arrived for a visit. In that month, Evelyn met Eric's family, and she and his mother became good friends. Evelyn stayed with me at my parents' house, and we enjoyed an active sex life. Eric slept over one night, and the three of us shared a bed for a while. He was going to pretend to be asleep while Evelyn and I made love, but Evelyn declined with him there and went to sleep elsewhere."

This snippet is from Malcolm Gladwell's discerning piece in the latest New Yorker magazine about how Jerry Sandusky managed to fool so many people at Penn State despite warning signs that, in retrospect, look so obvious.

According to Gladwell, Sandusky "built a sophisticated grooming operation, outsourcing to child-care professionals the task of locating vulnerable children -- all the while playing the role of lovable goofball."

As for Silva's story, Gladwell writes, "To recap: A man uses his new girlfriend to befriend the family of the 10-year-old boy he is molesting. He orchestrates a threesome in a bed in his parents' house. He asks the girl to have sex with him with the 10-year-old lying beside them. She says no. She leaves him alone with his victim -- and then he persuades her to marry him."

Which is to say, that the gullible naiveté of some people knows no bounds.

But even relatively smart, reasonable people are willing to give some suspected child molesters the benefit of the doubt. I arrogantly include myself in that group.

In the past, in this job, I have gone to bat for people accused of molesting children who were later acquitted of the charges against them. "Acquitted," not "proven innocent." And after reading Gladwell's piece, I have greater doubts about the absolute innocence of at least one of them.

That said, there are more than enough well-documented stories about truly innocent people being convicted of sexually assaulting children and having their lives tragically ruined in the process.

Jerry Sandusky is not such a victim. But that brings us to the people Gladwell and the rest of the world are more interested in -- the people who knew Sandusky, saw him with children, saw him playing and touching and even showering with them, and never suspected he was what he was.

Even psychologists trained in identifying the tell-tale signs of pedophilia disagreed about Sandusky during the 1998 probe into a mother's concern over a showering incident. No charges were brought in that case because there was no evidence that any crime had actually been committed.

Three years later, when Mike McQueary told Joe Paterno that he saw Sandusky in a shower touching a young boy, Paterno dutifully passed the matter up to the chain of command. Just what McQueary told Paterno, and later AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz, remains in dispute.

After Sandusky's arrest last year, Paterno was asked if he considered calling the cops after hearing McQueary's story.

"To be honest with you, I didn't," Paterno told author Joe Posnanski. "This isn't my field. I didn't know what to do. I had not seen anything. Jerry didn't work for me anymore. I didn't have anything to do with him. I tried to look at Penn State guidelines to see what I was supposed to do. It said I was supposed to call Tim (Curley). So I called him."

All that, sounds strangely reasonable, does it not?

It was Curley and Schultz, who after talking to McQueary, talked to Sandusky. No one, as Gladwell makes clear, is better at feigning hurt innocence than a self-deluding pedophile.

Despite, McQueary's story, whatever it was, it was decided that Curley would notify Jack Raykovitz, head of the Second Mile, the charity for children Sandusky founded, that they had a problem with Sandusky's behavior.

Not reported by Gladwell, but told to me by a person close to the case, Raykovitz, a trained psychologist himself, raised and dismissed the concern that Sandusky might be a child molester.

"Are you trying to tell me that you think Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile?" Raykovitz asked Curley. Because, if that's what he was trying to tell him, Raykovitz suggested, Tim Curley had lost his mind.

In his grand jury testimony, Curley indicated that he believed Sandusky's problem was boundary issues that could be misconstrued into something else -- not that he had a full-blown child predator on his hands. As it turned out, Curley -- and the rest of PSU's official leadership -- was wrong about that. But then so were many, many others.

It remains the deeply held belief of a lot people now that Paterno, Curley, Schultz and PSU President Graham Spanier understood what Sandusky was and covered it up to protect the university and its football program from "bad publicity."

The more likely reality is that Jerry Sandusky simply fooled them all.

Gladwell's excellent piece deserves reading, especially by people who early on joined the lynch mob of conspiracy theorists who concluded that Paterno and company "had to know" and they all conspired to protect Sandusky instead at the expense of his victims.

Readers might learn that when it comes to pedophiles, people don't have to know anything. And thanks to the pedophile's talents for deception, people frequently don't.

Gil Spencer's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Check out his spencerblog every day a delcotimes.com.
 
....Your last line there says it all. For whatever reason, they either didn’t think or couldn’t prove sexual intent at the time. As other information emerged (being caught in another shower with another boy alone, after agreeing to never do so again) that incident was looked at differently.
So you're saying that with the benefit of hindsight, the prosecution did more?
 
Hugging a boy alone in a shower is not a boundary issue. It is way, way over the boundary marker. Hugging a boy in a shower is not healthy male affection. Not even close.
Your last line there says it all. For whatever reason, they either didn’t think or couldn’t prove sexual intent at the time. As other information emerged (being caught in another shower with another boy alone, after agreeing to never do so again) that incident was looked at differently.
The thing is why are people hanging on that alone? Jerry had people testify to more and he was not just some dumb goofy guy showering with kids. It was clearly more than that. You have to be in some serious denial not to see a pattern of grooming and getting young boys alone.
 
Spencer: New Yorker article sheds light on pedophiles
AR-309209959.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

By GIL SPENCER,

POSTED: 09/20/12, 12:01 AM EDT | UPDATED: ON 09/20/2012

Meet Donald Silva: doctor, good friend, charmer and child molester. As a case study in the ability of pedophiles to fool people, his story is a chilling one.

After graduating from med school, Silva met a family with a 9-year-old boy named Eric to whom he was attracted. He took time to get to know the boy's parents. He ingratiated himself and wooed them as much as he wooed their son.

Despite warning signs, mostly noticed by Eric's mother, the parents allowed Eric to sleep at Silva's residence. After all, Silva had a fiancé and Eric's parents didn't know that Silva had already molested Eric on a ski trip the two of them took together earlier.

In a short 22-page autobiography, Silva wrote:

"I had recently broken up with Cathy (his girlfriend) when Evelyn, my future wife, arrived for a visit. In that month, Evelyn met Eric's family, and she and his mother became good friends. Evelyn stayed with me at my parents' house, and we enjoyed an active sex life. Eric slept over one night, and the three of us shared a bed for a while. He was going to pretend to be asleep while Evelyn and I made love, but Evelyn declined with him there and went to sleep elsewhere."

