The charge Spanier was convicted on has statute of limitations of 2 years

[crazytoadie]

Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

If you want to pontificate about who "allowed" children to be molested, then Seasock, Lauro, and Raykovitz should be at the top of the list. These are "trained" professionals in child psychology/behaviour/abuse that were apparently unable to put the pieces together. Seasock/Lauro's reports not only got it wrong, but by finding it unfounded they kicked the legs out from under Gricar/police from filing or prosecuting. Raykovitz's advice to wear swim trunks is absurd even if nothing was going. The advice should have been not to shower with kids at all, just like Jerry himself falsely promised in 1998.

If you believe McQueary's testimony that he believed he witnessed sodomy, then he is one person that witnessed a crime and walked away to leave a kid to spend the rest of the evening with Sandusky. Justice is not served when the prosecution makes those guys the witnesses to cast blame at someone else feet. If McQueary, Raykovitz, Lauro skate because they just made a poor decision or fumbled the ball then Spanier is no different. Had Spanier been convicted of conspiracy then I'd perhaps feel differently, but he was acquitted of that. If inaction is the bar for guilt, then McQueary, Dranov, MM Sr, Raykovitz, and Heim all did less so there is no celebration when the people closest to Sandusky or that directly witnessed what he did are given more deference for their mistakes that also contributed to Sandusky not being stopped sooner.

 

[L.T. Young]

Lied??? Is a full investigation and no charges made from the same situation (a shower with kids) inconsistent with Sandusky handling in 2001??? HE WAS JUDGED LEGALLY INNOCENT of what you call a "pattern".

After all, he was in a State Supervised Child Care business that constantly saw many kids and situations. If you look ONLY at 2001 and how everybody MM spoke to saw no reason to report what MM said AT THE TIME he saw - then why is this SECOND TIME the smoking gun?

If TSM - a State reviewed and professionally monitored (at least that's what they were SUPPOSED to be) agency - had no problems with Sandusky - why should Penn State be expected to immediately link 1998 to 2001 and get a "CRIMINAL ACTIONS" result.

In 1998 he was JUDGED INNOCENT - this makes 2001 look like another potential over-reaction if reported.

What is missed consistently - it WAS REPORTED. The report went to TSM (mandated reporter) and they were primarily responsible for Jerry's actions. If there was a "pattern" being established, only TSM had access to the full range of information necessary to evaluate Sandusky and it was their PRIMARY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to report/take action on Jerry's inappropriate (or worse) child contacts.

For Penn State, a vague recount of MM's sighting (one with no "victim" to verify what actually happened) handcuffed their evaluation of what really happened. A reasonable review was conducted and, based upon 1998, BOUNDARY ISSUES - doing things in a manner that are necessarily wrong....but they "look bad" - seemed to fit what was the real issue for the 2001 shower incident. That is a reasonable response based upon his 2001 image and information.

The whole "showering with a child is obviously sexual" comes AFTER 2001 when there are several OTHER complaints which causes the analysis base to change DRAMATICALLY.

FINALLY.....If it takes so little to know a child is being abuse - then why take 3 years to charge Sandusky? Based on your logic the state should have charged Sandusky in 2009. The State has TONS of experience professionals in this area of behavior - they did nothing! Are you admitting that the State of PA is guilty of Child Sex Crime enabling??

We have to stop this Penn State is EXCLUSIVELY responsible for child welfare by holding PSU to standards based upon an expanded 2017 book of information on Sandusky. And yet, we are satisfied to hold all other entities and agencies to MUCH lower standards of action and responsibility REGARDLESS . WHY???

You seem to be missing the key element of my posts: C/S/S lied about 98, and did so for a reason.

The standard I'm holding them to is their own.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Congrats, you have joined the rest of the circle jerk crew on ignore. Please feel free to drone on.

Ha! He "maxed out" on maxxedout

 

[Legion of Lions]

You seem to be missing the key element of my posts: C/S/S lied about 98, and did so for a reason.

The standard I'm holding them to is their own.

"Lying" is something you must prove based upon TWO different statement. You seem to ignore the reality of how the OAG operates the in this matter!

If you are 10 years removed from an event AND that event AT THE TIME was NOT the CRIMINAL issue that it is today (15+ years after the fact), it is most reasonable that the details of the event will NOT be set in stone. People tend to forget details of "uneventful" happenings.

Throughout the Sandusky Era what I see here is a CONSISTENT elephant in the room. That elephant is...The State of PA is willing to MAKE UP ANYTHING - legal or illegal - in order to incriminate anyone they need to validate their illusion and "Story:". This is a matter of FACT! Legally, this changes everything!

