The worst part of the C/S/S trials
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
And... who was NOT "in the field of child care" in this case? MMQ JMQ JD JVP GS TC and GS. Who was? RAYKOVITZ at Second Mile. I will assume you are only talking about him?
Last edited:
Then why didn't Jack Raykovitz of Second Mile "SAY" it upon receipt of PSU's report? Over the phone and in writing to Childline? That is the whole point here.
Hell, Raykovitz was a star witness for fat ass Ditka.
Excellent response I would go one minutiae further and say, not even a HR problem, because he was not an employee. I would say, behavioral issue that belonged in the lap of another entity?
Only a trained child professional would know this. Not college campus admins who don't have any such training or responsibility on a day-to-day basis for minors.
And we all know even the trained child pros in this case weren't smart enough or trained enough to do their own jobs correctly!
They CONVICTED THEMSELVES....
They became CONVICTED CHILD ENDANGERERS.....
In order to implement the "strategery" of........ wait for it.......
Serving as CHARACTER WITNESSES
for their co-conspirator.I THOUGHT I had heard it all
Good Grief
Last edited:
Good Grief
Get lost. You've become rather unhinged in the past year and I don't need peanut gallery gifs from the likes of you. All you seem to know is accounting and not much else. No political savvy or administrative prowess to speak of. That was proven during your PSU Board Member "election campaign".
Holy Moley
"Getting lost"..... if one did a hell of a bang up job at it
..... would put one at risk of running into your thought processes.No, Thank You
"Hey, you guys..... here's an idea...you both plead guilty to the same crime we are all accused of - - - - and then, get this, this is the "genius" part - - - - you both serve as "character witnesses" for me!"
"Bazinga! What could go wrong?"
"The World According to Nellie"
Last edited:
And apparently you're incapable of basic logic and reasoning skills.
Schultz testimony was that Spanier knew about the 98 incident which means he's (Spanier) been lying about it for years.
How on earth did you arrive at thinking his testimony was positive for Spanier?
Last edited:
Keep in mind that Tim Curley plead guilty fully knowing that he could be sent to prison. He was not convicted in a trial, he plead guilty.
Lesson for everyone, when you consult legal counsel and they recommend you report a possible child abuse incident to the authorities, you report it to the authorities. Also, it is never a good idea to tell a judge one thing and then a week later testify in court that you cannot remember anything that was discussed with the judge. Does not matter if the conversation with the judge was off the record, that tends to anger the judge and you pay for it at sentencing.
Tim Curley refused to have words put in his mouth by the corrupt Commonwealth OAG. They didn't have another Mike McQueary in this instance.
I would think the worst part is that the oag has made it clear that residents of PA don't have to commit a crime to be disgraced by their lackey media and sent to jail.
Some people wanted the false narrative to be true so badly, that they thew all common sense out the window and believed whatever made PSU looked bad. Nothing was ever going to change that, not the outcome of the C/S/S trial, not even a new trial for JS. It's sad that people are so invested in hate that they will ignore the professionals that truly failed the victims. The truth never matters to a hater. Most non-PSU alums had no idea who these 3 ex-administrators were before the Sandusky scandal. Yet they pretend these 3 ex-employees are PSU (which is obviously a place and not a person), and blame PSU for what they perceive their actions were.
Many others have done their research and understand that some ex-PSU employees were thrown under the bus. To them, nothing has come out to change their mind.
I do think there's a little bit of hindsight confirmation bias here, though. Back in the day--and not that long ago--adults did shower with kids and it wasn't a big deal. Folks swam nude at the Y. And at PSU and many other institutions. That's one reason why what was going on with Sandusky wasn't obvious. Then.
And I'll give an example that has nothing to do with "morals". When I was a kid, I was a Scout. Carrying my pocket knife everywhere was pretty much what you did and were supposed to do as a Scout--because you never knew when you might need it. Today? It gets you expelled. That change only took about 40 years (likely less).
We have a bad habit these days of interpreting past activities in all walks of life based on current memes and mores. That kind of cultural relativism is dangerous. But when you eliminate any concept of absolute morality from a culture, it's what you are left with. And that's where we are now.
Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
No one will argue this. But in this case, no one received a report CSA.
