This bit is 100% wrong. If that's the case then there would be a 100% overlap between FTR and EWOC and there isn't.
Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.
- Thread starter OXLion
- Start date
It doesn't matter what Curley told him he has to investigate and report the incident to DPW. He cant take someone else's word on it and sweep it under the rug.
Well, I think that the administrators were clearly acting in their official capacities in this case - they were acting as administrators of Penn State University in the handling of an on-campus incident. All of the decisions they made - meeting with McQueary, consulting Courtney, reporting or not reporting to DPW, meeting with Jerry, informing Raykovitz - were made in their official capacity as Penn State administrators handling the incident that occurred on their property and reported to them by an employee about an emeritus employee to whom they had given explicit permission to use that facility.
And, don't you think that the fact that a report was never made is a pretty decent indicator up front that it was prevented or interfered with? They initially planned on filing a report with DPW. They subsequently reversed course and elected not to file a report. As a result, they certainly interfered with a report being made to DPW - because they interfered with their own plan! Even further, look at the parties you mentioned - Joe told McQueary that he did the right thing by telling him, and "now it's up to us to figure out what we want to do". Schultz blatantly understated to John McQueary about what he knew about 1998 and told him that the university was looking into 2001 as best they could. Curley told Raykovitz that the university had investigated the 2001 incident and had determined that nothing inappropriate had occurred. All of those events could conceivably serve as interference with a potential report being filed by anyone else who knew about it.
All I'm saying is that I don't believe that the argument that, given all the facts and testimony, the administrators prevented or interfered with a report being made would be that difficult of a sell to a jury.
@colt21 or others can back me up on this, but it DOES NOT MATTER what TC's untrained opinion of the incident was, (if we assume the watered down version was forwarded to TSM) JR was told that JS was having inappropriate 1:1 shower/horseplay with a TSM kid that made a PSU GA uncomfortable and also caused PSU to revoke JS' guest privileges (no more friend fitness program for him). Its beyond me how you can even suggest that the person running a state licensed charity that had legal oversight of JS and his access to kids should be taking his cues from some college AD re: whether or not illegal contact occurred. As soon as JR received an incident report (which TC's report certainly was) JR was required to look into it and make any required reports to CC CYS, etc..
With that info JR ABSOLUTELY would have been required to report. TC didn't even know who the kid was to truly get to the bottom of it, the only way to figure that out was to have TSM look into it and who the eff JS was with that night, and if they don't have records then that's other laws/guidelines TSM didn't follow.
The report would have to be something that could reasonably be something tht was child abuse. That is why Curley's testimony is crucial.
It depends. A report of **Jerry and a boy were in the shower and it made someone uncomfortable,** probably does not cut it. I would infer that a player/employee wanted to take a shower and walked in while they were sliding across the floor.
**Jerry and a boy were in a shower, naked, late at night; Jerry was roughhousing with him and horsing around** might have raised a red flag; it could have been nonsexual but it should be investigated.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you're correct. Under Section 6311 of the child protective services law, the reporting requirement only triggers for mandatory reporters if they have "reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse". Nowhere in the law does it say that mandatory reporters are required to investigate or report anything if they don't have reasonable cause to believe that a child was a victim of child abuse. Is there some further requirement beyond that? That's a genuine question, as I wasn't able to find anything more restrictive in the child protective services law.
If a wannabe internet lawyer like yourself knows the jury pool is "exceptionally polluted", don't you think the OAG has that same knowledge too?
Regardless of what the MR law says, folks running a state licensed children's charity are REQUIRED (due to their licensing with the state) to look into any and all incidents brought to their attention involving one of their kids and/or one of their employees (did JR look into the 2001 report from TC? I don't know since everyone there was treated with kid gloves by the OAG and they were allowed to destroy God knows what).
Even with that being said I have no idea how you could argue that JR being told about a late night 1:1 shower that weirded out a PSU GA enough to run it up the chain and have PSU's AD on his doorstep complaining and revoking JSs guest privleges isn't a situation where abuse MAY have been happening. JR wouldn't know until he did his own due diligence by speaking to JS, speaking to the kid, etc. he would also be required to inform childline of the incident and who the kid was so they could do their own check from their end.
I don't disbelieve you, but I just wasn't able to find anything to that effect. Do you have any more information on the reporting requirements outside of Title 23?
In any case, though, the text of the child endangerment statute states that an offense occurs if interference or prevention occurs for a potential report specifically under Title 23, the mandatory reporter statute - so regardless of any additional requirements that might be placed on a charity under a different statute or regulation, it doesn't really impact guilt or innocence under 4304 if Curley's report to Ratkovitz didn't give him reasonable cause to think that a child was abused.
