CNN Headline on Paterno

[indynittany]

Correct. He advised them to contact DPW, not the police. Which is a perfectly fine COA because it should lead to an investigation.

Why? Was it to report possible abuse? Or was it more to insulate PSU from the possibility of future scrutiny? Were they legally obligated to report? And if not, was Jack Raykovitz legally mandated to file a report with CYS regarding what he was told?

 

[marshall23]

people who say "this is what Mike saw" with any sense of certainty REALLY need to read his actual testimony at Sandusky's trial

They also need to study the layout of the locker room where the alleged incident took place.

 

[bdgan]

Why? Was it to report possible abuse? Or was it more to insulate PSU from the possibility of future scrutiny? Were they legally obligated to report? And if not, was Jack Raykovitz legally mandated to file a report with CYS regarding what he was told?

An outside attorney would always tell you to report things to police, DPW, etc. just to cover his and your rear end. That's an easy thing to say when you're not the person who has to report a trusted colleague. But guess what? That's the job! I think there is no doubt that he PSU administrators did a poor job documenting and handling this situation. That said, there is a big difference between accusing somebody of doing a poor job and accusing them of nowingly enabling a pedo in order to protect football.

 

[getmyjive11]

Why? Was it to report possible abuse? Or was it more to insulate PSU from the possibility of future scrutiny? Were they legally obligated to report? And if not, was Jack Raykovitz legally mandated to file a report with CYS regarding what he was told?

To report possible abuse and insulate the University from future scrutiny/financial burden. Both reasons.

 

[pandaczar12]

An outside attorney would always tell you to report things to police, DPW, etc. just to cover his and your rear end. That's an easy thing to say when you're not the person who has to report a trusted colleague. But guess what? That's the job! I think there is no doubt that he PSU administrators did a poor job documenting and handling this situation. That said, there is a big difference between accusing somebody of doing a poor job and accusing them of nowingly enabling a pedo in order to protect football.

So the lawyer allegedly knew of CSA and told C/S/S to report it. Why couldn't he report it? Why does everyone expect the PSU admins, the people in the worst position to handle it, to report it? Why not the witness or people involved directly after the incident? Why not Jerry's boss, the mandatory reporter?

 

[getmyjive11]

An outside attorney would always tell you to report things to police, DPW, etc. just to cover his and your rear end. That's an easy thing to say when you're not the person who has to report a trusted colleague. But guess what? That's the job! I think there is no doubt that he PSU administrators did a poor job documenting and handling this situation. That said, there is a big difference between accusing somebody of doing a poor job and accusing them of nowingly enabling a pedo in order to protect football.

CSS got legal advice that would have prevented all of this from occurring, but ignored it. Yet some here feel like they are the victims. Sad.

 

[bdgan]

So the lawyer allegedly knew of CSA and told C/S/S to report it. Why couldn't he report it? Why does everyone expect the PSU admins, the people in the worst position to handle it, to report it? Why not the witness or people involved directly after the incident? Why not Jerry's boss, the mandatory reporter?

I don't think the lawyer knew of CSA. I think he was told about much less than that but he suggested it be reported just to be safe.

I disagree that the PSU admins were in the worst position to handle it. This was about something a former employee did on university property and they had a responsibility to deal with it.

I completely agree that MM, JM, and Dranov were in the "best" position to handle it. Of course JM & Dranov testified that MM didn't tell them about CSA. It makes no sense hat we should believe them but not Joe or C/S/S.

 

[Connorpozlee]

He advised CSS to call the police.

I don't recall completely, but I don't believe that is exactly what he testified to.
Going with the assumption that is what he said, it supports the idea that Joe did what he was supposed to. He gave it to the people at the university who were supposed to handle such situations.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You have to report the incident, whether that results in "success" or not.

I'm talking about reporting to protective services (whatever the acronym for it is up there in PA). I can't make a call to them to report a child being abused without the child's name. I can do that to the police, knowing who the assailant is.

 

[bdgan]

CSS got legal advice that would have prevented all of this from occurring, but ignored it. Yet some here feel like they are the victims. Sad.

Can't you read? I've repeatedly said that C/S did a poor job handling this situation. But there is a big difference between accusing somebody of doing a poor job and accusing them of knowingly enabling a pedo in order to protect football.

 

[Art]

OK, I agree with you there.
It just seems very likely to me that he remembered things a hell of a lot more clearly 10 years later than he saw things and reported them at the time.

He remembered things a lot more clearly when the police threatened to throw him and his old man in the slammer. How's that for a memory refresher?
The more I think about it, the more I think that it's possible that he saw nothing more than Jer-Bear and a kid in the shower and the rest of it is made up for a variety of reasons.