Now, you state that there was "lying" in this about "98"! Well, if you "backfill" reality with "could-have-beens" or engineered conclusions based on unsupportable statements which support a charge as the state has done CONSISTENTLY - what is a LIE??? An entrapment based upon misiformation - that is what the State has worked to achieve.

PREMISE: If you knew about 1998 then 2001 was the "Smoking Gun" for a Crime! Yet 1998 was NOT a crime and 2001 was AT BEST an adult in the shower without another adult - a could have been without any reasonable verification in 2001. Sandusky's behavior was TSM's responsibility - not Penn State.

You are right there is LYING....problem for you is...the lying is coming from the STATE OF PA OAG office. They know that what everyone at PSU did was "reasonable man" proper. They are trying to entrap Penn State by LYING about the details of what should be "normal" in this situation - they are manufacturing a crime without evidence. If there was a crime, wouldn't the state need a "victim"?? Seems that the "victim" who stated in court that they were the person in the shower that night and NOTHING HAPPENED is not what the OAG wanted. So they LIED...they stated the "victim" was know but to God!!!! HOW DUMB CAN YOU BE. No Details - no victim!!

They only want to cover their own sorry asses from the public - the manufactured Penn State "Story" has proven to be a great tool!! Mantra of the PA OAG ----- THE HELL WITH TRUTH ------ The Hell with the Law ----- Lie like Hell!!!!

If you want to purge ":Lying" from this case, why not start with MM (No one in 2001 BY THEIR actions supports what the OAG says is MM's account of 2001) and then go after the Perjury due the OAG investigators!

 

[maxxedout]

Ha! He "maxed out" on maxxedout

Meh. Huge personal loss for me.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Meh. Huge personal loss for me.

I thought you were done?

 

[maxxedout]

I thought you were done?

Oh man, I guess you caught me. Haven't let jerks dictate my actions in the past, why start now?

 

[maxxedout]

If you want to pontificate about who "allowed" children to be molested, then Seasock, Lauro, and Raykovitz should be at the top of the list. These are "trained" professionals in child psychology/behaviour/abuse that were apparently unable to put the pieces together. Seasock/Lauro's reports not only got it wrong, but by finding it unfounded they kicked the legs out from under Gricar/police from filing or prosecuting. Raykovitz's advice to wear swim trunks is absurd even if nothing was going. The advice should have been not to shower with kids at all, just like Jerry himself falsely promised in 1998.

If you believe McQueary's testimony that he believed he witnessed sodomy, then he is one person that witnessed a crime and walked away to leave a kid to spend the rest of the evening with Sandusky. Justice is not served when the prosecution makes those guys the witnesses to cast blame at someone else feet. If McQueary, Raykovitz, Lauro skate because they just made a poor decision or fumbled the ball then Spanier is no different. Had Spanier been convicted of conspiracy then I'd perhaps feel differently, but he was acquitted of that. If inaction is the bar for guilt, then McQueary, Dranov, MM Sr, Raykovitz, and Heim all did less so there is no celebration when the people closest to Sandusky or that directly witnessed what he did are given more deference for their mistakes that also contributed to Sandusky not being stopped sooner.

Again, if you read my subsequent posts, I do concede that Spanier's guilt does not preclude the guilt of those trained and empowered to protect children. This was a great personal frustration of mine in 2012/2013... that somehow the standard is higher for PSU administrators and a football coach than the standards applied to trained professionals.

Look guys, I just find it to be lousy that there is a subset of people that will be loyal to a fault. If Spanier appeals and is found guilty again, I am confident there will still be people on this board who defend him and claim our legal system is a kangaroo court.

It's not. It's the most fair in the world, and Spanier isn't hurting to find the money for a high quality legal team.

At some point, in my opinion, the allegations may hold water if found guilty in a court of law. That point, for me, begins now.

 

[Mixolydian]

Again, if you read my subsequent posts, I do concede that Spanier's guilt does not preclude the guilt of those trained and empowered to protect children. This was a great personal frustration of mine in 2012/2013... that somehow the standard is higher for PSU administrators and a football coach than the standards applied to trained professionals.

Look guys, I just find it to be lousy that there is a subset of people that will be loyal to a fault. If Spanier appeals and is found guilty again, I am confident there will still be people on this board who defend him and claim our legal system is a kangaroo court.