This snippet is from Malcolm Gladwell's discerning piece in the latest New Yorker magazine about how Jerry Sandusky managed to fool so many people at Penn State despite warning signs that, in retrospect, look so obvious.

According to Gladwell, Sandusky "built a sophisticated grooming operation, outsourcing to child-care professionals the task of locating vulnerable children -- all the while playing the role of lovable goofball."

As for Silva's story, Gladwell writes, "To recap: A man uses his new girlfriend to befriend the family of the 10-year-old boy he is molesting. He orchestrates a threesome in a bed in his parents' house. He asks the girl to have sex with him with the 10-year-old lying beside them. She says no. She leaves him alone with his victim -- and then he persuades her to marry him."

Which is to say, that the gullible naiveté of some people knows no bounds.

But even relatively smart, reasonable people are willing to give some suspected child molesters the benefit of the doubt. I arrogantly include myself in that group.

In the past, in this job, I have gone to bat for people accused of molesting children who were later acquitted of the charges against them. "Acquitted," not "proven innocent." And after reading Gladwell's piece, I have greater doubts about the absolute innocence of at least one of them.

That said, there are more than enough well-documented stories about truly innocent people being convicted of sexually assaulting children and having their lives tragically ruined in the process.

Jerry Sandusky is not such a victim. But that brings us to the people Gladwell and the rest of the world are more interested in -- the people who knew Sandusky, saw him with children, saw him playing and touching and even showering with them, and never suspected he was what he was.

Even psychologists trained in identifying the tell-tale signs of pedophilia disagreed about Sandusky during the 1998 probe into a mother's concern over a showering incident. No charges were brought in that case because there was no evidence that any crime had actually been committed.

Three years later, when Mike McQueary told Joe Paterno that he saw Sandusky in a shower touching a young boy, Paterno dutifully passed the matter up to the chain of command. Just what McQueary told Paterno, and later AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz, remains in dispute.

After Sandusky's arrest last year, Paterno was asked if he considered calling the cops after hearing McQueary's story.

"To be honest with you, I didn't," Paterno told author Joe Posnanski. "This isn't my field. I didn't know what to do. I had not seen anything. Jerry didn't work for me anymore. I didn't have anything to do with him. I tried to look at Penn State guidelines to see what I was supposed to do. It said I was supposed to call Tim (Curley). So I called him."

All that, sounds strangely reasonable, does it not?

It was Curley and Schultz, who after talking to McQueary, talked to Sandusky. No one, as Gladwell makes clear, is better at feigning hurt innocence than a self-deluding pedophile.

Despite, McQueary's story, whatever it was, it was decided that Curley would notify Jack Raykovitz, head of the Second Mile, the charity for children Sandusky founded, that they had a problem with Sandusky's behavior.

Not reported by Gladwell, but told to me by a person close to the case, Raykovitz, a trained psychologist himself, raised and dismissed the concern that Sandusky might be a child molester.

"Are you trying to tell me that you think Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile?" Raykovitz asked Curley. Because, if that's what he was trying to tell him, Raykovitz suggested, Tim Curley had lost his mind.

In his grand jury testimony, Curley indicated that he believed Sandusky's problem was boundary issues that could be misconstrued into something else -- not that he had a full-blown child predator on his hands. As it turned out, Curley -- and the rest of PSU's official leadership -- was wrong about that. But then so were many, many others.

It remains the deeply held belief of a lot people now that Paterno, Curley, Schultz and PSU President Graham Spanier understood what Sandusky was and covered it up to protect the university and its football program from "bad publicity."

The more likely reality is that Jerry Sandusky simply fooled them all.

Gladwell's excellent piece deserves reading, especially by people who early on joined the lynch mob of conspiracy theorists who concluded that Paterno and company "had to know" and they all conspired to protect Sandusky instead at the expense of his victims.

Readers might learn that when it comes to pedophiles, people don't have to know anything. And thanks to the pedophile's talents for deception, people frequently don't.

Gil Spencer's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Check out his spencerblog every day a delcotimes.com.
Got it, i do not know who told that to Spencer
 
Investigators and the DA... and TSM? If so, Jack's denial to Tim's face in '01 is even more egregious. And Poole handing over keys to the hotel is beyond belief anyway, but if TSM already knew more about '98.... yeesh.

Would the PSU Admin have known about more than the 1 incident in '98? I mean really known, briefed by investigators.... not just heard rumors from outside sources.

From another post:
A lot more known about '98 than what has been made known.... any further insight on that from you or Misder?

Thanks.

That’s what I strongly suspect. I can’t say for certain. I think it’s odd that there’s never been an in-depth look at the 1998 investigation failures. There was a little digging by ganim and Mike Dawson in 2012 and then it ended. That was obviously a huge missed opportunity and yet no one will detail where it went off the rails. I don’t think it’s because the oag doesn’t know either. It’s not a coincidence that only those involved in that investigation were put under a court order.
 
That’s what I strongly suspect. I can’t say for certain. I think it’s odd that there’s never been an in-depth look at the 1998 investigation failures. There was a little digging by ganim and Mike Dawson in 2012 and then it ended. That was obviously a huge missed opportunity and yet no one will detail where it went off the rails. I don’t think it’s because the oag doesn’t know either. It’s not a coincidence that only those involved in that investigation were put under a court order.
If 98 involved JoePa or PSU, I guarantee we would know all about it. My guess is knowledge of how 98 was "handled" may be the reason certain folks got the benefit of The Commonwealth's Guard All Shield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
Spencer: New Yorker article sheds light on pedophiles
AR-309209959.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

By GIL SPENCER,

POSTED: 09/20/12, 12:01 AM EDT | UPDATED: ON 09/20/2012

Meet Donald Silva: doctor, good friend, charmer and child molester. As a case study in the ability of pedophiles to fool people, his story is a chilling one.

After graduating from med school, Silva met a family with a 9-year-old boy named Eric to whom he was attracted. He took time to get to know the boy's parents. He ingratiated himself and wooed them as much as he wooed their son.

Despite warning signs, mostly noticed by Eric's mother, the parents allowed Eric to sleep at Silva's residence. After all, Silva had a fiancé and Eric's parents didn't know that Silva had already molested Eric on a ski trip the two of them took together earlier.

In a short 22-page autobiography, Silva wrote:

"I had recently broken up with Cathy (his girlfriend) when Evelyn, my future wife, arrived for a visit. In that month, Evelyn met Eric's family, and she and his mother became good friends. Evelyn stayed with me at my parents' house, and we enjoyed an active sex life. Eric slept over one night, and the three of us shared a bed for a while. He was going to pretend to be asleep while Evelyn and I made love, but Evelyn declined with him there and went to sleep elsewhere."