 

[marshall23]

Can't you read? I've repeatedly said that C/S did a poor job handling this situation. But there is a big difference between accusing somebody of doing a poor job and accusing them of knowingly enabling a pedo in order to protect football.

Compare and contrast the alleged crimes involving the doctor at Michigan State. There is no apparent strategy to suggest criminal behavior by the MSU administration by prosecutors. No firing of the President.
The Commonwealth had a motive to criminalize PSU and its top administrators. The power bloc of OGBOT agreed to play along.The only question is what that motive was and is.

 

[indynittany]

To report possible abuse and insulate the University from future scrutiny/financial burden. Both reasons.

The more reasonable solution was to either have Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower or have him take his work out buddies to the Hilton Garden Inn. If I thought I was dealing with possible child abuse, that's what I would have done.....not!

 

[getmyjive11]

I'm talking about reporting to protective services (whatever the acronym for it is up there in PA). I can't make a call to them to report a child being abused without the child's name. I can do that to the police, knowing who the assailant is.

Fair enough.

 

[getmyjive11]

The more reasonable solution was to either have Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower or have him take his work out buddies to the Hilton Garden Inn. If I thought I was dealing with possible child abuse, that's what I would have done.....not!

Hey, let's keep pointing to the actions of people who failed. That's the ticket!!!

 

[getmyjive11]

Can't you read? I've repeatedly said that C/S did a poor job handling this situation. But there is a big difference between accusing somebody of doing a poor job and accusing them of knowingly enabling a pedo in order to protect football.

I never said it was to protect football.

 

[getmyjive11]

I don't recall completely, but I don't believe that is exactly what he testified to.
Going with the assumption that is what he said, it supports the idea that Joe did what he was supposed to. He gave it to the people at the university who were supposed to handle such situations.

It was my error, he advised them to report it to DPW.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It was my error, he advised them to report it to DPW.

OK. What is DPW in relation to this case? Is that PA's protective services?

 

[pandaczar12]

I don't think the lawyer knew of CSA. I think he was told about much less than that but he suggested it be reported just to be safe.

I disagree that the PSU admins were in the worst position to handle it. This was about something a former employee did on university property and they had a responsibility to deal with it.

I completely agree that MM, JM, and Dranov were in the "best" position to handle it. Of course JM & Dranov testified that MM didn't tell them about CSA. It makes no sense hat we should believe them but not Joe or C/S/S.

I think we agree, but if if MM, JM and Dranov were in the "best" position to handle it, and JR was trained to handle it and was actually Sandusky's boss, so he was also well positioned to hand it. That pretty much means that the PSU admins were in the worst position to handle it. That's my point.

 

[GTACSA]

Freeh listed 8 policies designed to protect the campus community on p.36-37. Why did he only discuss two in Chapter 9, neither of which would have likely been consulted after McQueary's report. Freeh quoted Paterno's interview with Jenkins in which he said he was afraid to jeopardize university procedure, so he backed away. Why didn't he report on what his investigation uncovered with respect to what procedure Paterno was talking about.

What did policy AD12 say in February 2001? What other document does it refer to for reporting sexual assault? What does that document say? Why did Freeh's report not answer these questions?

Do you have the answers to the first three questions in the second paragraph?

 

[TenerHallTerror]

They also need to study the layout of the locker room where the alleged incident took place.

Barry Bozeman (remember him?) and I were given photos and a schematic of the locker room before it was "remodeled"

Physically impossible for Mike to see what he claims he saw, even as what he claims he saw has "evolved"

 

[WeR0206]

Barry Bozeman (remember him?) and I were given photos and a schematic of the locker room before it was "remodeled"

Physically impossible for Mike to see what he claims he saw, even as what he claims he saw has "evolved"

How convenient that it was remodeled and also that no on can find the actual university policy that was in place in 2001 for handling such reports.

MM's testimony is all over the place. He essentially says that he was 99% sure sex and fondling were happening even though he only had a few seconds glimpse through a freaking mirror and couldn't see anyones hands or privates. The sounds he heard could have been a million different things so I won't even get into that.

Also the physics of sex happening would be impossible based on MM's claim that they were both standing upright with the kid coming up to JS' chest in height.

Theres a good reason the OAG had to stand a mannequin on a stool just to mock the scene up. How the OAG was allowed to do that is beyond me. Pretty sure MM didn't describe the kid being on a step stool in the shower.

What a farce.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

How convenient that it was remodeled and also that no on can find the actual university policy that was in place in 2001 for handling such reports.