It's not. It's the most fair in the world, and Spanier isn't hurting to find the money for a high quality legal team.

At some point, in my opinion, the allegations may hold water if found guilty in a court of law. That point, for me, begins now.

And others who have followed events very closely have a different point of view. But they are loyal to a fault and only you have great wisdom and judgment. Your hypocrisy in this thread is laughable.

 

[AWS1022]

Yes I did.

Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern of behavior you have to willfully ignore. Sandusky got away with his grooming in 98 by pleading ignorance. Had another shower incident been reported in 2001 he would have been done.

They all lied about 98 for a reason.

And please tell us what that reason was All Knowing One.

 

[maxxedout]

And others who have followed events very closely have a different point of view. But they are loyal to a fault and only you have great wisdom and judgment. Your hypocrisy in this thread is laughable.

Loyal to a fault, possibly. Yes.

 

[AWS1022]

Again, if you read my subsequent posts, I do concede that Spanier's guilt does not preclude the guilt of those trained and empowered to protect children. This was a great personal frustration of mine in 2012/2013... that somehow the standard is higher for PSU administrators and a football coach than the standards applied to trained professionals.

Look guys, I just find it to be lousy that there is a subset of people that will be loyal to a fault. If Spanier appeals and is found guilty again, I am confident there will still be people on this board who defend him and claim our legal system is a kangaroo court.

It's not. It's the most fair in the world, and Spanier isn't hurting to find the money for a high quality legal team.

At some point, in my opinion, the allegations may hold water if found guilty in a court of law. That point, for me, begins now.

It is the most fair in the world, but it has been proven time and time again that some states are more fair than others. I work in the insurance world and I promise you there are certain states we don't want our claims to go to court. That has nothing to do with fair...that has everything to do with corrupt court systems, crooked judges and attitudes of potential jurors. I feel very strongly if this trial took place in many other states, the outcome would have been very different. Same system, different participants.

 

[Mixolydian]

Loyal to a fault, possibly. Yes.

Hypocrite. Absolutely.

 

[AWS1022]

Loyal to a fault, possibly. Yes.

If it was all about loyalty to the university, why isn't everyone on here ranting and raving in support of Sandusky? He was the D.C. with two NC's under his belt. Shouldn't this loyal to a fault group be rallying behind him?

 

[WDLion]

Again, if you read my subsequent posts, I do concede that Spanier's guilt does not preclude the guilt of those trained and empowered to protect children. This was a great personal frustration of mine in 2012/2013... that somehow the standard is higher for PSU administrators and a football coach than the standards applied to trained professionals.

Look guys, I just find it to be lousy that there is a subset of people that will be loyal to a fault. If Spanier appeals and is found guilty again, I am confident there will still be people on this board who defend him and claim our legal system is a kangaroo court.

It's not. It's the most fair in the world, and Spanier isn't hurting to find the money for a high quality legal team.

At some point, in my opinion, the allegations may hold water if found guilty in a court of law. That point, for me, begins now.

I find it appalling that there people who would turn their back to and abandon someone that they think was falsely accused.

 

[maxxedout]

I don't think he was falsely accused. you do? Do you know what "false accusation" means?

 

[maxxedout]

If it was all about loyalty to the university, why isn't everyone on here ranting and raving in support of Sandusky? He was the D.C. with two NC's under his belt. Shouldn't this loyal to a fault group be rallying behind him?

Bc his guilt has been fairly obvious from the start. I'm not saying you are all evil morons, because that is what you'd have to be to be on Sandusky's side.

 

[MtNittany]

What a freaking drama queen.

 

[AWS1022]

Bc his guilt has been fairly obvious from the start. I'm not saying you are all evil morons, because that is what you'd have to be to be on Sandusky's side.

His guilt has been fairly obvious so there's no support. But with the others any guilt is far from obvious so there's support. Hmm, doesn't sound like loyalty to the university to me, it sounds like a desire for justice and fairness for the university...something ALL Penn State fans should want.

 

[maxxedout]

What a freaking drama queen.

Sure at this point I see how you get that. Never thought my post would get as much negative attention as it did. You guys are a spectacular swarm and I am extraordinarily stubborn. I'm sure that makes me seem like an attention whore. The good news is your judgement has literally zero meaning.

 

[WDLion]

I don't think he was falsely accused. you do? Do you know what "false accusation" means?

Besides the point. Many here think he was.

 

[maxxedout]

His guilt has been fairly obvious so there's no support. But with the others any guilt is far from obvious so there's support. Hmm, doesn't sound like loyalty to the university to me, it sounds like a desire for justice and fairness for the university...something ALL Penn State fans should want.