This snippet is from Malcolm Gladwell's discerning piece in the latest New Yorker magazine about how Jerry Sandusky managed to fool so many people at Penn State despite warning signs that, in retrospect, look so obvious.

According to Gladwell, Sandusky "built a sophisticated grooming operation, outsourcing to child-care professionals the task of locating vulnerable children -- all the while playing the role of lovable goofball."

As for Silva's story, Gladwell writes, "To recap: A man uses his new girlfriend to befriend the family of the 10-year-old boy he is molesting. He orchestrates a threesome in a bed in his parents' house. He asks the girl to have sex with him with the 10-year-old lying beside them. She says no. She leaves him alone with his victim -- and then he persuades her to marry him."

Which is to say, that the gullible naiveté of some people knows no bounds.

But even relatively smart, reasonable people are willing to give some suspected child molesters the benefit of the doubt. I arrogantly include myself in that group.

In the past, in this job, I have gone to bat for people accused of molesting children who were later acquitted of the charges against them. "Acquitted," not "proven innocent." And after reading Gladwell's piece, I have greater doubts about the absolute innocence of at least one of them.

That said, there are more than enough well-documented stories about truly innocent people being convicted of sexually assaulting children and having their lives tragically ruined in the process.

Jerry Sandusky is not such a victim. But that brings us to the people Gladwell and the rest of the world are more interested in -- the people who knew Sandusky, saw him with children, saw him playing and touching and even showering with them, and never suspected he was what he was.

Even psychologists trained in identifying the tell-tale signs of pedophilia disagreed about Sandusky during the 1998 probe into a mother's concern over a showering incident. No charges were brought in that case because there was no evidence that any crime had actually been committed.

Three years later, when Mike McQueary told Joe Paterno that he saw Sandusky in a shower touching a young boy, Paterno dutifully passed the matter up to the chain of command. Just what McQueary told Paterno, and later AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz, remains in dispute.

After Sandusky's arrest last year, Paterno was asked if he considered calling the cops after hearing McQueary's story.

"To be honest with you, I didn't," Paterno told author Joe Posnanski. "This isn't my field. I didn't know what to do. I had not seen anything. Jerry didn't work for me anymore. I didn't have anything to do with him. I tried to look at Penn State guidelines to see what I was supposed to do. It said I was supposed to call Tim (Curley). So I called him."

All that, sounds strangely reasonable, does it not?

It was Curley and Schultz, who after talking to McQueary, talked to Sandusky. No one, as Gladwell makes clear, is better at feigning hurt innocence than a self-deluding pedophile.

Despite, McQueary's story, whatever it was, it was decided that Curley would notify Jack Raykovitz, head of the Second Mile, the charity for children Sandusky founded, that they had a problem with Sandusky's behavior.

Not reported by Gladwell, but told to me by a person close to the case, Raykovitz, a trained psychologist himself, raised and dismissed the concern that Sandusky might be a child molester.

"Are you trying to tell me that you think Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile?" Raykovitz asked Curley. Because, if that's what he was trying to tell him, Raykovitz suggested, Tim Curley had lost his mind.

In his grand jury testimony, Curley indicated that he believed Sandusky's problem was boundary issues that could be misconstrued into something else -- not that he had a full-blown child predator on his hands. As it turned out, Curley -- and the rest of PSU's official leadership -- was wrong about that. But then so were many, many others.

It remains the deeply held belief of a lot people now that Paterno, Curley, Schultz and PSU President Graham Spanier understood what Sandusky was and covered it up to protect the university and its football program from "bad publicity."

The more likely reality is that Jerry Sandusky simply fooled them all.

Gladwell's excellent piece deserves reading, especially by people who early on joined the lynch mob of conspiracy theorists who concluded that Paterno and company "had to know" and they all conspired to protect Sandusky instead at the expense of his victims.

Readers might learn that when it comes to pedophiles, people don't have to know anything. And thanks to the pedophile's talents for deception, people frequently don't.

Gil Spencer's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Check out his spencerblog every day a delcotimes.com.
Raykovitz is a danger to the community.
But what else is new.
Raykovitz has contended that in 2001 former Penn State athletic director Tim Curley informed him that someone had seen Sandusky in a locker room shower with a boy and was uncomfortable with the situation. That was the 2001 incident reported by Mike McQueary that was at the center of the case against Curley, former vice president Gary Schultz and former President Graham Spanier.

Curley and Schultz both pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and Spanier was convicted on the same count. Spanier is appealing and Schultz and Curley are serving two and three-month sentences, respectively, in county jail.

Raykovitz testified at Spanier’s trial in March that Curley never told him of any allegations that the incident was sexual, as McQueary contends he reported. He said he spoke with Sandusky afterwards and told him that he should wear swim trunks in the future if he showered with someone after working out.

He also said that as soon as The Second Mile was contacted in 2008 by Clinton County Children and Youth Services about the complaint from the teenager who would later be known as Victim 1, Sandusky was removed from all programs.

In its filing last year, Penn State said the organization and Raykovitz “knew or should have known of facts that reasonably suggested that Sandusky was abusing and/or endangering children.”

“The Second Mile was in a position to prevent and stop Sandusky from meeting, grooming and attacking children who had been entrusted to the care of The Second Mile, but negligently failed to do so,” the university’s attorneys wrote.

Penn State also claimed contractual indemnification. According to the 2016 filing, from 1990 to 2011 the university and The Second Mile entered into contracts for The Second Mile to host summer camps for children on the Penn State campus. Penn State wrote that an indemnification provision in which The Second Mile agreed to hold the university harmless for any claims arising from the agreement was included in those contracts.

Because of that, Penn State argued, The Second Mile is contractually required to indemnify the university for a portion of the claims related to Sandusky’s abuse of children who were participants in the camps.
 
So instead, the Arsonists Fina, McGettigan & Eshbach burn the place down, with the help of Louis Freeh, over some crummy cover-up that didn't happen to a victim they never got off their asses to ever identify, over a crime that didn't happen.

It would be nice if someone from the McQ clan would point that out.
Thats funny.

The McQ Clan steadfastly stands by Mike witnessing and telling everyone that he witnessed a crime.
The McQ clan reiterates that Mike has testified several times and his testimony has never been refuted, therefore it is true.
The McQ Clan [and almost everyone else] including CSS legal beagles] has repeatedly ignored the fact that Dranov and MMcQ contradict one another.

