ADVERTISEMENT

Deleted

I think the OAG is looking at "inaction" in the same way as a blatant cover up.

This will be interesting. If my comment above is correct, and they can convince a jury, C/S/S will go down on those charges.


MISSING POINT - 5 years in the making - What LEGAL evidence (REPEAT, since it seems so "irrelevant" to the public in general) WHAT LEGAL evidence did C/S/S have in 2001......(Remember, it took a TEAM of crack PA criminal Experts to build a legal case against Sandusky)....on which to take LEGAL action?

IT IS 2001 remember.....NO NAME...no reasonable indication that anything illegal had happened. At the time....Sandusky is considered a "Point-of-Light" do-gooder who is a pillar of the community!!!

Our current public perception of "criminality" by PSU has been created by a carefully crafted campaign of misinformation, lies and media produced "edited realities" (meaning - key words "conveniently" left out of their texts) so as to create the "Story" used to replace reality and the proper workings of our American legal system.

Instead the public has been fed and bought into an illusion that promotes "Media Reality" (propaganda) - all designed to cover up the real crimes conducted by PA where "Kids-for-Cash" is an "OK" way for state agencies to operate.

So what we need to understand is that in 2001 - when C/S/S took action on Sandusky's "reported concerns", the US was under standards that were based upon "a nation under a rule of law" - not today's standards of "...what does Stephen A. Smith..." say is politically correct!
 
OAG ties Jerry Sandusky cover-up prosecution to Catholic church sex-abuse case

Here we go my fellow siblings...the new OAG "play" is in motion.

“I'll have grounds
More relative than this—the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King”.


Attorney General ties Jerry Sandusky cover-up prosecution to Catholic church sex-abuse case

18517897-mmmain.jpg

Gary Schultz, left, is Penn State's former vice president; Graham Spanier, center, is the university's former president; and Tim Curley is the former director of athletics. (AP File Photo)

By Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com The Patriot-News
Follow on Twitter
on August 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM, updated August 25, 2016 at 6:40 AM
comments
Penn State and Jerry Sandusky


State prosecutors are asking a trial judge to proceed with child endangerment charges against three former Penn State administrators charged as a result of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

The state's response, filed last Tuesday under seal, was made public Wednesday by Dauphin County court officials.

Prosecutors say the remaining counts against former Penn State President Graham Spanier and two of his top aides are justified by precedents set in the 2012 conviction of a high-ranking Catholic church official in Philadelphia.

In that case, former Msgr. William Lynn was found guilty of child endangerment because he had reassigned priests who'd had credible sexual abuse allegations lodged against them to new jobs where they could continue to prey on children.

Lynn's conviction was seen as a landmark in sexual abuse cases, because he was the first high-ranking church official in the United States to be convicted based on the actions of his subordinates.

But the monsignor, the Penn State defendants argued in motions to kill their cases last month, was, by virtue of his duty to investigating misconduct by priests and decide on their punishment and/or treatment, directly responsible for the actions of those priests.

That nexis, the defendants' attorneys have argued, doesn't necessarily apply to the former Penn State leaders, who had no direct role in investigating allegations of child abuse.

Spanier, former Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Senior Vice President Gary Schultz also did not have the same level of supervision over Sandusky, who at the time in question was a retiree with access to campus facilities, the defense attorneys said.

Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, however, pointing to February 2001 emails threads that show the three men collaborating on a plan to not report an eyewitness's report against Sandusky to police or child welfare officials, argued they had a direct opportunity to catch a predator right then, and passed.

Sandusky went on to sexually abuse several more boys after 2001, and his access to Penn State teams, athletic events and facilities is considered a major factor in helping to lure them in.

When the administrators decided to handle the Mike McQueary report in-house, Ditka wrote, "they assumed the duty to ensure the matter was handled thoroughly and correctly and cannot now shrug off the responsibility that they chose to assume."

Whether Sandusky was still an employee at Penn State or not, she added, the administrators collectively "still had the duty to ensure that the allegations of sexual improprieties... were fully investigated and that sexual predators were excluded from the facilities for which they were responsible."

(The Lynn conviction, ironically, has since been reversed on other grounds, though state Supreme Court findings that Lynn as a supervisor could be held criminally liable for the actions of his subordinates are still intact.)

The prosecution also argues that it doesn't matter that Pennsylvania's child endangerment statute did not include supervisors of those who have committed bad acts until 2006, five years after the McQueary report.

