What's the big deal? "A victim known only to God". Thus, a locker room layout known only to God (and MM, The Locker Slammer).
Last edited:
CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
Whereas in 1998 it went to the County, then to State, then back to County, then back to State.
No he's not. If he was an idiot he wouldn't have been the president of a major university, and a Phd with one of the federal government's highest security clearances.
If he had believed abuse had occurred, playing it by ear with regard to reporting what happened would not have been an option. The open ended risk that the boy's family would have reported it themselves would have been the elephant in the room. That would have been the predominant theme of those emails....not what a pedophile's "future appropriate use of the university facilities" should be. And had he thought for a second that there was actually a boy victimized in the shower that night, he would have never reasoned that what they had decided to do was "humane and a reasonable approach".
Yes, the issues you're speaking of are governed by the "PA Child Protective Services Law" (i.e., code) and the Department of Public Welfare (now HHS - Health & Human Services) is the direct PA "Agency" referenced in the Law. The County-Level CYS Offices (Children & Youth Services Offices) also report to DPW (now HHS) and are referred to in the law as the "County-Level Agency Offices". The Second Mile had an "Agency Relationship" with DPW as defined under the code and was a major DPW subcontractor especially in regards to DPW's Adoption and Foster-Parenting "Placements" including doing "evaluations" on both sides of these Court-adjudicated Placements (i.e., evaluations of the adopting Parties and the child being Adopted or Foster-Parented).
Here is a link to the actual PA Code (i.e., Legislation) and here is the excerpt that directly applied to TSM (who had a clear "Agency Relationship" with DPW under the law) regarding PSU's Report via Tim Curley:
TSM is also required to report under the Code as a "Mandatory Reporter":
Subchapter Heading. The heading of Subchapter B was amended December 16, 1994, P.L.1292, No.151, effective July 1, 1995.
§ 6311. Persons required to report suspected child abuse.
(a) Mandated reporters.--The following adults shall make a report of suspected child abuse, subject to subsection (b), if the person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse:
(1) A person licensed or certified to practice in any health-related field under the jurisdiction of the Department of State.
(2) A medical examiner, coroner or funeral director.
(3) An employee of a health care facility or provider licensed by the Department of Health, who is engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of individuals.
(4) A school employee.
(5) An employee of a child-care service who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.
(6) A clergyman, priest, rabbi, minister, Christian Science practitioner, religious healer or spiritual leader of any regularly established church or other religious organization.
(7) An individual paid or unpaid, who, on the basis of the individual's role as an integral part of a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, is a person responsible for the child's welfare or has direct contact with children.
(8) An employee of a social services agency who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.
(9) A peace officer or law enforcement official.
(10) An emergency medical services provider certified by the Department of Health.
(11) An employee of a public library who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.
(12) An individual supervised or managed by a person listed under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (13), who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.
(13) An independent contractor.
(14) An attorney affiliated with an agency, institution, organization or other entity, including a school or regularly established religious organization that is responsible for the care, supervision, guidance or control of children.
(15) A foster parent.
(16) An adult family member who is a person responsible for the child's welfare and provides services to a child in a family living home, community home for individuals with an intellectual disability or host home for children which are subject to supervision or licensure by the department under Articles IX and X of the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L.31, No.21), known as the Public Welfare Code.
§ 6311. Persons required to report suspected child abuse.
(a) Mandated reporters.--The following adults shall make a report of suspected child abuse, subject to subsection (b), if the person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse:
(1) A person licensed or certified to practice in any health-related field under the jurisdiction of the Department of State.
(2) A medical examiner, coroner or funeral director.
(3) An employee of a health care facility or provider licensed by the Department of Health, who is engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of individuals.
(4) A school employee.
(5) An employee of a child-care service who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.
(6) A clergyman, priest, rabbi, minister, Christian Science practitioner, religious healer or spiritual leader of any regularly established church or other religious organization.
(7) An individual paid or unpaid, who, on the basis of the individual's role as an integral part of a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, is a person responsible for the child's welfare or has direct contact with children.