Starting a charity for at risk youth is also not "normal".
I have an extremely demanding career, I can't even imagine how much more information Spanier had to process on a daily basis than I do. I can completely believe that it's possible that Schultz told him about this "non-issue" a few years prior and it completely left his mind.
Then again, Schultz could also be mistaken or lying. So there isn't really much here to hang your hat on... yet you still do.
I don't care that no one reported CSA, which by the way, is your opinion.
McQueary reported Sandusky alone in a shower at night with a boy. If that's not enough, then you're right there with bdgan and indynittany.
Is it not a fact that Dranov and Dad McQ testified it was not CSA?
Who reported CSA? I think your response is probably only your opinion.
Is that, by itself, a crime?
Was Jack Raykovitz informed and was it his legal and professional duty to report it?
Don't disagree...but this was in 2001, this was before the institutional Catholic Church scandal was uncovered by the Boston Globe later that year. That church scandal rewrote the record books on how to handle such incidents. The paradigm was different.
I would hope he would. On the other hand I have not been terrorized by the KGB of The Commonwealth. To date, we've heard from MM, JK, TH....essentially those who have been scripted by the OAG and have reason to follow it. As far as I'm concerned, his lifetime body of work speaks for him.
If folks wish to take the testimony of MM over that of TC, have at it.
You are the CEO of an organization, which in effect, has its privilege to use facilities on the PSU campus revoked......due to inappropriate behavior of an employee......no reason to look into that! LOL
Yeah...right
______________
With Dr Raykovitz on the stand, the Spanier Trial was BEGGING the defense to proceed along the lines of:
Establishing the following facts:
A – That Dr Raykovitz was the recipient of a report that – at the least:
Sandusky, their employee (and founder) was showering, alone, and – at the least – “horsing around with” – a 2nd mile child in the shower.
B – The incident evolved in such a manner that it – at the least – made the witness to the event very uncomfortable
C - That – as a result – the reporter (PSU/Curley) had taken the actions of BANNING Sandusky from bringing 2nd Mile kids on campus.
These are ALL uncontested facts.
In so doing (if they had not been utter incompetents - or worse) the CSS defense – as easily as falling off a log – would have established all of the things that we (anyone who has been paying attention) know:
That Dr Raykovitz’s response (along with 2nd Mile Trustee Bruce Heim) was “If you’re telling me Sandusky is a pedophile, you’re crazy”…
And that the actions taken by Raykovitz were limited to telling Sandusky only that he was to wear swim trunks when showering with children in the future.
The defense was practically dragged - begged - to bring forward the conclusions that Raykovitz and the 2nd Mile:
- did not investigate the incident
- did not identify and meet with the child and the child’s parents/guardian
- did not make a report to DPW or any other agencies
The Defense - bewilderingly (to say the least) - refused to do ANY of this.
Otherwise, the defense would have then been set up to then ask Dr Raykovitz…..
"What should have been the protocol - - - when a report comes to you that your employee/founder was, AT THE LEAST, showering alone with a 2nd Mile Child, and engaging in, AT THE LEAST, "horseplay" that led the observer to be very concerned, and that, AT THE LEAST, led the folks on site to BANISH Sandusky from bringing children onto their premises."
Allow Dr Jack to answer that question with:
"The proper protocol was for me - as the professional director of a licensed, state-regulated child welfare agency - to tell Jerry to wear swim trunks"...... and then watch the courtroom burst into laughter
And the defense, in knowing that the required protocol was to initiate an investigation – and identify the child – and notify the parents etc etc
[At which point, by the way, the trial of the "PSU Three" is over…….as the simple argument becomes:
It is impossible to be guilty of endangering the welfare of a child by failing to “report”….when a report WAS made to the officials who SHOULD HAVE, who were DUTY BOUND TO, based on such a report – to investigate the incident.
At that point, not only do CSS walk away as free men – whether one feels that is important or not, whether one feels that is proper or not…….
but also opens the door – kicks down the door – to FINALLY investigating the 2nd mile, and drastically “changing the narrative” of the entire affair.]
THEY – the defendants - DID NOT DO ANY OF THAT
They never threw a punch…not even close to it
That is unconscionable.
