I thought it might have been a man with a bicycle?
SIAP: Interesting press conference announced for 10AM on 2/25/19 purportedly to address Freeh review
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
That was my hunch. The question would be why he wasn't ever arrested for trespassing on campus. He was the star of a movie with a critical appearance at Joe's Statue? Lois Lame's main source for allegations against JVP? He must have had friends......
I think it would be pretty hard to get arrested for trespassing on PSU's campus unless you were doing something really out of the ordinary. It's an open campus, so unless there were court orders preventing him from being there (maybe there were, IDK), I would think he could freely wander around campus like everyone else.
Do you mean the guy who "left" his teaching position at Bald Eagle Area and then could only get substitute teaching jobs around Centre County for years but then suddenly in 1985 got a teaching position at PSU with only a master's degree.
Yes, although I'm not sure that being a "math instructor" (basically a TA) at PSU with only a master's is that big of a conspiracy.
According to the document I read (The Clery Review) a "Notice Against Trespass" was issued to the individual....who repeatedly violated its terms and yet there was never any attempt to enforce it.
He is often referred to as a professor. I have no idea what his official title was. Is professor an inaccurate description of his position?
From his obituary:
"n 1983, he accepted a position as a Mathematics Instructor at Penn State and in 1987, became Director of Penn State's Math Center and continued in both capacities until his retirement in June 2002."
I believe the "Math Center" is basically an on campus tutoring service. I don't think either of those jobs is a professor position, but if someone with better knowledge of the math department/math center knows differently, please correct me.
Remember when the crying custodian stated that the "man" he witnessed with a boy was not Sandusky? But those were only the words of the actual witness......The Judge allowed an "excited utterance" and the incident somehow became part of his trial????
I'm not sure the math teacher would have had access to that building (wasn't that in the precursor to Lasch?), but if he did, then we can start asking tough questions about who was doing him favors to facilitate his "hobby" on campus.
I got an email yesterday from the NLC. A rep asked to visit with me while he’s visiting my area. I let him know there is no point until PSU straightens out some internal stuff. I’ll leave out the details here. Any chance my response goes anywhere other than his inbox? You’d think if enough people spoke up somebody up there would get the point.
The athletic department is most definitely aware of the issue. Keep in mind they’re trying to fundraise.
I took a swipe at the "Comprehensive Excellence" bs used to whitewash "Success with Honor." Paul Clifford retorted..."we use it all the time, but more importantly we live it." I noted both parts of his response were outright lies.
Heim is a name that will always be mentioned in whispers.
To those who still believe that the Second Mile as an organization, its employees, or affiliates including myself had some culpability in the Sandusky scandal based on conjecture, I hope to shed some light and context on the decisions that were made over a decade ago, at least as it relates to me and my role with these events.
These insights begin with one simple truism: Nobody that I know had any inkling that Jerry might be a pedophile.
It never occurred as a possibility until the release of the 2011 Grand Jury presentment that shocked a nation, destroyed a great charity, devastated a town, impugned a university, and by implication its wide alumni base, and maligned a personal friend, partner, and icon who did everything he was supposed to do with the information he had: Joe Paterno.
It is important to note that , especially for athletes, taking showers in an open locker room with no privacy after exercising or participating in a sport was standard and normal behavior, regardless of age. It was not uncommon to see grown men with younger children together in a group shower. We grew up with it and, to a far lesser extent with changing societal norms, it continues today in gyms and health clubs all over the country.
At the time I worked out in the Penn State facilities, it just never occurred to me or others who saw him that Jerry may have been using what was a routine part of athletics and sport culture to groom young boys for inappropriate behavior.
In 2001, Penn State officials informed the Second Mile that Sandusky had been seen in the football shower with a child. When specifically asked if there was any act or event that would suggest inappropriate behavior, the Second Mile staff was told NO. When Second Mile Executive Director Jack Raykovitz came to me with this information seeking counsel, I advised him (as did others on the executive committee) that there was no need to bring it to the entire board. If anything, we thought it odd that this was even reported to us if there was no witnessed misconduct or even allegations of misconduct. However, as norms change, it was understandable that Penn State wanted the activity to stop. At the time, The Second Mile had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, which was not reported to us.