Not picking on you, but just sharing that waiting for the MCQ clan to acknowledge anything real-life is absolutely hopeless.
 
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?"

Also remember that in the 2001 incident, the boy's mother apparently knew damn well that her son took showers with Sandusky. She helped the now young man prepare his statement defending Sandusky in 2011 even after the shitstorm broke, so there is little doubt she knew about it, and was okay with it, when it was actually going on. That is a possible reason Sandusky continued to shower with that particular boy even after getting in trouble when showering with another boy 3 years earlier.
 
That’s what I strongly suspect. I can’t say for certain. I think it’s odd that there’s never been an in-depth look at the 1998 investigation failures. There was a little digging by ganim and Mike Dawson in 2012 and then it ended. That was obviously a huge missed opportunity and yet no one will detail where it went off the rails. I don’t think it’s because the oag doesn’t know either. It’s not a coincidence that only those involved in that investigation were put under a court order.

Or any look whatsoever into how Jerry got his start. All people seem to do is blindly accept the obviously BS accusations of Michael Quinn and Randy Tice, and then move on. Unless of course, there simply isn't anything there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
We refer to that in the real world as passing the buck.

Actually, No.

Tim Curley actually did what Jack Raykovitz should have done.
Curley implemented a plan.

Look, everyone keeps shouting Tim or Gary should have called CYS or 911 or "investigated more" or Spanier should've, Joe should've ....... yada yada yada.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Jerry could have been in the locker room, fully clothed, with a Second Mile teen, innocently playing with a box of kittens.

While that's a perfectly innocent activity, and there's no misconduct, IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER - it's a Red Flag.

Mike's ever-evolving stories about what he had specifically "seen" NEVER MATTERED - but it's a Red Flag.

In 1998 & 2001, and well before and after, Jerry was accessing a Second Mile minor in flagrant Out-Of-Program contact - ongoing Red Flags. These Red Flags are the behavior that ONLY the Second Mile leadership was capable of competently addressing - and their failure to do so is what got Jerry in the shits.

No out-of-program contact, no Aaron Fisher.

I hate to keep flogging this dead horse, but whether Jerry was abusing these kids or not is not the issue - it's his Out-Of-Program contact that ultimately destroyed him. That's on Jerry and his pal Jack.
 
Actually, No.

Tim Curley actually did what Jack Raykovitz should have done.
Curley implemented a plan.

Look, everyone keeps shouting Tim or Gary should have called CYS or 911 or "investigated more" or Spanier should've, Joe should've ....... yada yada yada.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Jerry could have been in the locker room, fully clothed, with a Second Mile teen, innocently playing with a box of kittens.

While that's a perfectly innocent activity, and there's no misconduct, IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER - it's a Red Flag.

Mike's ever-evolving stories about what he had specifically "seen" NEVER MATTERED - but it's a Red Flag.

In 1998 & 2001, and well before and after, Jerry was accessing a Second Mile minor in flagrant Out-Of-Program contact - ongoing Red Flags. These Red Flags are the behavior that ONLY the Second Mile leadership was capable of competently addressing - and their failure to do so is what got Jerry in the shits.

No out-of-program contact, no Aaron Fisher.

I hate to keep flogging this dead horse, but whether Jerry was abusing these kids or not is not the issue - it's his Out-Of-Program contact that ultimately destroyed him. That's on Jerry and his pal Jack.
You apparently cannot fathom that people made mistakes outside of those two you named. There isn’t a question of if either.
 
well The fact is there more than 10 people and or agencies that have much more culpability than TC and GS and GS. So if you choose to find fault with the 3 it is outrageous nothing was done with the others.
OAG, DPW, CYS . 1998 -no indication
JR - source of kids, JS boss aware of 98
Heim - see above
Harmon
Mm - eyewitness
Dranov & Mr Mmq - 1st live report closest to actual event

The fact that none of these has received scrutiny tells us something is rotten in Denmark
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJolla Lion
Actually, No.

Tim Curley actually did what Jack Raykovitz should have done.
Curley implemented a plan.

Look, everyone keeps shouting Tim or Gary should have called CYS or 911 or "investigated more" or Spanier should've, Joe should've ....... yada yada yada.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Jerry could have been in the locker room, fully clothed, with a Second Mile teen, innocently playing with a box of kittens.

While that's a perfectly innocent activity, and there's no misconduct, IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER - it's a Red Flag.

Mike's ever-evolving stories about what he had specifically "seen" NEVER MATTERED - but it's a Red Flag.

In 1998 & 2001, and well before and after, Jerry was accessing a Second Mile minor in flagrant Out-Of-Program contact - ongoing Red Flags. These Red Flags are the behavior that ONLY the Second Mile leadership was capable of competently addressing - and their failure to do so is what got Jerry in the shits.

No out-of-program contact, no Aaron Fisher.

I hate to keep flogging this dead horse, but whether Jerry was abusing these kids or not is not the issue - it's his Out-Of-Program contact that ultimately destroyed him. That's on Jerry and his pal Jack.
Raykovitz had no plan or even a clue.
More than any other, Raykovitz's testimony amounted to a new disclosure in the case. Unlike many other witnesses, he had never before been required to publicly testify about his knowledge of Sandusky’s misconduct. And longtime critics of the prosecution – as well as defenders of Spanier – have often asserted that the Second Mile, the defunct charity where Sandusky groomed many of his victims, has long escaped scrutiny it deserved in the scandal.

It came on a day that opened with a prosecutor suggesting to jurors that inaction or indifference by Spanier and two others – Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz, both now government witnesses -- allowed a sex predator to thrive.

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men to do nothing,” said Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte. “Evil thrives when men do nothing.”

Spanier’s lawyer, in turn, countered that his client never conspired with anyone but rather was being wrongfully prosecuted for “a judgment call” based on sparse information he got from others.

Much of the day was spent using witnesses to educate jurors on what by now are the familiar facts of the case:

Former university police chief Tom Harmon and detective Ronald Schreffler gave accounts of their 1998 investigation into an allegation that Sandusky had showered with a different young boy. Harmon acknowledged on cross-examination that he never discussed the incident with Spanier, and that no one from the university interfered with the investigation, which ultimately ended without charges.

McQueary described for jurors what he saw in the locker-room shower in 2001 and how awkward it was to report it to head coach Joe Paterno.

“It’s Coach. He’s like a grandpa. He’s revered. You just don’t talk about that with Coach Paterno,” McQueary testified.