_____________________
The idea that:
"Curley did not give Raykovitz any reason to act"
Is one of the dumbest parcels of circle-jerk idiocy of the last 6 years.
Almost as idiotic as the "PSU Three" putting forward a case of:
"I'm Guilty", "I'm Guilty", and "No defense, your Honor"
Last edited:
They believe whatever they need to believe to enable their hate of all things PSU. Facts do not matter.
And yet, just a few years prior to 2001, the state child care experts at DPW/CYS, gave JS' inappropriate 1:1 showering (with naked bear hugs from behind) their good housekeeping stamp of approval. They didn't even restrict his 1:1 access to kids for crying out loud! All they did was supposedly get him to promise to not do it again....you must be beside yourself knowing that, considering your outrage over non expert college admins trying to handle an even more vague report of similar circumstances (it can be argued that admins did more in 2001 to stop JS by removing his guest privileges and informing TSM than the state did in 98-no restriction of access to kids).
You also continually ignore that JS groomed the community for decades to think he would be the last person to hurt a kid and that him showering after workouts with these kids was SOP, no big deal. You can't just breeze past this as if it didn't factor into how people in general handled reports of JS' inappropriate showering. In fact, the state of PA/DPW/CYS thought TSM volunteers having 1:1 access to kids during "workouts" was such a good idea they tried to expand on TSM's friend fitness program all over the state (Arrow MInisteries continues the program to this day I believe in TX and MD). You have to consider that JS' 1:1 after school workout friend fitness program was SANCTIONED by the state.
It's not like he was just finding random kids and bringing them to lasch to work out/shower, it was under the guise of a state sponsored and approved program with TSM kids.
In PA it's not illegal to shower with a kid, it's only illegal if it can be PROVEN that it's being done with sexual intent.
Also, I'm not saying that adults having 1:1 late night showers with other people's kids is ok or a good idea, only that the state pretty much signed off on these types of programs so you have to consider ALL of the context before trying to cast judgement on the admins.
That email, when taken in context and interpreted accurately, exonerates the lot of them.
Spanier's exact words were:
This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.
Let me break it down.
1) GS took responsibility and exercised his duty as the final authority. The president of the university decided what the university's response would be, not the football coach.
2) GS confirmed that the only change Tim proposed was to include Sandusky among those to be informed. GS acknowledged that what Tim proposed would require an additional step. If Tim had proposed excluding DPW, wouldn't that suggest one less step? This destroys the Freeh narrative completely!
3) The "only downside" on Spanier's radar would have to be triggered by a subsequent incident. If/Then. They were sending Jerry a message. Showering alone with these kids was a lawsuit waiting to happen. It's a he said/he said scenario. Jerry wouldn't have to be guilty, he only needed to be accused. Penn State, by virtue of its deep pockets and desire to protect its image, would be ripe for the picking in a civil suit.
4) Not reporting the matter at hand could come back and bite them in the event of a subsequent incident. This is where their knowledge of the '98 investigation served as a wake up call. V6's mother could have easily initiated a civil suit even though Gricar declined to press criminal charges. A repeat of '98 is what they were trying to avoid. Was it a risk? Yes. Were they trying to protect Penn State's image. No. The opposite is true. If they wanted to protect PSU's image, they would have thrown Jerry under the bus.
5) If they believed Jerry had abused that boy, his going to the authorities would be the "only downside" on Spanier's radar, not some vague future event. None of them were the least bit concerned that Allan Myers might go to the authorities on his own. They were so unconcerned that they never even bothered to find out who he was. A current employee, MM, had seen this event and then left the boy alone with his "abuser". How is this open ended risk not the elephant in the room? The "only" explanation is that MM never actually witnessed abuse nor communicated that he had.
6) Involving DPW was still on the table. It was always considered an optional step, going back to Schultz's initial notes written the day he met with Joe and talked with Courtney, and including Curley's email where he talks about Jerry's cooperation. Reporting was always contingent on what Jerry would do in the future, not what he had done. Reporting the incident at the time would have covered their asses, but what other purpose would it have served? Their task was to prevent a future incident. If they could accomplish that without opening up a can of worms, so much the better.