Contrary to the conspiracy theorists, nobody at the Second Mile knew anything about Jerry doing anything other than wonderful things with and for at-risk kids until 2008. Upon receipt of the 2008 report [when Sandusky informed the board he was under investigation], it was immediately taken to the board of The Second Mile for action, which in turn banned Jerry from all kid-related activities.
Nonetheless, even at that time it was hard to believe for many in this community that Jerry would have done anything wrong. In 30 years of working with disadvantaged and at-risk children, to our knowledge Jerry had not had a single allegation of even the slightest inappropriate behavior toward children. Not knowing details, we believed that the 2008 incident was a misunderstanding. Not knowing what we now know about grooming behaviors and the warning signs of pedophilia, at the time it was unfathomable to think that he would actually harm a child.
It is difficult to find words to describe the horror we felt when the 2011 presentment was revealed.
I know the Second Mile and its employees did nothing wrong as do the numerous investigative bodies who spent years looking for evidence of misconduct in the organization related to Jerry Sandusky’s crimes and found none. I have personally been interviewed at length by those organizations and testified in front of the Grand Jury for over two hours.
With the benefit of hindsight, who wouldn’t question if we could have done more or done things differently? Sadly, we do not now have that choice.
I am still saddened that Joe Paterno did not live to see resolution and I stand in firm support of his family and the actions they are taking to defend and restore his good name. The glaring rush to judgment and the circumventing of Joe Paterno’s due process rights continue to haunt the university, my Alma Mater.
Joe Paterno did everything right as outlined under the new reporting policies that Penn State established after this incident. Despite that, the media and the public excoriated him. In a very small way, and I am certainly not comparing the severity of the two, the process of events of this past week is analogous to what the Paterno family endured at the hands of the administration: a reactionary decision with a lack of due process casting suspicion over those who did nothing wrong.
Thanks for the post.
My question is, why didn't the law go after TSM like they did PSU? They are as, or much more, culpable than Joe Paterno, Curley or Schultz. In addition, why weren't records kept regarding who was with kids, when and where? At the time, my wife was in the industry and having an absolute rock solid audit trail was as basic as it gets. This was, and continues to be, the only way a pattern can be discerned for these kinds or predators.
Again, thanks for posting...I appreciate you shining a light. But I still don't understand the selective prosecution between the PSU administration/coaches and the Second Mile. I can get over everything else but that.
I think the reason is that Tom Corbett did not have a vendetta against anybody at TSM like he did against Graham Spanier. Corbett didn't like Spanier at all and wanted to get even with him for opposing his cuts to higher education and for having the audacity of being seen at Beaver Stadium with his Democratic opponent for Governor, Dan Onorato.
If Corbett wanted to go after Sandusky, he had the opportunity. The mere fact that the "immaculate email" landed the day after Tommy Boy was elected should tell everyone that the fix was in.
My thought is that the originally didn’t go after Jack because Curley stated he only told Raykowitz about horseplay while McQueary insists he told Curley and Schultz about a sex act.
I think they then went after Spanier to pacify the angry public after the Freeh report. There simply was very little public outrage against Raykowitz and that’s why they felt no need to go after him.
Of course, I am 100% convinced McQueary was not only full of shit and that there was absolutely no sexual act in the shower at all,
Last edited:
Look at the layout of the Lasch shower room......LOL
I will also add this to the discussion: when this story broke, TSM was in the process of building a new campus of sorts. Some of the funding was public money and released by Corbett. So, I think there was good reason for deflection. Corbett didn’t want to answer questions as to why he was supporting this construction while having to acknowledge he was AG prior to the project.
Nah, Schultz actually made out in this travesty.