And I was also among those who supported them. But these are three guilty verdicts. Perhaps on (relatively) minor charges. And perhaps Spanier's will be overturned on appeal... right now, he's been found guilty. It happened. It's reality. I think the process still is unfinished, but I came on this board hoping to see some sort of back and forth, but all I find is skepticism of the verdict. I am not a Penn Stater above being a good citizen/human and I don't think this paints a good picture of what it is to be a Penn Stater. But that's my opinion.. and as they saying goes, they're like assholes (everyone has one)...

 

[NittPicker]

Seriously, screw yourselves. Im a veteran, a physician, and I work too damn hard every day to sustain these ad hom attacks. If you guys can't stand to hear what the prevailing winds are, then by all means bury your head in the sand. I have more integrity than you can strike down with some online anonymous bullshit. Done on here until football starts up again.

With all due respect, being a veteran and physician doesn't automatically make you right nor does it make you immune from criticism. In one of your earlier posts you mentioned "legal technicality". As others have posted here before, one man's legal technicality is another man's constitutional protection.

 

[MtNittany]

I'm sure that makes me seem like an attention whore.

I was thinking more fake pious jackass troll.

 

[marshall23]

Oh man, I guess you caught me. Haven't let jerks dictate my actions in the past, why start now?

So you admit you have no self control!

 

[maxxedout]

So you admit you have no self control!

The second breakfast I just ate agrees with you.

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

 

[maxxedout]

With all due respect, being a veteran and physician doesn't automatically make you right nor does it make you immune from criticism. In one of your earlier posts you mentioned "legal technicality". As others have posted here before, one man's legal technicality is another man's constitutional protection.

Immunity from criticism isn't what I was expecting. It's a message board and this is a discussion.

The name calling and general douchebaggery is why I got pissed and dropped that lovely irrelevant nugget (my professional history) on you all.

 

[maxxedout]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

Bob, I'm not a goddamned troll. If you want to have a real conversation about this I would be happy to provide a 717 area code. Don't be a reductionist dick.

 

[maxxedout]

I was thinking more fake pious jackass troll.

Feel better now or do you have more bullshit insults to vomit onto the board?

 

[maxxedout]

If you want to pontificate about who "allowed" children to be molested, then Seasock, Lauro, and Raykovitz should be at the top of the list. These are "trained" professionals in child psychology/behaviour/abuse that were apparently unable to put the pieces together. Seasock/Lauro's reports not only got it wrong, but by finding it unfounded they kicked the legs out from under Gricar/police from filing or prosecuting. Raykovitz's advice to wear swim trunks is absurd even if nothing was going. The advice should have been not to shower with kids at all, just like Jerry himself falsely promised in 1998.

If you believe McQueary's testimony that he believed he witnessed sodomy, then he is one person that witnessed a crime and walked away to leave a kid to spend the rest of the evening with Sandusky. Justice is not served when the prosecution makes those guys the witnesses to cast blame at someone else feet. If McQueary, Raykovitz, Lauro skate because they just made a poor decision or fumbled the ball then Spanier is no different. Had Spanier been convicted of conspiracy then I'd perhaps feel differently, but he was acquitted of that. If inaction is the bar for guilt, then McQueary, Dranov, MM Sr, Raykovitz, and Heim all did less so there is no celebration when the people closest to Sandusky or that directly witnessed what he did are given more deference for their mistakes that also contributed to Sandusky not being stopped sooner.

And also, thanks for actually engaging me in conversation and providing counter-points. You raise excellent questions. I don't have answers for why those charged with protecting children and failed to do so have seemingly walked without repercussion for their failure... maybe it's because they followed the proper process when they investigated Sandusky?

The problem with Spanier, Curley, Schultz is that they didn't follow a standard process to discharge the responsibility of the knowledge they had. I wish they had recorded everything and called the police, but I'm sure something half-assed would have sufficed. Thankfully, although I don't think this was a systemic PSU error, there is now a redundancy of processes and training for administrators if this sort of awfulness happens again.

But whatever, I'm a big scary troll and you should all put me on ignore.

 

[marshall23]

And also, thanks for actually engaging me in conversation and providing counter-points. You raise excellent questions. I don't have answers for why those charged with protecting children and failed to do so have seemingly walked without repercussion for their failure... maybe it's because they followed the proper process when they investigated Sandusky?