7) There's nothing "humane and reasonable" about an approach which failed to address the abuse of a child. Those words simply don't fit the narrative. However, it is quite reasonable and humane if they could protect Penn State from the possibility of a future lawsuit without causing harm to TSM or Sandusky's reputation.
Except the emails he was copied in on back in 98.
And the email he replied to in 2001.
And that it not being mentioned in 2001 defies all logic.
But Schultz is lying or Spanier forgot. I'm sure Curley was lying about both he and Joe knowing of 98 too.
CJExcept the emails he was copied in on back in 98.
And the email he replied to in 2001.
And that it not being mentioned in 2001 defies all logic.
But Schultz is lying or Spanier forgot. I'm sure Curley was lying about both he and Joe knowing of 98 too.
"Burp"
Whattayasoafraidof LT?
Forget it...... we know.
You can perform your analysis and try to exonerate them all you want, the key phrase in the email "The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.".
Spanier’s own words acknowledge that they would be vulnerable for not having reported it. Spanier knew that the incident should have been reported to the authorities but for whatever reason it was not. Nobody has answered the question why wasn’t reported to the authorities. Spanier did not testified, Curley did and he came across as not credible. No matter how many words you type, it still does not change the fact that Spanier in his own words admitted they were vulnerable if the incident was not reported.
That is the kicker. They had the right call on the table and simply went the other way with it. Yelling investigate TSM is great and all and it should have occurred, but it's basically like a dog yelling squirrel at this point in time. It's a quick fix deflection. I don't think they deserve to be in jail, but people in those positions do lose their jobs when it happens on their watch.
The witch hunt should have never made it to the courtroom, but the school itself (OG BoT) made it about PSU and football so blaming the world for your own internal f--k ups is cute and all, but who really made this about Joe and football? Who cut the checks? Who decided to pay Freeh? Who gave the media more and more ammo? I get the anger, but this blaming the state for corruption all the time when the school itself put their heads on platters is a joke at this point in time. Yelling Doctor Jack doesn't take away the millions spent on Freeh blaming a "football first" culture. These guys did in fact know about something in 98 and screwed up in 2001. I still don't believe it was malicious, but more of being naive to JS. Some fines and probation for a bad decision would have still gotten the point across....but this became so damn political early on and still is to this day.
Hey Bob - Will Hobson would love to chat.
Give him a shout on his cell at:
202.744.8816
Or the office line at :
202.334.5206
Good Luck!
Give him a shout on his cell at:
202.744.8816
Or the office line at :
202.334.5206
Good Luck!
Your gif is highly appropriate, just bury your head in the sand and ignore the main point of my post. Do you remember every email you have ever been copied on or sent? (given 1998 was a non-issue, there is no reason for it to stand out) I have a rule that deletes every email I am copied on to cut down on email traffic. If it wasn't important enough to put me in the "To" line, it's not important enough to read. I can't even fathom the email traffic the president of a university receives. You wouldn't understand what it's like to have a demanding career and family, because well look at what time you're posting.
But by all means, please keep posting nonsense that makes you look silly.
An employee of yours investigated for possible sexual abuse of a minor and you forget that one or toss it away as a CEO or President? LOL...you can only try and shovel that sh!t here with a straight face and expect people to buy it. Actually that is exactly the type of email that would stand out to ANYONE and rightfully so. Then that same employee gets called to the carpet 3 years later and you totally forgot. I don't think they should have been crucified the way they were, but anyone pretending that type of info is just deleted or erased from your brain is FOS. Congrats on that last post...you officially jumped the shark there...just yell Dr. Jack some more and it will fix everything.
For the sake of argument - the only way that CEO would forget such an email is if they are a common occurrence - that employees are getting investigated for sex abuse with minors all the time.
I don't think that's so in this case (though our worst detractors alleged that at points)
But it is the only reason a President would forget such an email. And if pandczar wants to make that case, he's not arguing that Spanier is clear of anything!
Let's not forget who Jerry was too....sorry, but this idea it was the lunch aid slinging burgers and picking up trash is a bit different that the real life conversation we are having. I'm not saying these guys need to be burned at the stake, but it comes off as incredibly stupid when people say....ohhh. maybe they forgot about 98 since he was given the all clear.
Similar threads
