The worst part of the C/S/S trials
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
Is there evidence to suggest they thought it was anything other than "optional"? Because I can cite three times where it was clearly thought to be an option. Not only that, whether that option would be exercised had nothing to do with what had happened in the shower. It had everything to do with what Jerry would do in the future.
Clearly, they didn't have an option. Maybe they thought they did... so you want to defend them on taking the "option" not to report suspected CSA to the authorities? That's deplorable, but I know that you don't see it that way. The judge was right to blast everyone involved.
The Judge was being PAID to "blast everyone involved" as a continuation of support for the SMOKESCREEN Illusion created by the OAG.
Keep promoting these fantasy distortions. Every side needs a champion.....Nice to know that corruption and the unpunished criminal courts of PA have you to be theirs. Keep the OAG "Story" alive by continuing to promote its public deceptions!
Too bad for you that now REALITY has exposed the OAG legal case is nothing but a criminal fabrication.
It is such a fabrication that Curley and Schultz plead guilty. If it is so obvious a fabrication you would think that it would have been easy for some high priced criminal defense attorneys to shoot holes in the case or at least have a strong argument to get the case thrown out on appeal. Since they plead guilty there is no possibility of appeal for Curley and Schultz.
Time to face facts, they did it. That does not mean that they knowingly covered up for a pedophile or it fits the media narrative, but it does mean that their actions endangered the welfare of children.
Their own attorney told them to report the incident to DPW to be safe, they ignored that advice. Graham Spanier acknowledged they were taking a risk by not reporting the incident.
Time to stop being a crazy person and accept reality. These rants do nothing but make others think that you are off your rocker.
And, it wasn't a crime when it happened. I have no problem echoing Joe "Old Main screwed up". They were guilty of bad judgment--in hindsight. At the same time. that someone would be convicted "ex post facto" should concern all of us. That's one of the tenets of the Constitution.
A second point--to bring in some reality. The news had a story here in the area about a guy who was put in jail for life for murdering his wife. The coroner recently changed the cause of death from murder to unknown. The case was a alleged suicide but the coroner at the time thought otherwise and there was testimony from a since discredited expert witness, which brought the conviction into question. So the guy took a plea that allows him to maintain his innocence and was re-sentenced instead to 10 years, which just happens to be just shy of what he already served. He'll be out of jail very shortly. He still maintains his innocence (there were things in his favor like a suicide note and diaries). But this way, he's free while he works on the other. In real life, folks take those kinds of deals, innocent or not, to move on with their lives--and in many cases because they do not have the funds to fight any further.
As Tom Clancy once said "The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense."
You talk about fantasies....there is ZERO proof the JUDGE was PAID to say what he did. I may not agree with him, but people here making up opinions and spouting them as fact is an epidemic. Careful, watch out for that helicopter over your head since you said this.
You talk about fantasies....there is ZERO proof the JUDGE was PAID to say what he did. I may not agree with him, but people here making up opinions and spouting them as fact is an epidemic. Careful, watch out for that helicopter over your head since you said this.
Judge Pokeafella, like all Judges, is completely honest and trustworthy.
LOL!
Yeah and a butt hurt obsessed fan on the internet usually is the poster child of not having any bias.
The whole world is in on it and they all post on PL....they are watching you.
For Curley, Schultz and Spanier, funds was not an issue in their defense, PSU paid for it. Agree completely that money can be a huge factor in the legal system, generally you get the type of counsel you can afford. The only color that matters in the legal system is green.
Curley and Schultz plead guilty to a misdemeanor, the man in your example was convicted, which allows for appeals and future considerations if new evidence arises.
If they suspected CSA, then it wouldn't have been an option, now would it?
It clearly wasn't an option, that's the point. They absolutely did suspect CSA. Paterno and MM told them of suspected CSA. Their lawyer advised them to report suspected CSA. But they decided not to. Now they are paying for it.
There was no option. They failed.
The point of the example was is that there are legit reasons to plead--even if you believe you are innocent.
If they didn't suspect it at all, DPW wouldn't have been on the table either...easy to play that game. They made the decision to go with the "humane" approach which I don't find criminal, but crazy NAIVE when you are talking about CSA and your in their positions. You love and want to pretend they didn't know anything and that is fine...the problem is that wasn't Jerry's first rodeo.