Schultz testified that he was under the impression the 2001 incident had been reported to DPW, up until the 2011 grand jury investigation, though he was not sure where that information came from.
"I'm not sure, but I think it was President Spanier," Schultz says.
Schultz also testified that he told Spanier more than once of a similar 1998 incident involving Sandusky. Prosecutors presented an email chain discussing the incident, on which Spanier was copied.
"It was important and the president should hear about it, and he should hear about it from me," Schultz said.
Curley, however, said he had no conversations with Spanier regarding the 1998 incident, though he acknowledged Spanier was copied on the email chain.
The prosecution earlier had introduced a note from a Feb. 12. 2001, meeting between Curley and Schultz before a meeting with Spanier and his council. Curley said he used the same paper for a meeting the trio had afterward.
The note only included the initials TMC (Tim M. Curley).
"Am I missing Graham Spanier's initials on there?" Silver asked.
"No, you're not," Schultz said.
"Is it possible then," Silver continued, "that it reflects only a meeting with Tim Curley before the President's Council?"
"Something like that is possible," Schultz replied. "But I don't think so."
He referred to a mark at the bottom of the note: "T.C. to keep Schultz posted," which he said was Spanier's directive to Curley, but he conceded that he could not specifically point out when Spanier was introduced to the conversation.
Lisa Powers, Penn State director of strategic communications, also testified about emails among her, Spanier and a Harrisburg reporter. Spanier said in those emails he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, Powers testified.
"John Doe,' 28, testified that he is a survivor of a sexual assault by Sandusky during the summer of 2002 — when he was 11 or 12 — in a Penn State facility shower.
Believe what you want to believe.
Gary Schultz did not make out in the travesty. He has been victimized like Jerry Sandusky, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Joe Paterno's legacy, and the Penn State community. The only reason Schultz accepted a plea deal for a misdemeanor was that the jury pool had been poisoned by the OAG false narratives.
Please read NCIS Special Agent John Snedden's federal report of the investigation into whether or not Graham Spanier's top level security clearances would be renewed (they were).
For a synopsis, please read Ralph Cipriano's blog post on Snedden's report that he found there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather just a political hit job
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html
Jerot is a bot so it’s not surprising such nonsense comes from its account
I don’t know jerot from Adam or Eve but I would like to know what he thinks about my response regarding required action by TSM
It was a long time ago but I used an analogy like this - it didn’t matter if TC told JR the kid stubbed his toe, TSM is required to take it from there formally - they didn’t so they failed in their duty to keep kids safe.
Another analogy, once a report was made to TSM, ANY report whatsoever, it was their issue to deal with
So the fact that JR was actually used as a “prosecution witness” is absolutely mind boggling - again to any real professional in the field.
Last edited:
jerot is a bot. Not real. Fake. You are talking to a program. Picture him as a robo call.
Exactly what I've been saying. Spanier's lawyers didn't present a defense because there was technically nothing to defend since the prosecution clearly and obviously failed to make even a remotely convincing argument, let alone one beyond a reasonable doubt. Spanier's problem is that he and his counsel obviously thought the jury would agree.
I argree, except for the fact that; there were so many outrageous miscarriages of courtroom justice beforehand, that Spanier’s attorneys should have seized on one (or more) of the ample opportunities to discredit witnesses.
In hindsight, yes. But at the time, no. Why would the defense want to bring up anything that could even remotely be twisted against them? The only explanation is that Spanier's lawyers thought the evidence presented by the prosecution was, on its face, so utterly unconvincing that a defense wasn't warrented.
Again, not a lawyer, but as a two-time foreperson my understanding is that this is actually a good strategy assuming, of course, that the jury will be rational and deliberative. I don't know if this jury was actually convinced of Spanier's guilt, or simply decided to ignore all the inconsistencies/ inaccuracies/lies presented. What I do know is that their decision was NOT based on the evidence provided which, if you've ever been on a jury, you'd know is the foundation upon which all deliberations and decisions are (supposed to be) based.
