SIAP: Interesting press conference announced for 10AM on 2/25/19 purportedly to address Freeh review
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
The crew's been awakened by Zig going after Michael Jackson's accusers using similar strategies ... like family members of the accused defending him, and spurned ex girlfriends of the victims who appear all to happy to call their ex boyfriend a lying cheating money hungry dog.
Who or what serves as your "alarm clock?"
I wonder what motivates PHPB. He seems like he might be a troll. I wonder if he even has a connection to Penn State.
I can tell you what motivates me is the travesty of epic proportion as articulated by the likes of John Snedden, Ralph Cipriano, Dick Anderson, Al Lindsay, and Jeff Byers. Each of their presentations at the press conference resonated with me. The truth is out there for everyone to discover. Eventually it will become evident. I hope that that happens sooner rather than later.
I see the principal victims of this travesty being Jerry Sandusky, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, the Penn State community, and the legacy of Joe Paterno.
Could you explain, since no one at the press conference did, what valid reason Jerry had for signing victims out of school without their parent's permission?
I didn't hear anybody ask that question at the press conference. Where you there?
Now let me ask you some other questions if I may.
What is your motivation in posting on virtually every development in the fiasco?
What is your connection to Penn State?
I would also like to know why the Second Mile and the schools permitted that to happen.
How do we know that parent's did not give permission? It is incumbent on the school district to have documentation on file. I did not see any school district administrators indicted....did you?
I don't think the Commonwealth wanted any employees from the CMSD testifying to the character and reputation of its star witness.
A defender of Jerry simply must have an answer to that question. Don't deflect. What valid explanation would Jerry, as an innocent man, for signing children out of school without their parent's permission?
Since you apparently don’t want to state where you are coming from, I am concluding you a troll. I don’t think it is productive to feed trolls and will not engage in a discussion with you unless and until you can show you aren’t a troll.
So, you have no valid explanation. Jerry doesn't either, that's clear.
I'm neutral on Sandusky. But, according to your question, which you pose that Jerry is innocent, what does it matter one iota if he checked kids out of school or not? I do not know the reasons for the kids being checked out of school. Maybe he took them to the doctor/dentist. Maybe it was for a driver's test. Maybe it was to go see one of their natural/absent parents (I am assuming these kids come from broken/fractured homes). There may be dozens of legitimate reasons. I'm sure no answer will satisfy your question, so why does it matter? I do find it incredibly hard to believe, though, that he checked them out of school to abuse them sexually.
A couple Q's back to you:
1. Is it certain that this was permitted without Parent's permission?
2. Regardless of that answer above, why was the school permitting a child to be checked out from school to a non-guardian? That answer may be that Sandusky was listed as an authorized person. I don't know. Jerry saw himself a a Foster parent/pseudo-Foster parent to many of the troubled youths and this could have been part of his foster-parenting.
I believe there was testimony that these were without parent's permission. As such, there's no valid reason. Not a dentist appointment, not working out, not a driver's test.
The fact that the schools permitted this is a separate issue, and not pertinent to Jerry.
There's no such thing as a pseudo foster parent.
source? I dont care what you believe.
Interesting comeback. You proved my point. I gave you three possible reasons for a child being taken out of school by Sandusky. Yet, you claim that there is no valid reason. Ummmm, ok. Then why ask the question since you have locked down that there isn't a valid reason?
Exactly what point are you trying to make?
Don't like pseudo foster parent? OK. How about responsible, caring adult. Tomayto/Tomahto.
Were these model parents and stable families and did they serve the needs of the child? Evidence suggests that maybe mom and/or dad were not June and Ward Cleaver.. The boys themselves weren't Wally and the Beav either.
Was Jerry on the assigned roster to be able to take the kids? You don't know and neither do I. If he was not on the list, then the school absolutely bears responsibility and should be punished for it. After all, Mr Shapiro told me that noone is above the law.
Aren't you the least bit curious why the school would allow the early dismissal IF Jerry was not on the roster? Don't you think someone should be help responsible from the schools. Could it have been that the youths themselves forged their parent's signature and early dismissal to allow them to leave school with Jerry? Given the alleged reputation of the kids, that may very well be what happened if parent(s) did not know.
Was this testimony as truthful as the "excited utterance" of the crying janitor? God only knows. Is the photo someone who sees around corners?
Here's a better question to ponder. Did TSM have contracts to perform services for CYS?
Yet the parents, kids, nor the school administrators ever attempted to put a stop to it. Why would a kid want to leave the safe haven of a school to go with a sexual predator to be molested? Can you answer that question?
That buck stops at Steve Turchetta, who admitted Jerry took kids out without permission. But that doesn't absolve Jerry.
This is part of why Jerry didn't take ther stand. He'd have been shredded.
Of taking kids out of school with out permission, against his own charities guidelines, for purposes of grooming them for CSA or for actual CSA.
Because Jerry was an adult that showed concern for them and took them out in the community and did things with them.