I am not sure that your statement is true regarding additional reporting for charities.
You assume that it was a TSM kid. Nobody at PSU, except Sandusky, knew who the boy was. He probably was a TSM kid, but maybe not at that point, and probably not in any program with Sandusky.
Yes, and they (they OAG) planned to use that to their advantage.
Remember WeR0206 in this case only people who had no responsibility under the poorly written laws in 2001 are guilty. Those who did are innocent.
If they had the jury in their back pocket,why would they plead it down to a "greatly reduced,very minor charge" (your words)? With that advantage,why reduce at all?
Bc their case was hot garbage. As some of the lawyers have said, when prosecutors drop a felony to misdemeanor it's not done lightly. These charges were a stretch and the defense did have very good lawyers so I wouldn't be surprised if Shapiro took one look at it and saw what a disaster it may be.
Defense gets to avoid a tainted jury, OAG gets to avoid getting exposed in court. Win win.
That's delusional. These men are getting no deal and are not getting any recommendations from the OAG.
That's not a strong deal.
How the hell do you know how it will all play out? Do you have a time machine? All we know is they plead to one misdemeanor and have yet to be sentenced.
I'd say going from multiple felonies and multiple misdemeanors to a grand total of one misdemeanor per admin is a pretty "good deal" to avoid a potentially biased jury.
So,the jury is not tainted enough to get a conviction on a felony but they are on a misdemeanor. Got it.
I didn't want to speak up, but... A childhood friend of mine was accused of CSA. The DA offered a plea of 6 months of home confinement. He chose to fight in court, telling me "I did not do it. I am not taking a plea for something I did not do." He passed a polygraph and there was no physical evidence. The DA then got pissed and increased the charges. He is now serving 10-33 yrs in max prison. As unhappy as I am they didn't fight the charges, I understand. Being charged with anything surrounding CSA is toxic.
Perhaps this is going over your head. Both sides faced an unknown. The defense faced a potentially biased jury (we have hard numbers to show this so I don't know how anyone could argue against it). The OAG faced a potentially skilled defense team embarrassing them due to their over-reaching charges. Sounds like both sides crunched the numbers and came to some sort of agreement. Unless you think these guys plead guilty to one misdemeanor without the input of the OAG?
Their sentencing is in a few months and we'll see how it all plays out. Unless you're elvis, then you already know.
Since he refuses to admit guilt, which you have to do when taking CSA classes in prison, he has not taken them and will not be eligible for early release
This is why innocent people settle and plead guilty, especially when they get a sweetheart deal.
Thanks. Your information has been so reliable in the past. lol
For that to be true, they would have to be guilty of perjury, conspiracy and failure to report. They are not.
They did nothing to indicate they were performing a damage control operation. It was all about prevention. Clearly Mike convinced absolutely no one that the police should have been called.
Did they stop the boy or his family?
Did they stop Mike, his dad, Dr. Dranov or Towny?
Did they stop Jack Raykovitz?
That's like saying you should be charged with assault for hitting yourself! I'm going to call you Pretzel Boy!
From an above post:
Curley told Raykovitz that the university had investigated the 2001 incident and had determined that nothing inappropriate had occurred.
Did I miss some new information wrt TC reporting to TSM? I don't recall seeing this before. Did TC actually say this to JR? Or is this someone's guess?
Thanks.
Curley told Raykovitz that the university had investigated the 2001 incident and had determined that nothing inappropriate had occurred.
Did I miss some new information wrt TC reporting to TSM? I don't recall seeing this before. Did TC actually say this to JR? Or is this someone's guess?
Thanks.
You don't know that. I strongly suspect leniency is part of the deal.
It's always up to the judge. However, the OAG can absolutely make a recommendation. They won't make the public until they do it, but they can.
I strongly suspect this was part of the plea deal. It may not be, but pretending like you know it is not is dishonest, even for you.
Last edited:
The OAG has not made a recommendation. This is because they expect to get testimony in a certain way following certain lines. If this is done, they will be inclined to recommend leniency.
Specifically, C & S will be asked, when then they testify, if a quid pro quo was made. The "deal" such as it is, will require them to say "no," as strange as that sounds.
This is shaky ground for them, but if they have good attorneys, and they do, they have worked out some other way to outline an agreement that doesn't quite constitute quid pro quo, but also manages to offer enough confidence that their lawyers are OK with it.
Happens every day.
If the (2011) OAG is corrupt & out to get the PSU FB culture, why did they release the GJP, charge C & S, and arrest JS on an off week, just after JVP achieved 409, breaking the record? If anything, AND THEY SAID SO, they respected Joe's actions.