Most interesting, perhaps, is how the appeals court didn't throw this conviction out.
Last edited:
It's a truly amazing mystery why there was no defense. It seems to be exceedingly rare that defendants present no defense case, yet that happened again and again through this matter.
For all the wailing on this board about miscarriages of justice, the very people with the most to lose repeatedly failed to offer defenses that would presumably have exposed such.
"Yes we lost the biggest game of the season, but all the experts say we were the better team. We didn't put any of our stars into the game because we didn't think it was necessary. Even at the end, when we had 4 downs & goal to go for the winning score, we kneeled out in an abundance of caution. We plan to appeal to the league for relief"
BWI: "We were robbed again! The whole sort is corrupt! Never forget!"
Real problem is no common sense.
Spanier, 70, had argued the trial judge and a lower appeals court wrongly relied on a statute of limitations law that prosecutors never cited.
He has been out on bail and has not begun serving a sentence of two months in jail and two months’ house arrest.
Spanier’s lawyer, Sam Silver, said they were disappointed by the court’s decision, while prosecutors said they were pleased.
“No one is above the law, and my office will continue to pursue anyone who looks the other way in the face of child sexual abuse,” Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement. “There are consequences for failing to protect children in Pennsylvania.”
Spanier’s lawyers have said that for the relevant provision of the state’s statute of limitations to apply, prosecutors would have needed to prove the boy in the shower in 2001 was less than 14 years and 11 days old. Referred to as “Victim 2” in court records and testimony, the boy’s identity has been disputed, with prosecutors saying they are not sure who he is.
At the lower-level Superior Court, two of three judges on the appeals panel turned down Spanier’s arguments that too much time had passed to charge him, that he was not legally obligated to care for the boy, and that he should not have been charged because he did not supervise children directly.
But the third Superior Court judge said Spanier should have been told at a reasonable time before trial that prosecutors planned to rely on an exception to the two-year statute of limitations. She said she would have reversed his conviction.
Two of Spanier’s top aides when he was Penn State’s president, former vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley, pleaded guilty to child endangerment and testified against him in 2017. They have since served county jail sentences.
Spanier, who did not take the stand at trial in his own defense, has said Sandusky’s attack on the boy was characterized to him as horseplay.
He told the sentencing judge he regretted he “did not intervene more forcefully.”
Spanier was forced out as Penn State’s president within days of the November 2011 arrests of Sandusky, Curley and Schultz. He was himself charged criminally a year later.
Penn State said Thursday Spanier remains a tenured faculty member and is on paid administrative leave. The school does not release his salary.
Sandusky is serving 30 to 60 years on a 45-count child sexual abuse conviction. He maintains he was wrongly convicted and recently won a Superior Court decision that granted him new sentencing but did not give him the new trial he sought.
The scandal has cost the university more than a quarter-billion dollars, including payments to those who said Sandusky abused them as boys.
You're missing my point. If, after the prosecution rests, it's obvious (to any rational person) that there's not just reasonable doubt, but a ton of doubt, that the defendant may not have done what he/she is accused of doing, it should be game over. Not guilty. That's how it is supposed to work, and does work, when a jury is capable, impartial and I'd like to say diligent, but that's probably asking too much. Let's go with accountable.
Again, in hindsight, should Spanier have provided a defense? Yeah, probably. But the burden of proof is on the prosecution and, in this case, there was clearly reasonable doubt that Spanier was guilty. Hell, there's even a ton of doubt about who the "victim" is. That, alone, should have been enough. I know what the jury foreman said, but what I don't understand isn't how the Appeals Court didn't overturn that verdict.
And don't compare Spanier to Curley and Shultz. Not the same. Not even close.
I always wondered if the reason Spanier did not put on a defense was because his attorneys were too afraid of being perceived as sympathetic to John Ziegler and thus fearing the PA judicial establishment would hold that against them in future cases.