The problem with Spanier, Curley, Schultz is that they didn't follow a standard process to discharge the responsibility of the knowledge they had. I wish they had recorded everything and called the police, but I'm sure something half-assed would have sufficed. Thankfully, although I don't think this was a systemic PSU error, there is now a redundancy of processes and training for administrators if this sort of awfulness happens again.

But whatever, I'm a big scary troll and you should all put me on ignore.

The PSU 3 had a report of a somewhat late night shower involving an employee of TSM and one of its clients. PSU removed TSM employee privilege to use the facilities and reported the incident to his employer. TSM had the responsibility to discuss the incident with their employee and the client. TSM CEO could have, if interested, spoken to the eye witness. Please let us not take the bait that MM reported child sexual abuse at that time.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

 

[maxxedout]

The PSU 3 had a report of a somewhat late night shower involving an employee of TSM and one of its clients. PSU removed TSM employee privilege to use the facilities and reported the incident to his employer. TSM had the responsibility to discuss the incident with their employee and the client. TSM CEO could have, if interested, spoken to the eye witness. Please let us not take the bait that MM reported child sexual abuse at that time.

I think there is discrepant information regarding what was actually reported at that time.

I agree that TSM shares liability. In their instance, it is fairly clear to me that it should be organizational liability (which it was not in PSU's case). Not sure what can be done at this juncture about that. Why is the second mile protected?

 

[canuckhal]

Immunity from criticism isn't what I was expecting. It's a message board and this is a discussion.

The name calling and general douchebaggery is why I got pissed and dropped that lovely irrelevant nugget (my professional history) on you all.

The problem you are having is that you are posting now after the trial rehashing items that have been discussed ad-nauseum on this board for years. People have dealt with the likes of old guard BOT defendees, MM defendees, Freeh defendees, and people like Towny, Elvis, and Stuff who have posted that CSS are guilty and that C&S were going to flip on Spanier. Didn't happen. So, you have chosen the wrong time to try to engage in these discussions. I'm surprised anyone is even engaging you at this point as most of us know that the narrative has been set, people's minds are made up, and having a logical discussion is near impossible. If others are like me, I'm exhausted and need a break in b/w the Paterno suit, the Freeh Review(s), and the Sandusky PCRA. As far as I'm concerned, go read previous threads and if you don't find the answers you are looking for, start a new thread after doing so.

Lobbing bombs at others doesn't help.

 

[es19]

And also, thanks for actually engaging me in conversation and providing counter-points. You raise excellent questions. I don't have answers for why those charged with protecting children and failed to do so have seemingly walked without repercussion for their failure... maybe it's because they followed the proper process when they investigated Sandusky?

The problem with Spanier, Curley, Schultz is that they didn't follow a standard process to discharge the responsibility of the knowledge they had. I wish they had recorded everything and called the police, but I'm sure something half-assed would have sufficed. Thankfully, although I don't think this was a systemic PSU error, there is now a redundancy of processes and training for administrators if this sort of awfulness happens again.

But whatever, I'm a big scary troll and you should all put me on ignore.

You are definitely a liar. You have repeatedly said that you are done with this topic and you will only talk football.

That was clearly a lie. So while you drone on and on accusing others of lying, every post you make in this thread is just more evidence that you are a lying pos.

 

[rudedude]

I think there is discrepant information regarding what was actually reported at that time.

I agree that TSM shares liability. In their instance, it is fairly clear to me that it should be organizational liability (which it was not in PSU's case). Not sure what can be done at this juncture about that. Why is the second mile protected?

That is the issue many on this board have been frustrated with and railing about for the past 5 years: Second Mile has no culpability in this whatsoever. They were allowed to pull a shredding truck up to their facility and documents magically disappeared, then they just vanished like dust as an agency, then the PSU purse strings were pulled wide open for payments to victims/"victims" without true vetting, and, signing a release from future lawsuits vs. Second Mile (which is very telling to me). Now let's top it off by last week's trial and Dr. Jack getting on the stand, noting Curley reported the showering incident to him, Dr. Jack passing it up the Second Mile chain and having board members say bury this, and then Dr.Jack giving advice to Sandusky to "just wear swimming trunks when showering with kids"!!!!!! Second Mile knew about the 1998 incident also.
Top all of that off by having media outlets, opposing school people, crazy townies (see Bernie McCue), the friggin NCAA, our own disingenuous BOT, a plane flying overhead with a banner about the statue, corrupt Pa. OAG and judges, media poisoning the jury pool anywhere in the state, Louis Freeh's bullshit and recent off the reservation rant, and no one, and I mean no one in major media willing to really examine what is going on. You can't make this crap up! John Ziegler has tried, much to his credit, and many folks here dislike him and some of his message, but he has been one of the long-termed, along with Franco, Lubrano, and some folks on this board, really beating the drums about this case and it has gotten us nowhere. Even with the new info of no conspiracy and misdemeanor charges against C/S/S. If a talented investigative reporter decides to come along and touch this situation and delve into it and write a book about it would be a monumental best seller and probably an Oscar winning movie. But that is never gonna happen because no one in their right mind would try because they would get nowhere due to the big money behind this entire scenario. This is a mob story that only Scorsese could do justice to. Omertà is the word. Penn State will never be the same and, in retrospect, maybe we were all fooled, not only by Sandusky, but, most likely, by our own University. Frankly, my bullshit quotient is full and I really hope some of these dirty bastards get theirs during my lifetime.