Last edited:
We don't and can't know if they did. Nor does the state. By statute, those records are expunged if not substantiated after a certain amount of time.
That's one of the things that made this case so tough.
Look, *I* think Old Main (CSS) screwed up. At the same time, I'm not sure it was criminal. They had to really bend the law out of shape in order to even get the one conviction.
Sure it would! You could see Jerry's behavior as inappropriate without it being sexual. Showering alone with kids was a lawsuit waiting to happen. It had to be stopped.
Raykovitz and Heim sure didn't think CSA was on the table, agreed?
I don't think it was a rodeo at all. I think Jerry was horsing around with a boy who looked to Jerry as his father. I think they had a healthy relationship for all those years leading up to Jerry's indictment. And I believe the statement Alan Myers, then married and a USMC sergeant, gave to Sandusky's defense team...voluntarily and free of charge...,in which he said nothing inappropriate happened that night or ever, is the truth.
Again, if they knew CSA was involved, why was the decision to involve DPW dependent on what Jerry would do in the future and completely unrelated to what he had done? What difference would it make whether Jerry heard their message and acted upon it, or whether Jerry cooperated with their directive or whether Jerry admitted to having a problem? The damage was done, wasn't it? The risk was real and in their laps, right? Why were they focused on closing the barn door when supposedly the horses were already gone?
Sure you would, but Schultz's notes indicate some level of concern prior. In their positions you protect the University first, not call up Jer Bear and get his side of the story. These men all knew of a prior allegation whether you want to deny that is a fact or not isn't my problem. Fool me once.....etc. Again, not criminal, but as executives and administrators from a CYA standpoint...incredibly dumb and naive.
Bottom line is they knew of a previous allegation. The second time around they had to error on the side of caution and they did not. It was a mistake.
What was the allegation? You'd think if there was an allegation and it was investigated, CYS would have at least indicated Jerry, thus restricting his access to children, right? Maybe Jerry wasn't indicated because the boy said nothing sexual occurred; that Jerry just made him uncomfortable.
Why would they have thought in 2001 that they would have to CYA because of a political vendetta 10 years in the future?
Paterno's testimony says otherwise. But I know few here want to take the testimony at face value. Irregardless, you still have MM telling them. Again, I know that few here believe Mike and would rather take the word of people going to jail; people who conviently forgot about important details of the case.
So you hear of the same guy getting looked at for suspected abuse for the second time in 3 years and it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. You can try and shovel that sh!t all day long indy....not buying it. At the very least they should have covered their arses as well as the schools. You get paid great money to be a president and make those tough calls that protect your people...not always easy, but you have to look out for #1 first.
They knew of an investigation, in which Jerry was exonerated of any criminal behavior.
How about Jack Raykovitz? How come he didn't have to err on the side of caution? He knew of '01 and '98 from Curley. He knew of other situations where Jerry had to be separated from young TSM boys. He knew Jerry was taking TSM boys across state lines. He knew TSM boys were spending multiple nights in Jerry's basement lair. Yet this professional thought it was perfectly fine for the money maker of the charity he ran to shower alone with young boys. Even one of the trustees of this charity offered up the facilities of a hotel he partly owned after Curley took away Jerry's PSU keys. Are these men stupid too? Or were they confident that Jerry was not a pedophile?
I notice you didn't answer my question. Why was their decision to involve DPW contingent upon whether Jerry would comply with their directive going forward, rather than on what they were told he had already done? Unless, perhaps.....what they were told he had done did not create an imminent concern?
Heim and Raykovitz having nothing to do with PSU's actions or lack thereof. Including them in a discussion as to why PSU did what they did is a complete red herring and attempt to deflect.
None of those reasons apply to Curley and Schultz. They received worse sentences than Spanier and forfeited the right to appeal. They received no guarantee regarding their sentence, they had excellent legal counsel for free.
Removing the conspiracy charge was a big nothing for them, very remote that they would have been convicted on that charge.
JS was not exonerated, he was not charge which is a big difference. Gricar never said why he did not file charges, could be no crime committed, could be that he was not going into court against a national icon in the charity world with the words of a 10 year old who did not even know what was done to him.