His father, John J. McQueary, then told jurors that Schultz had promised him Penn State officials would look into the report by his son. The elder McQueary also said Schultz told him “we’ve heard rumblings” about similar encounters involving Sandusky but that “each time, we came up empty-handed.”

Prosecutors contend that Spanier, Schultz, and Curley simply chose not to report McQueary's claim to child welfare authorities. Both Schultz, 67, and Curley, 62, admitted as much when they pleaded guilty to misdemeanor child endangerment charges last week, leaving Spanier, 68, as the sole defendant.

Raykovitz was called to bolster that contention. In his testimony, he said Curley told him one day in March 2001 that someone -- whom he did not identify – reported being “uncomfortable” after seeing Sandusky in the shower with a boy, but that an ensuing investigation uncovered no wrongdoing.

Raykovitz, a psychologist, said he wasn’t told Sandusky and the boy were naked or that McQueary saw skin-to-skin contact and heard “rhythmic slapping sounds,” as prosecutor Laura Ditka described it. Raykovitz testified he was told the boy had been a teenager.

Curley did not disclose what agency had investigated the incident and Raykovitz, on cross-examination, acknowledged he didn’t ask. He also conceded he didn't ask Curley if the child involved was a Second Mile participant.

Curley, he said, told him of the administrators' intended plan to bar Sandusky from bringing children into Penn State's facilities. Raykovitz said he asked Sandusky about it and the former defensive coordinator told him he was “confused” and thought the ban only applied to the Lasch football building.

“Does that mean not even Rec Hall?” Raykovitz said Sandusky asked him.

Raykovitz said he told Sandusky to check with Curley and clear up the confusion. He testified that he also advised Sandusky to no longer shower in the nude with boys, given concerns about child sexual abuse nationally.

“I told him to wear trunks,” Raykovitz said.
 
You apparently cannot fathom that people made mistakes outside of those two you named. There isn’t a question of if either.

Some people are so focused on TSM that they actually write that "what Jerry did or did not do doesn't matter."

Incomprehensible.

Even Jerry's biggest defenders would agree that what he did/didn't do most certainly does matter. It's the only reason this thread has 1000s of posts.
 
well The fact is there more than 10 people and or agencies that have much more culpability than TC and GS and GS. So if you choose to find fault with the 3 it is outrageous nothing was done with the others.
OAG, DPW, CYS . 1998 -no indication
JR - source of kids, JS boss aware of 98
Heim - see above
Harmon
Mm - eyewitness
Dranov & Mr Mmq - 1st live report closest to actual event

The fact that none of these has received scrutiny tells us something is rotten in Denmark
The witch hunt was wrong and a ton of people screwed up...exactly.
 
Some people are so focused on TSM that they actually write that "what Jerry did or did not do doesn't matter."

Incomprehensible.

Even Jerry's biggest defenders would agree that what he did/didn't do most certainly does matter. It's the only reason this thread has 1000s of posts.

TSM should have been center of scrutiny.
Concerns have been raised that the lack of investigation to date is related to former attorney general and former governor Tom Corbett. Corbett received political contributions from people with ties to The Second Mile and approved a $3 million grant to the organization in 2011. Corbett has denied that the contributions and the decision to not prosecute Second Mile officials were related. Further, he says that changing if he had reversed the initial approval of the $3 million grant in 2011, it would have compromised the investigation of Sandusky and The Second Mile then underway.

The Second Mile’s board of directors said in a statement in November of 2011 that it had accepted the resignation of Jack Raykovitz, who served as the CEO of the organization for nearly three decades while children in his program were victimized by Sandusky. The Second Mile board promised to conduct an internal investigation to assess policies and make recommendations regarding future operations. It is unclear if that ever happened.

What is clear is that when nonprofits do not have strong board governance practices, staff, clients, stakeholders, donors, and taxpayers can get hurt or exploited. The Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile/Penn State scandal highlights the dangers of poor governance and management. This scandal’s tragic scope and intense publicity may influence more media and regulators to ask of other nonprofits, “Where was the Board?” when they face public crises of public confidence.
 
We really should find out more about Matt's claim that Jerry gave his $168,000 lump sum payment to TSM right after Tim's talk and they purchased a parcel of land from PSU with it. Is that true? If it is...what does that mean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
We really should find out more about Matt's claim that Jerry gave his $168,000 lump sum payment to TSM right after Tim's talk and they purchased a parcel of land from PSU with it. Is that true? If it is...what does that mean?
It would certainly be another indicator of the incestuous relationship between Penn State’s administration and the Second Mile.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and didier
Raykovitz had no plan or even a clue.
More than any other, Raykovitz's testimony amounted to a new disclosure in the case. Unlike many other witnesses, he had never before been required to publicly testify about his knowledge of Sandusky’s misconduct. And longtime critics of the prosecution – as well as defenders of Spanier – have often asserted that the Second Mile, the defunct charity where Sandusky groomed many of his victims, has long escaped scrutiny it deserved in the scandal.

It came on a day that opened with a prosecutor suggesting to jurors that inaction or indifference by Spanier and two others – Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz, both now government witnesses -- allowed a sex predator to thrive.

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men to do nothing,” said Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte. “Evil thrives when men do nothing.”

Spanier’s lawyer, in turn, countered that his client never conspired with anyone but rather was being wrongfully prosecuted for “a judgment call” based on sparse information he got from others.

Much of the day was spent using witnesses to educate jurors on what by now are the familiar facts of the case:

Former university police chief Tom Harmon and detective Ronald Schreffler gave accounts of their 1998 investigation into an allegation that Sandusky had showered with a different young boy. Harmon acknowledged on cross-examination that he never discussed the incident with Spanier, and that no one from the university interfered with the investigation, which ultimately ended without charges.

McQueary described for jurors what he saw in the locker-room shower in 2001 and how awkward it was to report it to head coach Joe Paterno.

“It’s Coach. He’s like a grandpa. He’s revered. You just don’t talk about that with Coach Paterno,” McQueary testified.

His father, John J. McQueary, then told jurors that Schultz had promised him Penn State officials would look into the report by his son. The elder McQueary also said Schultz told him “we’ve heard rumblings” about similar encounters involving Sandusky but that “each time, we came up empty-handed.”

Prosecutors contend that Spanier, Schultz, and Curley simply chose not to report McQueary's claim to child welfare authorities. Both Schultz, 67, and Curley, 62, admitted as much when they pleaded guilty to misdemeanor child endangerment charges last week, leaving Spanier, 68, as the sole defendant.