 

[marshall23]

I think there is discrepant information regarding what was actually reported at that time.

I agree that TSM shares liability. In their instance, it is fairly clear to me that it should be organizational liability (which it was not in PSU's case). Not sure what can be done at this juncture about that. Why is the second mile protected?

You and I can only speculate on that. It could be because Corbett had powerful backers who may have been impacted had the "books" been opened. I am certain there are financial irregularities involving TSM.In addition, it is after all the AGs job to oversee charities. There is no denying that several close family members, sons, wives etc. of OGBOT were deeply invested in TSM. Perhaps those individuals were not afforded legal protections that PSUBOT enjoy. Therefore it would make sense to protect family and powerful friends OGBOT would leap to take on all "victims. Let's not forget the relationship of TSM to Commonwealth agencies in Centre County and throughout the state. How could you implicate TSM without having a state wide agency scandal?: In 1999 all the appropriate Child Protective Agencies and LE were involved in the complaint against JS. Did they whiff? Or did they honestly feel that JS didn't do anything criminal? I still don't understand how PSU can bear any responsibility for this. I really don't give a shit about who at PSU knew. My take away is, all the kings horses and all the kings men, sniffed around Jerry and said he smelled lovely.

There is no denying that empirical evidence demonstrates that MM never reported anything similar to "anal rape" to anyone. Dranov, Senior and MM decided on the night MM witnessed the shower that it was an administrative issue (because they decided not to make a report to LE or CPS) and instead to MMs supervisor JVP. Until MM was cornered by investigators 8 years later, that is precisely how everyone treated it.

 

[dshumbero]

You and I can only speculate on that. It could be because Corbett had powerful backers who may have been impacted had the "books" been opened. I am certain there are financial irregularities involving TSM.In addition, it is after all the AGs job to oversee charities. There is no denying that several close family members, sons, wives etc. of OGBOT were deeply invested in TSM. Perhaps those individuals were not afforded legal protections that PSUBOT enjoy. Therefore it would make sense to protect family and powerful friends OGBOT would leap to take on all "victims. Let's not forget the relationship of TSM to Commonwealth agencies in Centre County and throughout the state. How could you implicate TSM without having a state wide agency scandal?: In 1999 all the appropriate Child Protective Agencies and LE were involved in the complaint against JS. Did they whiff? Or did they honestly feel that JS didn't do anything criminal? I still don't understand how PSU can bear any responsibility for this. I really don't give a shit about who at PSU knew. My take away is, all the kings horses and all the kings men, sniffed around Jerry and said he smelled lovely.

There is no denying that empirical evidence demonstrates that MM never reported anything similar to "anal rape" to anyone. Dranov, Senior and MM decided on the night MM witnessed the shower that it was an administrative issue (because they decided not to make a report to LE or CPS) and instead to MMs supervisor JVP. Until MM was cornered by investigators 8 years later, that is precisely how everyone treated it.

Under TSM by laws, Board and other members who engaged in illegal activity or had knowledge of it did not enjoy the protection of TSM, they were personally liable. I've posted this many times before. It explains why our BoT had the "victims" sign off that they wouldn't go after TSM. This was to protect crossover OGBoT members, their families and friends.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Under TSM by laws, Board and other members who engaged in illegal activity or had knowledge of it did not enjoy the protection of TSM, they were personally liable. I've posted this many times before. It explains why our BoT had the "victims" sign off that they wouldn't go after TSM. This was to protect crossover OGBoT members, their families and friends.

Outstanding post! Informatve, on point and nothing related to poop.