BTW, the police report of that incident was not to kind to JS, one of the detectives wanted charges filed and Gary Schultz had access to the police investigation report.
Nice Try.
You miss the point again. We do not have to answer that question, why don't you ask your buddy Tim Curley why he did what he did. I bet he does not answer your question.
The PSU guys have to answer that question and they are not talking.
dd
Something that tends to be constantly overlooked with regard to both C/S as far as their plea bargain (and subsequent guilty pleas)... If they had been found guilty of any of the charges that were felonies, etc. (assuming they were part of PSERs)... they potentially would have lost their retirement pensions. That is a huge risk considering both were probably depending on those pensions regarding the financial security for both them and their wives. This was probably a bigger risk than even serving some jail time. As an occasional poker player, there are times that a bet is just too much to justify a call... even if I believe that I probably have the winning hand. From what I have been told (after speaking to friends that are close to one of them), this was the ultimate deciding factor. It was just too much to risk. Especially when you factor the potential for an emotional decision by a jury. As far as I am concerned, that is exactly what happened to Spanier regarding his guilty verdict. As a result, I do not hold much "proof of guilt" as a result of their guilty pleas. If I were in their shoes, I probably would have (begrudgingly) done the same thing. They were in a tough spot and probably took the prudent alternative by pleading guilty.
In no way am I going to get into an argument as to whether they should have made the call to DPW or the police, etc. My guess is that in hindsight they wish they had. The fact that (at the time) they were not even mandatory reporters doesn't seem to absolve them from being responsible. I'm not sure I totally understand how that works but again that doesn't seem to matter. I do believe that if they really believed that a child was in danger... regardless of their legal responsibilities, appropriate action should have been taken. The question I have is the ongoing one as to whether they really believed a child was in danger. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the very night that the shower incident occurred... MM was questioned by both his father and Dr. Dranov... and neither of these mandatory reporters felt that immediately calling the police was warranted. This leads me to believe that MM's information to both Curley and Schultz was vague and not very specific. Why would he tell them something more graphic and urgent than what he told his own father? It just doesn't make sense! As a result, I am willing to buy into the idea that C/S didn't recognize the severity of the situation. I'll agree that the prudent thing for C/S to do was to at least report it to DPW... so mistakes were made... However, I fail to see where this mistake rises to the criminal level as portrayed by the OAG.
All of this has made me a skeptic.... As far as I am concerned, it is obvious that in our legal system it is more important for prosecutors to win guilty verdicts than to seek justice.
Something that tends to be constantly overlooked with regard to both C/S as far as their plea bargain (and subsequent guilty pleas)... If they had been found guilty of any of the charges that were felonies, etc. (assuming they were part of PSERs)... they potentially would have lost their retirement pensions. That is a huge risk considering both were probably depending on those pensions regarding the financial security for both them and their wives. This was probably a bigger risk than even serving some jail time. As an occasional poker player, there are times that a bet is just too much to justify a call... even if I believe that I probably have the winning hand. From what I have been told (after speaking to friends that are close to one of them), this was the ultimate deciding factor. It was just too much to risk. Especially when you factor the potential for an emotional decision by a jury. As far as I am concerned, that is exactly what happened to Spanier regarding his guilty verdict. As a result, I do not hold much "proof of guilt" as a result of their guilty pleas. If I were in their shoes, I probably would have (begrudgingly) done the same thing. They were in a tough spot and probably took the prudent alternative by pleading guilty.
In no way am I going to get into an argument as to whether they should have made the call to DPW or the police, etc. My guess is that in hindsight they wish they had. The fact that (at the time) they were not even mandatory reporters doesn't seem to absolve them from being responsible. I'm not sure I totally understand how that works but again that doesn't seem to matter. I do believe that if they really believed that a child was in danger... regardless of their legal responsibilities, appropriate action should have been taken. The question I have is the ongoing one as to whether they really believed a child was in danger. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the very night that the shower incident occurred... MM was questioned by both his father and Dr. Dranov... and neither of these mandatory reporters felt that immediately calling the police was warranted. This leads me to believe that MM's information to both Curley and Schultz was vague and not very specific. Why would he tell them something more graphic and urgent than what he told his own father? It just doesn't make sense! As a result, I am willing to buy into the idea that C/S didn't recognize the severity of the situation. I'll agree that the prudent thing for C/S to do was to at least report it to DPW... so mistakes were made... However, I fail to see where this mistake rises to the criminal level as portrayed by the OAG.