Raykovitz was called to bolster that contention. In his testimony, he said Curley told him one day in March 2001 that someone -- whom he did not identify – reported being “uncomfortable” after seeing Sandusky in the shower with a boy, but that an ensuing investigation uncovered no wrongdoing.

Raykovitz, a psychologist, said he wasn’t told Sandusky and the boy were naked or that McQueary saw skin-to-skin contact and heard “rhythmic slapping sounds,” as prosecutor Laura Ditka described it. Raykovitz testified he was told the boy had been a teenager.

Curley did not disclose what agency had investigated the incident and Raykovitz, on cross-examination, acknowledged he didn’t ask. He also conceded he didn't ask Curley if the child involved was a Second Mile participant.

Curley, he said, told him of the administrators' intended plan to bar Sandusky from bringing children into Penn State's facilities. Raykovitz said he asked Sandusky about it and the former defensive coordinator told him he was “confused” and thought the ban only applied to the Lasch football building.

“Does that mean not even Rec Hall?” Raykovitz said Sandusky asked him.

Raykovitz said he told Sandusky to check with Curley and clear up the confusion. He testified that he also advised Sandusky to no longer shower in the nude with boys, given concerns about child sexual abuse nationally.

“I told him to wear trunks,” Raykovitz said.

"Saw Sandusky in the shower with with a boy and was uncomfortable" . And yet JR was allowed to say he wasn't told they were naked. What a crock of sh$$t. In the shower with a boy, someone is uncomfortable, and then he advises wear swim trunks, but he is allowed to say he wasn't aware they were naked. Geez!!
 
Courtney's counsel was a bag of donuts.
Wendell Courtney, a former lawyer for Penn State, testified at the trial. Courtney served on a team representing Penn State starting in 1980 and took over as leader for the team in 1995, the same year Spanier assumed the presidency of Penn State.

Courtney received a call from Schultz requesting legal advice. The call involved a report of what Schultz described to him as “horseplay in the showers that made a graduate assistant coach uncomfortable,” Courtney testified.

Courtney testified he imagined what he thought was kids sliding in the showers from what he was told by Schultz, who mentioned no allegations of sexual abuse when he called Courtney. He further testified about Sandusky's reputation in State College.

"He goofed around with kids all the time," Courtney said. "He appeared as an affection fatherly figure for the kids in The Second Mile."

Schultz told the jury that he told Spanier in 2001 that Sandusky was "horsing around" with a child, mirroring a comment made by Paterno to him. "Horsing around" was something Schultz knew Sandusky for.

"Jerry was always horsing around," Schultz said.

One common thread weaved through the testimony of any witness to talk about Spanier’s knowledge of the 2001 incident. No one on the stand said Spanier was told the incident in 2001 was sexual in nature.

Spanier’s conviction closes only one of the chapters in the Sandusky child sex abuse case at Penn State. Spanier still faces a sentencing hearing, the possible penalty could land him in jail for five years and get him fined $10,000. His legal team said they would appeal the conviction.

Sandusky had the first of his second set of appeal hearings, this time with a new judge, on the same day Spanier received his conviction. Sandusky has two more hearings in May. Sandusky is serving 30 to 60 years in prison after receiving a conviction on 45 counts of child sex abuse.

Spanier has two civil lawsuits, one of which is pending scheduling. Spanier filed a lawsuit seeking damages from Penn State in February 2016, as previously reported by The Daily Collegian. Penn State counter-sued, accusing that when Spanier failed to disclose his knowledge of prior incidents involving Jerry Sandusky, he violated his duty to Penn State, according to court documents.

Penn State demanded Spanier repay over $6 million in compensation for his alleged violations, as previously reported by The Daily Collegian.



Hmmm. "Kids sliding in the showers".

I always thought it interesting that Courtney's testimony mirrored AM's statement to Amendola. Maybe THAT'S what McQueary told Joe, and Mike just embellished on it somewhat with Joe to get face time and make himself look good.

Oh well. Only on page 25 of this novel. I liked it better when the threads were more broken up and you didn't have to worry about repeating something. Carry on. : ^ )
 
Hmmm. "Kids sliding in the showers".

I always thought it interesting that Courtney's testimony mirrored AM's statement to Amendola. Maybe THAT'S what McQueary told Joe, and Mike just embellished on it somewhat with Joe to get face time and make himself look good.

Oh well. Only on page 25 of this novel. I liked it better when the threads were more broken up and you didn't have to worry about repeating something. Carry on. : ^ )
Courtney's claim that he had no knowledge of sexual misconduct in the 2001 incident also appears to be truthful.

Courtney stated that "whether in 1998 or in 2002 (sic) or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children."
Courtney's timesheet (Freeh Report exhibit 5A) from February 11, 2001 states that he spent 2.9 consulting and conducting research into the "reporting of suspected child abuse." The word "sexual" does not appear on that record. Also, Schultz contacted Courtney about the incident after discussing the incident with Paterno and Curley, but before speaking with McQueary, therefore it is unlikely that Schultz reported sexual misconduct. According to McQueary, he didn't get into details with Paterno. Paterno also stated he stopped McQueary early in the discussion due to the then-grad assistant being upset.
However, where Courtney veers into dubious territory is in his discussion of the files maintained (or more correctly, files that he failed to maintain) about 2001 Sandusky incident.
According to the Freeh Report (page 83) on December 28, 2010, Schultz contacted Courtney regarding any information he may have had about Sandusky. On December 30th, Courtney responded that the "last thing in my Penn State file" was the 1999 Sandusky retirement letter.
As proven by the billing record, Courtney should have had a record memorializing the consultation he made with Schultz regarding the 2001 incident. Additionally, Courtney could have also searched his billing records to see if he had performed work regarding the incident.
In an e-mail to Cynthia Baldwin on January 9, 2011 (Freeh Report, page 84), Courtney wrote that we "don't have any file on the matter you and I discussed yesterday....I recall that someone (I don't think it was me, since if it was I would have written documentation of contact) contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation."
Courtney was also consulted about how to handle the January 7, 2010 grand jury subpoena that requested all employment and personnel records for Sandusky.
The Freeh Report (page 82) stated that the lawyer handling the request was a PSU employee and that person did not tell Courtney the subpoena concerned Sandusky. I find that statement hard to believe, given that Courtney was the lead counsel for PSU at the time and was treated in the same manner as any other Vice-President at the University. Even so,Courtney also should have had some record on this consultation on file or in his billing records.
These deficiencies in record keeping begs the question, did Courtney expunge the records in his Penn State file after being retained by TSM to represent them in the Sandusky case?
Did disgruntlement contribute to PSU's records going missing?
McQuaide Blasko (MB) had provided legal services to Penn State for over half a century, however in the late Spring of 2009, the Board of Trustees recommended to Spanier that PSU should have its own in-house counsel. It is quite a coincidence that this proposal bubbled up at the time that the Sandusky investigation had made its way to then-Attorney General, Tom Corbett.