(8) An employee of a social services agency who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.
(9) A peace officer or law enforcement official.
(10) An emergency medical services provider certified by the Department of Health.
(11) An employee of a public library who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.
(12) An individual supervised or managed by a person listed under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (13), who has direct contact with children in the course of employment.
(13) An independent contractor.
(14) An attorney affiliated with an agency, institution, organization or other entity, including a school or regularly established religious organization that is responsible for the care, supervision, guidance or control of children.
(15) A foster parent.
(16) An adult family member who is a person responsible for the child's welfare and provides services to a child in a family living home, community home for individuals with an intellectual disability or host home for children which are subject to supervision or licensure by the department under Articles IX and X of the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L.31, No.21), known as the Public Welfare Code.
You consistently take stupid to higher levels on a daily basis. That's not an easy thing to do, but you make it look effortless.
No kidding, twit-boy has turned stupid into a profession.....and he is the "consummate professional" of the craft...
Don't be a dope. If you have learned ANYTHING at all, it is that the reputation of "our" University took a hit because "our" leaders chose football over the crime of pedophilia.
Are you really this dense? You are arguing about who did what, said what, who failed............. All of it misses the mark.
Grow a set. Our leaders did not choose football over reporting a damn pedophile. That's the damn issue.
I'm saying, you find out who the kid is, tell his mother and let her go to the police. Many parents don't like strangers filing police reports on their child's behalf.
The board as a whole isn't getting dumber. You're just that stupid that you move the curve in that direction.
The idiot cost himself his job, his good name, his University's good name and hundreds of millions of dollars.
But sure, he's brilliant...
I'm willing to bet the mothers if every victim wish someone reported Sandusky earlier. Every single one.
No it's not. Maybe it is to the media and maybe that is what people think, but those involved had a choice to make and made the wrong one regardless of the reason. That's all that matters.
Yep, it's all his fault. It wasn't Sandusky, MM, Raykovitz, CYS, DPW, TSM, or the PSU BOT. You are delusional.
Of course, then they could have "owned his house" even earlier.
Wrong again. That's precisely the public's perception of "our" University. We are the University that "protected" a pedophile in the name of football.... You accept it. You were all about the public a few pages ago. Now you are "pivoting"?
A rolling stone gathers no moss.........
Stooge-boy keeps avoiding the fact that McQueary DID NOT call police or report a crime, so applying his own logic, clearly he did not think he "witnessed" a crime. Neither John McQueary or Dr. Dranov who MM told his story to and that the incident was ongoing with Sandusky and the child still at Lasch - his father and Dr. D proceeded to tell him that police did not need to be called, to go to sleep and file an Administrative Report with his Employer via his HR Channel (not a crime report) at his earliest convenience, which is precisely what MM did. Again, according to doo-doo brains very own logic, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov clearly didn't think MM witnessed a crime given their recommendations! Go figure!
The only parties Mike McQueary spoke with who claim that he says he saw a sexual assault crime were the OAG Investigators -- IOW 10-years AFTER THE FACT. Every single person MM spoke with contemporaneous with the event or in the days following the event IN 2001 say that MM never reported seeing a crime! Go figure, doo-doo brains thinks testimony a decade later is more reliable than contemporaneous testimony, LMFAO!
Let's be clear. I disagree vehemently with Spanier on important philosophical grounds as it relates to his job. My impression of him was that he was arrogant. However, since this mess started, he has shown nothing but courage and integrity. He's the least culpable person in this whole saga.
Had the BOT let Spanier lead, had it let Joe have his PC and finish out the year, the focus would have shifted away from Penn State and landed squarely on TSM where it belonged. The university's good name would have remained intact and PSU wouldn't have had to pay out a dime.
The BOT made the decision to surrender the university's good name. It did so without a fight. In fact, it paid Louis Freeh to guarantee that outcome.
Since you seem to be profiting from the status quo, I must assume you know something I don't. I also assume your purpose and the purpose of Sarah Ganim is to keep us talking about this false narrative to keep us from asking why the university paid out $250 million over three specious misdemeanors. I must also assume the BOT has gotten its money's worth.