All of this has made me a skeptic.... As far as I am concerned, it is obvious that in our legal system it is more important for prosecutors to win guilty verdicts than to seek justice.
You really don't know what you're talking about. In 1998 the incident was deemed "unfounded" which according to the LAW is the same thing as saying it never happened, there's a reason why "unfounded" reports get PURGED from the CYS/DPW system, it's because they are not supposed to be held against someone later on.
Gricar could have tried to prosecute without an "indicated" ruling from DPW, but good luck with that. I do believe Gricar did explain that he didn't prosecute because he didn't have enough evidence to prove the showers were happening with sexual intent.
The state DPW however had AMPLE cause to "indicate" JS (as Chambers pointed out numerous red flags in her ChildLine report and written report to Schreffler for his investigation) due to the naked bear hug from behind behavior (with at LEAST two different boys) and any non corrupt DPW/CYS investigator would have seen those same red flags after interviewing or reading transcripts of interviews with V6 and B.K., which Lauro (DPW) and Miller (CC CYS) had access to.
Even if the admins knew the details of the 1998 investigation (which outside of Schultz is doubtful) they would know that the state rubber stamped JS' naked bear hug from behind showering behavior with their good housekeeping stamp of approval. The state set the standard from that day on in the minds of anyone who was privy to the 98 investigation.
You can't simply ignore that when looking at how the admins would react to a similar and much less clear situation described by MM a few years later, which they still took seriously by confronting JS, revoking his guest privleges, and informing the child care expert and mandatory reporter JR who had oversight of JS and his access to kids.
I'm not excusing poor behavior because someone else had poor decision making as well. TSM should have been looked into...so what? I'm not saying Jack didn't make mistakes. Does somehow pointing out his flaws exonerate anyone? It's a deflection because you can't seem to say both parties made mistakes. They both did. Jack wasn't aware of 98 until Tim told him. Why would Tim tell him about 98 because you always say Jerry was exonerated so why did be bring up 98? You can't have it both ways. If you are saying Jack screwed up, then you cannot say Tim didn't. They both did....get it? Somehow you can't say that as Tim is your boy. Do I think he was railroaded...yes. Do I think he deserves to be in jail...nope, not at all. That doesn't mean I can't say he made mistakes. Saying Jack all day long hasn't fixed a thing, but it is all some people here know. I wish it would have gotten TSM looked into but it didn't happen.
You can lather on all the hindsight you want. Since Jerry was not at least indicated, which would have restricted his access to children and prevented this whole mess, I'd say he was exonerated.
You are missing the forest because you are looking too close to the trees.
I'll repeat myself: "there are legit reasons to plead--even if you believe you are innocent."
I'll also note that given some of the rulings in the cases associated with this that your "very remote that they would have been convicted on that charge" is not as anywhere near as remote as you might believe.
Another '98 was what they were trying to avoid. They got lucky that V6's mother didn't file a civil suit. PSU would have been ripe for the picking. '01 was their wake up call. Jerry didn't have to be guilty. The mere accusation would have forced PSU to settle out of court.
And I very well can say that Jack screwed up, but Tim didn't. First of all, Jack was a mandatory reporter. Tim was not. Jack was Jerry's boss. C/S/S/P were not. Jack had a direct supervisory role over the boy. Tim had none. Jack was trained to recognize grooming behavior. Tim was not. Want me to go on?
What still rings true to me is that none of the people involved thought there was a sexual component to Jerry's behavior. Heim certainly wouldn't have offered up the Hilton Garden Inn. Jack would have never simply suggested that Jerry shower with swim trunks on. C/S/S would not have weighed the decision to involve DPW based on whether or not Jerry complied with their directive. The elephant in the room would have been the boy. They would have been in crisis mode, not playing it by ear or even waiting ten days before speaking with the witness. Joe would not have been satisfied with what C/S/S decided to do.
Similar threads