Because the 2001 charge against Sandusky was never reported and Sandusky still enjoyed access to Penn State facilities after the law was broadened, the endangerment was ongoing and the defendants are properly charged, Ditka argues.

On a third point, the prosecution asserts a companion count of failure to report suspected child abuse is not time-barred - even if the triggering event occurred in 2001 - because if the report is never made, the failure to report is also an ongoing course of conduct.

The court can make these findings, the prosecution asserts, because of precedents holding that laws concerning child abuse are protective in nature, and should be applied in the context of their "broad purpose of sheltering children from harm."

In her latest filing, Ditka is trying to preserve what's left of a long-running case that took a major blow this winter, when a Superior Court panel tossed perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz, ruling that mistakes made during the 2012 grand jury testimony of the Penn State officials violated attorney / client privilege rules.

Then, in a decision that rankled several prosecutors who had worked on the Penn State probe, then-Attorney General Kathleen Kane's Solicitor General, Bruce Castor, opted not to appeal the Superior Court decision to the state Supreme Court.

The remaining child endangerment and failure to report counts, however, are still significant to all sides in the Sandusky case.

Spanier and his former aides are doing everything they can to be completely exonerated from criminal liability in the sordid Sandusky scandal.

They've maintained they had no idea about the scope of Sandusky's alleged abuses, and believe the record shows they made a thoughtful attempt to deal seriously with a bad situation.

Meanwhile many of Sandusky's victims, and victim's right groups more generally, are interested in seeing that anyone with direct responsibility for Sandusky's long run as a serial predator is held accountable.

The next set of decisions in the case is up to a new face in the Sandusky case, retired Berks County Judge John Boccabella. Boccabella was appointed to the Penn State administrators' case earlier this summer after Dauphin County judges recused themselves.

Link: http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/08/attorney_generals_office_hinge.html


Just more ENGINEERED emotionally toned words and images designed to appeal to and influence a brain dead public...."it is reasonable to assume..." now replaces facts and logic in our courts.

This entire case has been built on creating public "DECEPTION" by all means possible. Just a continuation of this "Master Plan" used for the past 5 years.

This Plan realizes that once you get the public to buy into the concept that "Laws Don't Matter"...."Facts don't matter"....the deception "Story" is a great way to insure all the core concepts of American Justice are abandoned.

More proof that something started 5 years ago is alive and well in 2016.....Hail the new American standards based upon the "Golden Age of Political Corruption".
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69 and tgar
I think the OAG is looking at "inaction" in the same way as a blatant cover up.

This will be interesting. If my comment above is correct, and they can convince a jury, C/S/S will go down on those charges.

well, there only evidence of inaction is the out-of-context email from Freeh. But they did tell TSM that their founder and employee had an accusation. "Lack of Action" is a very dangerous and slippery slope. If your neighbor is creepy and you don't call the cops are you in trouble? Once again, it will come down to the credibility of MM's initial statements. This will come under great scrutiny by good lawyers. With JS's appeal and possible retrial, do they want to go down this path?
 
The article states that Sandusky still had access to Penn State facilities after the 2001 incident. I thought that he was told not to bring kids to campus anymore, and he did just that. Seems that charge is off base.

MM himself testified at the 12/16/11 prelim that he never once saw JS around the football program again with kids after his 2001 report.

As others have said, I'm not surprised the main stream media isn't down in the weeds and asking questions about TSM and how not one single person from there was scrutinized or charged, but how in the hell is not one single local media entity not concerned with this??? Why aren't they outraged that JR/Poole/Heim never found out who JS was with that night and why TSM didn't inform CC CYS of the incident as required by law??

The spin the local media tried to put on the conspiracy, perjury, etc. charges being quashed was pathetic...these men had their constitutional rights flagrantly violated and the media spun it as a technicality.

This really is bizarro world stuff.

It's beyond me how any competent/non corrupt Judge can read Ditka's response and agree with it's merits. This case should have been tossed YEARS ago.
 
MM himself testified at the 12/16/11 prelim that he never once saw JS around the football program again with kids after his 2001 report.

As others have said, I'm not surprised the main stream media isn't down in the weeds and asking questions about TSM and how not one single person from there was scrutinized or charged, but how in the hell is not one single local media entity not concerned with this??? Why aren't they outraged that JR/Poole/Heim never found out who JS was with that night and why TSM didn't inform CC CYS of the incident as required by law??