Spanier did not immediately embrace the idea and requested that then VP of Business and Finance, Al Horvath, contract for an outside review. The review concluded that MB was providing good service, but recommended that a small inside General Counsel's (GC) office be established while maintaining most of the legal services via contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax
We really should find out more about Matt's claim that Jerry gave his $168,000 lump sum payment to TSM right after Tim's talk and they purchased a parcel of land from PSU with it. Is that true? If it is...what does that mean?

We can only speculate, and probably wildly at that, but I would guess that Jack spoke with JS after Jack spoke with Tim, to inform him of the concern raised to TSM. And probably, Jack tells others on the PSU BOT, many of whom also have clear links to TSM.
The thought of the demise of TSM due to its founder and public face is beyond devastating to many, many people directly connected to TSM and the BOT and maybe in Harrisburg, and for more selfish than altruistic reasons.

That chat, followed by a hefty gift from the person being suspected of (whatever) to the organization that now has another data point of something that is potentially very harmful to both people and to the organization.... well, one wild-azz guess may be along the lines of hush money from JS to Jack/TSM.

And the ultimate recipient (PSU) of the money is the source of it to begin with! (It's all fungible. And launderable, perhaps).

Getting back to didier's question: I doubt that is what that means, though. Big money, big egos, small community.... nah.

Certainly if enough deflection was put in play, those outside of Happy Valley would see that the real reason the report dies in Jack's hands is to cover up a deranged football culture that completely belied 46 seasons of Success With Honor. And millions in donations back to the University to make the library world-class. And personal donations to save English Lit curriculum. And suspending key players for important games for missing classes. Because, you know, that is what makes the most sense here.
 
We can only speculate, and probably wildly at that, but I would guess that Jack spoke with JS after Jack spoke with Tim, to inform him of the concern raised to TSM. And probably, Jack tells others on the PSU BOT, many of whom also have clear links to TSM.
The thought of the demise of TSM due to its founder and public face is beyond devastating to many, many people directly connected to TSM and the BOT and maybe in Harrisburg, and for more selfish than altruistic reasons.

That chat, followed by a hefty gift from the person being suspected of (whatever) to the organization that now has another data point of something that is potentially very harmful to both people and to the organization.... well, one wild-azz guess may be along the lines of hush money from JS to Jack/TSM.

And the ultimate recipient (PSU) of the money is the source of it to begin with! (It's all fungible. And launderable, perhaps).

Getting back to didier's question: I doubt that is what that means, though. Big money, big egos, small community.... nah.

Certainly if enough deflection was put in play, those outside of Happy Valley would see that the real reason the report dies in Jack's hands is to cover up a deranged football culture that completely belied 46 seasons of Success With Honor. And millions in donations back to the University to make the library world-class. And personal donations to save English Lit curriculum. And suspending key players for important games for missing classes. Because, you know, that is what makes the most sense here.

Joe arranged for Mike to speak to PSU Administrators and followed up with Mike to see if he was okay with the results. It is incredible that anyone would find fault with his actions.Let us not forget that 2001 didn't have Joe in his best position as a HC. There were those that felt (and certain trustees) that the wrong guy had retired. I think if Joe had gone all vigilante on JS, it would have been interpreted as an attempt to discredit a former brilliant and loyal assistant......and perhaps self serving, given the state of the program at that time.
Also, don't think for one minute that JR didn't know who "the little boy in the shower was." JR and staff knew who JS was "mentoring" and if there was any doubt, I'm sure JS offered to produce the boy as he did to TC.
 
"Saw Sandusky in the shower with with a boy and was uncomfortable" . And yet JR was allowed to say he wasn't told they were naked. What a crock of sh$$t. In the shower with a boy, someone is uncomfortable, and then he advises wear swim trunks, but he is allowed to say he wasn't aware they were naked. Geez!!
That's what $650K (or more) of protection money to "the right political people" buys you......Even the most obvious criminal issues that start to become public get ignored.....The State of PA will ALWAYS overlook anything that points to TSM as the real "criminal culture" in all of this!
 
Joe arranged for Mike to speak to PSU Administrators and followed up with Mike to see if he was okay with the results. It is incredible that anyone would find fault with his actions.Let us not forget that 2001 didn't have Joe in his best position as a HC. There were those that felt (and certain trustees) that the wrong guy had retired. I think if Joe had gone all vigilante on JS, it would have been interpreted as an attempt to discredit a former brilliant and loyal assistant......and perhaps self serving, given the state of the program at that time.
Also, don't think for one minute that JR didn't know who "the little boy in the shower was." JR and staff knew who JS was "mentoring" and if there was any doubt, I'm sure JS offered to produce the boy as he did to TC.

Yes, that's a thing people forget. We went 5-7 in 2000, our first losing season in 12 years and our worst winning percentage since 1936. It was also our first year without Jerry as DC/assistant head coach. I actually remember some people claiming in the late 90s that Jerry was the one really in charge while Joe was just a figurehead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: todd brewster
Some people are so focused on TSM that they actually write that "what Jerry did or did not do doesn't matter."

Incomprehensible.

Even Jerry's biggest defenders would agree that what he did/didn't do most certainly does matter. It's the only reason this thread has 1000s of posts.
Try reading Freeh carefully.
The Freeh Report (named for former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who led Penn State’s internal investigation) was a product of the first presentment, and much of the information it presented forms the basis for the second presentment. Since the Freeh Report was released in July, many have expressed concerns about its scope and accuracy, and, moreover, many figures and bodies who traditionally speak with authority about the university, including its former president, representatives of its faculty, and the NCAA, have made conflicting statements about the report. What follows is an attempt to outline what we know and what we still don’t know after the Freeh Report and twelve tumultuous months.

At the outset, the board’s decision in November, 2011, to commission an investigation was appropriate and forthright, insofar as the number of individuals with knowledge about Sandusky’s activity and the depth of the knowledge they possessed were unknown. However, this was a limited response in a number of legitimate ways.