So I've seen reports that an "influential" member of the community (not Sandusky) was questioned by PSUPD regarding his interaction(on campus) with a 13 years old in 1988. The individual in question was advised to leave campus and cease such interaction. Five years later, it appears the individual was arrested for the same sort of behavior. Yet allegedly, the person in question had access to the campus unrestricted until 2016. Does anyone know who this influential person might be? Could this be the key to Freeh's fantasy report? It might explain why so many are nervous every time someone supports a review of circumstances surrounding TSM scandal or a new trial for Sandusky?
Wouldn't surprise me if there is something lurking. We certainly have no shortage of "people" who fall all over themselves making excuses for Piller of the Community abusers.
or Trustees who championed their access (Emeritus).
You use the term "kids" plural. Yet Jerry was only every charged with the abuse of Aaron Fisher among students at Central Mountain. If Jerry really was taking multiple kids out of class to abuse them, why did none testify at trial?
It is true that there were four others from Central Mountain who later sued PSU, but they came forward long after other accusers got paid. Furthermore, the stories of all four are pathetic. They include Frank "the Tank" Probst, who went on the news claiming he was not abused after Jerry's arrest. But then claimed abuse in 2016 (just before a bank took him to court to collect a debt). He said he was abused up until his senior year of high school despite being a 6'3" - 200lb tight end who would go on to play college football. The others included Glenn Neff, who offered to buy his buddy a truck if he lied and said Jerry tried to kiss him; Josh Culver, whose girlfriend stated he spent days "rehearsing" his abuse story which included fake crying; and Skyler Coover, who didn't even know Jerry personally.
Last edited:
You have to be kidding.
This past March former Second Mile CEO Dr. John (Jack) Raykovitz testified at former Penn State President Graham Spanier’s trial in Harrisburg. He explained to the court that Jerry Sandusky’s role with Second Mile was solely that of chairman, emcee at Second Mile events, and fundraiser. He told the jury that Sandusky did not provide any individual mentoring, counseling or therapy to Second Mile youth.
Jack Raykovitz is a state-licensed professional that not only counseled many Second Mile youth, most notably Matt Sandusky, but his program targeted this population using sports and coaching and attached itself to a high profile athletic program.
Sports is a high-risk environment for child sexual abuse, as it involves: An age disparity between adults and kids; an imbalance of power between a coach and a player; differing intellectual capabilities between adult coaches and youth.
Grooming behavior by an offender goes as follows:
n Targeting a victim — the offender is looking for a vulnerability in that minor.
n Gaining trust — a coach is often perceived as a hero and a mentor.
n Recognizing and fulfilling needs – attention and positive reinforcement is given.
n Isolate the victim — the offender is the only one who understands them.
n Sexualize the relationship — “accidental nudity” in a shower or locker room.
n Maintaining control — separate the minor from their parents or friends.
Dr. Raykovitz should have known that Second Mile was a perfect grooming charity, with Jerry Sandusky exhibiting red flags of grooming behavior around Second Mile kids for years, the largest one being waved was the constant out of program contact.
Dr. Raykovitz described to the jury that after Tim Curley visited him and discussed Mike McQueary’s incident, he spoke with Jerry Sandusky and advised him to “just wear swim trunks” the next time he showers with a youth after a workout. Both the jury and state prosecutor Laura Ditka — who also prosecutes sex crimes — simply accepted Jack’s reasoning.
Telling the offender to wear swim trunks doesn’t matter, the goal of the offender upon entering a locker room with a minor is to get the youth to undress, thus breaking down barriers. This “accidental nudity” then sexualizes the relationship — the locker room or a shower is the perfect place to do that.
Any touching then confuses the child about the nature of the touching. Probing questions from parents are easily waved off with “Oh, it was just regular locker room stuff” “just guys being guys” “It won’t happen again.”
It is inexcusable for a CEO of a program that services children to recommend this as a best practice for ANY adult representing the program.
Dr. Raykovitz tells the jury he knew it was a Second Mile teen in 2001, yet failed to indentify the teen and thus failed to contact the teen’s parent(s) for more information. He failed to probe Sandusky about this of out of program contact with a Second Mile client, nor did he discuss with the full board that Penn State has now bounced all kids from being in campus buildings with Jerry Sandusky as a result. Dr. Raykovitz failed to sit down with Jerry Sandusky, identify his grooming behaviors, put the kibosh on the out of program contact with clients, and implement a written safety plan (as per state mandate) in working with Second Mile minors going forward. By implementing such a practice, the goal would be to protect the children of Second Mile from incidents of misconduct or inappropriate behavior while also protecting Second Mile staff and volunteers from false accusations.
Swim trunks doesn’t solve the problem.
To date, neither Jack Raykovitz, nor any professional from Second Mile or Children & Youth Services that placed kids with Sandusky, has explained themselves.
Or for those who wish to blame Penn State and Paterno for something they had no hand in.
Like you and the rest of your PL entourage.
Interesting viewpoint. I haven't ever blamed Paterno, never. I think you are overcompensating for something ... perhaps when the GJP came out, you blamed Paterno falsely, and now are just self flagellating to make up for a lapse in judgement.
At least @francofan admits that he lost faith.