MM's testimony is all over the place. He essentially says that he was 99% sure sex and fondling were happening even though he only had a few seconds glimpse through a freaking mirror and couldn't see anyones hands or privates. The sounds he heard could have been a million different things so I won't even get into that.

Also the physics of sex happening would be impossible based on MM's claim that they were both standing upright with the kid coming up to JS' chest in height.

Theres a good reason the OAG had to stand a mannequin on a stool just to mock the scene up. How the OAG was allowed to do that is beyond me. Pretty sure MM didn't describe the kid being on a step stool in the shower.

What a farce.

you know another point I keep harping on is exactly what hot showers do to mirrors

but you know, let's ignore physics and believe Mike, right?

 

[bdgan]

I never said it was to protect football.

That's what this case is all about wrt Penn State. The media articles don't talk about how Joe and PSU administrators were fooled or screwed up. They talk about how Joe and PSU administrators knowingly allowed JS to continue to abuse kids in order to protect football.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

That's what this case is all about wrt Penn State. The media articles don't talk about how Joe and PSU administrators were fooled or screwed up. They talk about how Joe and PSU administrators knowingly allowed JS to continue to abuse kids in order to protect football.

poor Sara cannot even follow her own BS story

Joe would have said "this is the fourth complaint" if her imaginary world was consistent . . .

 

[m.knox]

That's what you talk about in public? Ehhhh... like I said, I don't think you realize that people are just being nice to the crazy person.

When we you start talking about college football and the fact that you are a Penn State Alumni, yes, the conversation gravitates in that direction.

The typical reply is "well, when you put it that way, I can see your point."... Obviously, you don't have the balls to put it that way. You'd rather cave and say that your University knowingly hid a pedophile in the name of football. Grow a set.

 

[JmmyW]

You have to report the incident, whether that results in "success" or not.

It's been almost six years since the scandal broke. The Child Protective Servcies Law (CPSL) has been updated extensively to address various issues revealed by the scandal. PSU procedures have been updated as well.

Would you believe that if the 2001 incident happened today, there is nothing that actually mandates a report to ChildLine per the CPSL or PSU procedure as they exist today? It's because the child wasn't identifiable. (Note - there is nothing that prevents a permissive report, but there is no clause that would mandate a report.)

CPSL: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/23/00.063..HTM
PSU Policy: https://guru.psu.edu/policies/ad72.html

 

[JmmyW]

OK. What is DPW in relation to this case? Is that PA's protective services?

Short answer is yes.

DPW was the Department of Public Welfare. A year or two ago they changed their name to DHS - Department of Health and Human Services. They are the state agency charged with managing ChildLine which is the child abuse registry. All reports of child abuse (eventually) get filed with ChildLine.

Once a report is made, actions often include referring it to the local or county CYS - Children and Youth Services. That's why you've probably seen both the DPW (state) and CYS (County) acronyms

And CYS may not be the correct acronym anymore but it still gets used.

----- some Excerpts from DHS ChildLine website
http://www.dhs.pa.gov/provider/childwelfareservices/childlineandabuseregistry/

Mandated reporters may report by telephone or electronically through through the Child Welfare Portal. In addition, permissive reporters are individuals who are encouraged to report suspected child abuse, although not required by law. Permissive reporters can make a report at any time they suspect a child is the victim of child abuse. Permissive reporters may report anonymously. Permissive reporters can report by telephone by calling 1-800-932-0313.

Each report is handled by a trained specialist who determine the most appropriate course of action. Actions include forwarding the report to:

• County children and youth agencies or the Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) Regional Offices for investigation or assessment
• Law enforcement officials for investigation
• Department of Human Services program offices for review and possible licensing action

When making a report of suspected child abuse or general child well-being concerns, it is important to provide as much information as possible.

The below list will give you a general idea of what information our trained specialists will ask you for:

• Name and physical description of the child
• Age or approximate age range of the child
• Name, home address and telephone number of legal guardian or parent of the child
• Name or physical description of suspected child abuse perpetrator
• Home address and telephone number of suspected child abuse perpetrator
• Suspected perpetrator’s relationship to the child
• Description of the suspected injury to the child
• Where the incident took place or occurred
• Any concern for the child's immediate safety
• Your relationship to the child
• Your contact information, although you may report anonymously if you are a permissive reporter

 

[m.knox]

CSS got legal advice that would have prevented all of this from occurring, but ignored it. Yet some here feel like they are the victims. Sad.

Project on someone else.

 

[getmyjive11]

It's been almost six years since the scandal broke. The Child Protective Servcies Law (CPSL) has been updated extensively to address various issues revealed by the scandal. PSU procedures have been updated as well.