First, the investigation was not a criminal proceeding and could not subpoena witness testimony or physical evidence. By request of the individuals’ legal representatives, the Freeh team could not interview Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Wendell Courtney, or Jerry Sandusky himself.

Second, the team could not cross some boundaries of the ongoing Attorney General’s investigation, and this prevented the group from interviewing Mike McQueary.

Third, the team was unable to interview Joe Paterno, despite his agreement, due to his passing while the investigation was ongoing.

Finally, Penn State paid for the investigation, so it could not proceed indefinitely. Given these constraints, the Freeh Report presented a number of findings and evidentiary items that have informed public discourse and
now ongoing criminal investigations, but it also leaves a number of open questions.

Major Findings
A major finding of the Freeh Report identifies the central motivation for Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno’s decisions as the avoidance of negative publicity for Penn State. However, the report only recognizes the avoidance of negative publicity in two instances: first, the legal counsel for the executive director of the Second Mile reported to the Freeh team that Curley cited the avoidance of negative attention as a reason for banning Sandusky from bringing Second Mile children into campus facilities in a conversation with the executive director, and, second, Graham Spanier told the team in his interview that he was more concerned about the attention around Sandusky’s access to campus in 2001 than he was about the criminality of the situation, because he had no indication that Sandusky had committed a crime. Only these statements refer to the avoidance of negative publicity, and no contemporary evidence from 2001 or earlier refers to it as a motivation for any decisions that were made.

Another major finding attributed to the report is the existence of a cover-up or conspiracy on the part of university officials, or what the Freeh Report refers to as “conceal[ment]” of their knowledge of Sandusky’s activities from legal authorities, the Board of Trustees, and the community. This withholding certainly did occur, but evidence in the report does not support the idea in the public discourse that the withholding proceeded from a more calculated or long-term cover-up.

Specifically, Sandusky was investigated in 1998, and authorities concluded that no charges should be brought against him at that point. The Freeh Report itself finds that Sandusky’s 1999 retirement was unrelated to the 1998 investigation, using contemporary evidence to suggest that discussions were underway before the incident investigated in 1998 took place, which undermines the notion of a more coordinated effort to get Sandusky out of the spotlight.

Finally, discussions recorded in discovered e-mails from 2001 suggest there was not a coordinated effort to conceal information underway before Mike McQueary’s witness account, because the administrators in question specifically identified going to the Department of Public Welfare as an option. Clearly, they did not exercise this option, but their naming it undermines the idea that they were covering for Sandusky before this point. In fact, Tim Curley’s statement from the 2001 e-mails, “I need some help on this one,” brings to mind at least two interpretations: he needed help concealing information about Sandusky, or he needed advice from fellow administrators to try to exercise sound judgment on the matter.

Findings Related to Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno
The report does offer several new insights arising from evidentiary discoveries that have informed the most recent grand jury presentment and should inform the public discourse. Related to Curley and Schultz, Curley testified to the grand jury that he had no knowledge of the 1998 investigation into Sandusky as of 2001, but materials cited in the Freeh Report suggest that Curley frequently asked Schultz for status updates while the 1998 investigation was ongoing and met with Schultz to review the 1998 events within two days of McQueary delivering his witness account to Paterno.

Schultz testified to the grand jury that he didn’t have any notes related to 2001 or that such notes would have been destroyed upon his retirement in 2009, though the Freeh team was able to recover these notes in May, 2012. Further, Schultz testified he didn’t know University Police had carried out the 1998 investigation and didn’t have any indication McQueary witnessed anything criminal in 2001, while the Freeh Report illustrates that Schultz corresponded with University Police regarding the 1998 investigation from day one and discussed the “reporting of suspected child abuse” with outside counsel Wendell Courtney after meeting with Curley and

Paterno and before even speaking with McQueary. (Graham Spanier’s direct response to the Freeh Report suggests Courtney would have concluded the incident was not reportable since in fact it was not reported, but Courtney consulted with Schultz February 11, 2001, and the administrators discussed reporting McQueary’s account to the Department of Public Welfare as late as February 26, 2001.)

With respect to Graham Spanier, Spanier testified to the grand jury that he had no knowledge of the 1998 investigation into Sandusky as of 2001, but the report illustrates that he was copied on two e-mails between Curley and Schultz in 1998 discussing the investigation. He and his representatives have maintained that these e-mails are insufficient to prove his awareness because only one refers to Sandusky by name, and it describes the conclusion of the investigation without charges. Spanier did not reply to either of these e-mails.

In 2001, Spanier was included on another e-mail from Curley to him and Schultz in which Curley referred to speaking with Sandusky about “the first situation” (presumably the 1998 investigation into Sandusky) and seeking professional help and also making reports to “his organization” (The Second Mile) and “maybe the other one” (Department of Public Welfare). These were not named specifically, but Spanier responded without asking for any clarification of these signifiers, advising, “The only downside for us is if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

In his recent interview with The New Yorker, Spanier has asserted that this statement refers to difficulty in ensuring that Sandusky would listen to Curley’s message. The Freeh Report concludes that this statement constitutes an acknowledgment of failure to report knowledge of a potential instance of child abuse to legal authorities, and the Commonwealth proceeded from this interpretation to charge Spanier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
For anyone, friend or foe, who is interested is asking John Ziegler anything regarding the proposed Newsweek story, pose a question on his twitter feed and he says that he will answer it on his Monday podcast.

 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianEagle
Wouldn't it be nice if - rather than deliberating over the speech Freeh delivered - one could actually look at the data that went into it (or NOT into it), how it was compiled, and how it was massaged into the so-called "Freeh Report".

Then - - - any intelligent, interested party - who was curious enough to take the time to go through it - could actually have some justifiable rationale to assign appropriate value to the report.




Geez-O-Pete...... that would be nice..... huh?




If only someone but an "All Hat, No Cattle Cowboy", and a collection of bumbling, stumbling, tumbleweeds had such access :)


But, alas, that was not to be..... and all that is left is to witness one more big blow of wind across the prairie - - - - by the Cowpoke saddling up ol' Trigger for one last rodeo.

th




oh

so you are more critical of the PS4RS rebuttal of the Freeh Report

than you are of the actual Freeh Report

just curious . . . which bank do you use to cash your BoT checks?
 
In addition to your standard delusional and off-topic blatherings .....

At what point did PS4RS (or leadership thereof) become involved in the Freeh File review?
If the answer be “never”, why do you feel the urge to come to the defense of a non-involved party?

:)

Ciao.

history will prove you are wrong on SO many things

saraba da!
 
ADVERTISEMENT