The spin the local media tried to put on the conspiracy, perjury, etc. charges being quashed was pathetic...these men had their constitutional rights flagrantly violated and the media spun it as a technicality.

This really is bizarro world stuff.

It's beyond me how any competent/non corrupt Judge can read Ditka's response and agree with it's merits. This case should have been tossed YEARS ago.
Not only Ditka......but that brief also has Bruce Castor's name attached ( even though he just became "poohbah", and is about to become the shortest-tenured leader since the Pope who got the Russian Flu)

Who the actual authors are - who actually put that document together, and under who's directive? IDK

But both of those names are on the document
 
When does Corbett get charged for two years of inaction while Jerry was allegedly abusing V9?

Let's pressure our local reps to pass a law that punishes such inactions with the death penalty, ex post facto. Same for public officials trading porn.
 
The AG's Jerk-off-gymnastics in trying to contort the entire MandReporter and SOL issues.......is laughable. That much has always been obvious

But the crux of the matter is this:

The AG position, ever since Linda Kelly, has been, essentially, "CSS knew Sandusky was diddling kids, and covered it up"
5 years later, and dozens of briefs, and a handful of court appearances, etc etc etc - - - and they have yet to bring forth one piece of evidence to support those claims

As the "Wendys Ladies" said: "Where's the [f$cking] beef?"

The Fina Boys yapped about their "slam dunk case" :) and can't put forth shit?
Where are their mountains of evidence?

They fixin' on getting around to THAT sooner or later? Or, do they consider that their "Mission Accomplished" is already complete?
'Cause they surely have never acted like folks ready willing or able to actually put on a case
 
MM himself testified at the 12/16/11 prelim that he never once saw JS around the football program again with kids after his 2001 report.

As others have said, I'm not surprised the main stream media isn't down in the weeds and asking questions about TSM and how not one single person from there was scrutinized or charged, but how in the hell is not one single local media entity not concerned with this??? Why aren't they outraged that JR/Poole/Heim never found out who JS was with that night and why TSM didn't inform CC CYS of the incident as required by law??

The spin the local media tried to put on the conspiracy, perjury, etc. charges being quashed was pathetic...these men had their constitutional rights flagrantly violated and the media spun it as a technicality.

This really is bizarro world stuff.

It's beyond me how any competent/non corrupt Judge can read Ditka's response and agree with it's merits. This case should have been tossed YEARS ago.

Raykovitz knew who Sandusky was with because Sandusky told him as soon as he was confronted by Raykovitz way back in 2001. That's why Raykovitz fluffed it off. He knew they were basically like father and son.

Sandusky even offered to have Myers explain what happened to anyone that wanted to listen, but Raykovitz told him not to worry about it. This may have been the same conversation where Raykovitz told him to just wear swim trunks the next time.

This is on tape coming from Sandusky, but it makes more sense that he would tell Raykovitz who he was with then that he wouldn't.
 
OAG ties Jerry Sandusky cover-up prosecution to Catholic church sex-abuse case

Here we go my fellow siblings...the new OAG "play" is in motion.

“I'll have grounds
More relative than this—the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King”.


Attorney General ties Jerry Sandusky cover-up prosecution to Catholic church sex-abuse case

18517897-mmmain.jpg

Gary Schultz, left, is Penn State's former vice president; Graham Spanier, center, is the university's former president; and Tim Curley is the former director of athletics. (AP File Photo)

By Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com The Patriot-News
Follow on Twitter
on August 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM, updated August 25, 2016 at 6:40 AM
comments
Penn State and Jerry Sandusky

State prosecutors are asking a trial judge to proceed with child endangerment charges against three former Penn State administrators charged as a result of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

The state's response, filed last Tuesday under seal, was made public Wednesday by Dauphin County court officials.

Prosecutors say the remaining counts against former Penn State President Graham Spanier and two of his top aides are justified by precedents set in the 2012 conviction of a high-ranking Catholic church official in Philadelphia.

In that case, former Msgr. William Lynn was found guilty of child endangerment because he had reassigned priests who'd had credible sexual abuse allegations lodged against them to new jobs where they could continue to prey on children.

Lynn's conviction was seen as a landmark in sexual abuse cases, because he was the first high-ranking church official in the United States to be convicted based on the actions of his subordinates.