Would you believe that if the 2001 incident happened today, there is nothing that actually mandates a report to ChildLine per the CPSL or PSU procedure as they exist today? It's because the child wasn't identifiable. (Note - there is nothing that prevents a permissive report, but there is no clause that would mandate a report.)

CPSL: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/23/00.063..HTM
PSU Policy: https://guru.psu.edu/policies/ad72.html

The policy as currently written would require MM to report the incident.

 

[getmyjive11]

Project on someone else.

Did I say you?

 

[denniskembala]

The policy as currently written would require MM to report the incident.

OK Jockstrap Apostle.

 

[PSU Dave]

He remembered things a lot more clearly when the police threatened to throw him and his old man in the slammer. How's that for a memory refresher?
The more I think about it, the more I think that it's possible that he saw nothing more than Jer-Bear and a kid in the shower and the rest of it is made up for a variety of reasons.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. And whomever conjured up those reasons didn't give one crap about the implications it would bear,

 

[Connorpozlee]

Short answer is yes.

DPW was the Department of Public Welfare. A year or two ago they changed their name to DHS - Department of Health and Human Services. They are the state agency charged with managing ChildLine which is the child abuse registry. All reports of child abuse (eventually) get filed with ChildLine.

Once a report is made, actions often include referring it to the local or county CYS - Children and Youth Services. That's why you've probably seen both the DPW (state) and CYS (County) acronyms

And CYS may not be the correct acronym anymore but it still gets used.

----- some Excerpts from DHS ChildLine website
http://www.dhs.pa.gov/provider/childwelfareservices/childlineandabuseregistry/

Mandated reporters may report by telephone or electronically through through the Child Welfare Portal. In addition, permissive reporters are individuals who are encouraged to report suspected child abuse, although not required by law. Permissive reporters can make a report at any time they suspect a child is the victim of child abuse. Permissive reporters may report anonymously. Permissive reporters can report by telephone by calling 1-800-932-0313.

Each report is handled by a trained specialist who determine the most appropriate course of action. Actions include forwarding the report to:

• County children and youth agencies or the Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) Regional Offices for investigation or assessment
• Law enforcement officials for investigation
• Department of Human Services program offices for review and possible licensing action

When making a report of suspected child abuse or general child well-being concerns, it is important to provide as much information as possible.

The below list will give you a general idea of what information our trained specialists will ask you for:

• Name and physical description of the child
• Age or approximate age range of the child
• Name, home address and telephone number of legal guardian or parent of the child
• Name or physical description of suspected child abuse perpetrator
• Home address and telephone number of suspected child abuse perpetrator
• Suspected perpetrator’s relationship to the child
• Description of the suspected injury to the child
• Where the incident took place or occurred
• Any concern for the child's immediate safety
• Your relationship to the child
• Your contact information, although you may report anonymously if you are a permissive reporter

Thanks Jimmy. I've wondered what the difference was between those two agencies.
So if I have that correct, an abuse call goes to DPW, then they can choose to turn it over to OCYF for investigation.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The policy as currently written would require MM to report the incident.

And yet he didn't and got a million dollars out of it.

 

[JmmyW]

The policy as currently written would require MM to report the incident.

You're right. I'd been focusing on the "identifiable child" clause.

 

[JmmyW]

Thanks Jimmy. I've wondered what the difference was between those two agencies.
So if I have that correct, an abuse call goes to DPW, then they can choose to turn it over to OCYF for investigation.

Yes, or at least that's my understanding. I think it's typical practice to refer them to the local agencies since they're the ones that have the staff in the area.

In the 2008 V1 case, he & his mom went to the local (Clinto County) CYS first. CYS/Dershem made the formal ChildLine report to DPW, but they continued as the primary investigating agency, at least until they made the indicated finding.

 

[indynittany]

To report possible abuse and insulate the University from future scrutiny/financial burden. Both reasons.

Here's the problem. Spanier makes it perfectly clear in his email response to Curley that the "only downside" on his radar could only be triggered by a subsequent event. That excludes the first reason as a possibility.

 

[Waltwam]

See my post above. I think they screwed up the dates in the article. It was in 2010.

Ah, come on there's no way they made a mistake in the story! Every story they wrote on the subject has been absolutely true, thought through, and fact checked!!!

 

[Waltwam]

Yes, or at least that's my understanding. I think it's typical practice to refer them to the local agencies since they're the ones that have the staff in the area.

In the 2008 V1 case, he & his mom went to the local (Clinto County) CYS first. CYS/Dershem made the formal ChildLine report to DPW, but they continued as the primary investigating agency, at least until they made the indicated finding.

Because Paterno wasn't on trial.

Oh, he wasn't. Could have fooled me!