Should we talk about something more important than the implications of Paterno's possible awareness of an earlier incident....an incident of which the police were exponentially more knowledgeable, and an incident in which Sandusky was cleared of any wrongdoing?
Let's talk about why the BOT thought that throwing away a quarter of a billion $$$ was sound stewardship of the university's interests. Let's talk about why Jack Raykovitz is being held accountable for nothing, when he was informed of Sandusky's behavior and took specific steps to enable it. Let's talk about Tom Corbett's role in this. This article came out when it did to serve the narrative. Let's talk about why that might be.
Then why didn't they do it themselves? What was stopping them? From a moral standpoint, who's more of a mandatory reporter than the victim's own mother?
Disagree. A soon as Spanier knew that someone associated with PSU was being investigated for child sex abuse, he should have started preparation to defend the university, whether those preparations would have been needed of not. Instead, he blithely dismissed the possibility that the shit could have hit the fan. That's what the University wound up paying for. The man was an idiot, but not for the reasons the resident dipshit thinks.
It seems GMJ is very comfortable keeping this conversation circle jerking with C/S/S and PSU. How about we move this conversation to the PA foster care/adoption system and how it failed at all levels concerning JS. To anyone's knowledge, is it possible to file a RTK for the paperwork for each of JS's foster children and adoptions without signatures and names of who signed off redacted?
Do you really not understand that many victims of abuse don't tell a soul what happened? Apparently not...carry on though.
One did report Sandusky. There was an investigation. They said, "Unfounded complaint". She said, Okay.
Then money was offered and the tune changed
Holy crap, you can't be serious? This is why I can't talk to you about any of this. I know where you are going and it's pathetic.
Jerry is a serial pedophile. Accept it.
I believe this is what Indy is referring to:
Let's talk about why the BOT thought that throwing away a quarter of a billion $$$ was sound stewardship of the university's interests. Let's talk about why Jack Raykovitz is being held accountable for nothing, when he was informed of Sandusky's behavior and took specific steps to enable it. Let's talk about Tom Corbett's role in this. This article came out when it did to serve the narrative. Let's talk about why that might be.
From Indy's earlier post.
The victims? Are you for real? Or you're mad at the mothers who didn't know. Either way you wear that badge with some honor. BRAVO!!!
Why do those who placed foster children and allowed JS to ADDOPT these kids continue to get a pass? These were supposedly the real experts.
V6's mother tracked Sandusky down to get football tickets so her son could see Jerry coach his last game in Beaver stadium. This is after she initiated the '98 investigation. Don't you think she knew more about what was going on than the 75 year old football coach?
V6 texted Sandusky on Father's Day, 2011 to say how blessed he was to have Jerry in his life. 2011!!
So five years after Paterno's death, CNN publishes a Sarah Ganim article trying to make a big deal that Joe might have known of an investigation that culminated in absolutely nothing happening to anyone as though there's some significance to it. Why? Why now?
You are so right! Joe would have spoken his usual magic words that would have made this all go away. And every CFB team in the nation would have been lining up to have the opportunity to play PSU with Joe at the helm so that he could finish out on his own terms. The s*it storm would have all just have disappeared.
Yet Bozeman's buddy Ray Blehar believes Jerry Sandusky lied and continues to lie about the identity of the boy. I have no idea why Sandusky would possibly do that unless McQueary really did witness a rape. Of course, the much better explanation is that the boy really was Allan Myers.
regardless of what is stated now by anyone, the fact remains that the physics of the locker room makes Mike's "testimony" impossible.
FTR I think there is no doubt V2 is AM.
Well, we established that "Victim" 6's mother didn't. And from what I understand, Aaron Fisher's mother wants no part of hearing any information that indicates that her son may not have been abused. She just wants to keep that cash.
So now you're going to argue that a child's mother can't possibly figure out that her child may have been the victim of abuse, but the college football coach was so he should be the one responsible for making sure it gets reported.
Wait till I write that one down.
Similar threads