But the monsignor, the Penn State defendants argued in motions to kill their cases last month, was, by virtue of his duty to investigating misconduct by priests and decide on their punishment and/or treatment, directly responsible for the actions of those priests.

That nexis, the defendants' attorneys have argued, doesn't necessarily apply to the former Penn State leaders, who had no direct role in investigating allegations of child abuse.

Spanier, former Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Senior Vice President Gary Schultz also did not have the same level of supervision over Sandusky, who at the time in question was a retiree with access to campus facilities, the defense attorneys said.

Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, however, pointing to February 2001 emails threads that show the three men collaborating on a plan to not report an eyewitness's report against Sandusky to police or child welfare officials, argued they had a direct opportunity to catch a predator right then, and passed.

Sandusky went on to sexually abuse several more boys after 2001, and his access to Penn State teams, athletic events and facilities is considered a major factor in helping to lure them in.

When the administrators decided to handle the Mike McQueary report in-house, Ditka wrote, "they assumed the duty to ensure the matter was handled thoroughly and correctly and cannot now shrug off the responsibility that they chose to assume."

Whether Sandusky was still an employee at Penn State or not, she added, the administrators collectively "still had the duty to ensure that the allegations of sexual improprieties... were fully investigated and that sexual predators were excluded from the facilities for which they were responsible."

(The Lynn conviction, ironically, has since been reversed on other grounds, though state Supreme Court findings that Lynn as a supervisor could be held criminally liable for the actions of his subordinates are still intact.)

The prosecution also argues that it doesn't matter that Pennsylvania's child endangerment statute did not include supervisors of those who have committed bad acts until 2006, five years after the McQueary report.

Because the 2001 charge against Sandusky was never reported and Sandusky still enjoyed access to Penn State facilities after the law was broadened, the endangerment was ongoing and the defendants are properly charged, Ditka argues.

On a third point, the prosecution asserts a companion count of failure to report suspected child abuse is not time-barred - even if the triggering event occurred in 2001 - because if the report is never made, the failure to report is also an ongoing course of conduct.

The court can make these findings, the prosecution asserts, because of precedents holding that laws concerning child abuse are protective in nature, and should be applied in the context of their "broad purpose of sheltering children from harm."

In her latest filing, Ditka is trying to preserve what's left of a long-running case that took a major blow this winter, when a Superior Court panel tossed perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz, ruling that mistakes made during the 2012 grand jury testimony of the Penn State officials violated attorney / client privilege rules.

Then, in a decision that rankled several prosecutors who had worked on the Penn State probe, then-Attorney General Kathleen Kane's Solicitor General, Bruce Castor, opted not to appeal the Superior Court decision to the state Supreme Court.

The remaining child endangerment and failure to report counts, however, are still significant to all sides in the Sandusky case.

Spanier and his former aides are doing everything they can to be completely exonerated from criminal liability in the sordid Sandusky scandal.

They've maintained they had no idea about the scope of Sandusky's alleged abuses, and believe the record shows they made a thoughtful attempt to deal seriously with a bad situation.

Meanwhile many of Sandusky's victims, and victim's right groups more generally, are interested in seeing that anyone with direct responsibility for Sandusky's long run as a serial predator is held accountable.

The next set of decisions in the case is up to a new face in the Sandusky case, retired Berks County Judge John Boccabella. Boccabella was appointed to the Penn State administrators' case earlier this summer after Dauphin County judges recused themselves.

Link: http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/08/attorney_generals_office_hinge.html
Serious question: Why is Charlie the Tuna still employed?
 
When does Corbett get charged for two years of inaction while Jerry was allegedly abusing V9?

Let's pressure our local reps to pass a law that punishes such inactions with the death penalty, ex post facto. Same for public officials trading porn.

In addition to that, I wonder how much tax payer money has gone into this bungled prosecution? 1 million, 2, 3?? All to what end? To throw the book at some college admins that will do nothing to fix the broken CYS system in PA.

The citizens of PA should be outraged but they are being placated by the broken/corrupt media.
 
Well, that would only be the case if you buy into the tortured logic involved in establishing Schultz as a "law enforcement official", as opposed to a "university administrator". :)

jeez...yeah. His office description said he was the "top law enforcement officer", or something similar to that, when he was in office. I bookmarked the web site but it has since been taken down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Also, I don't know how the OAG could possibly equate MM's vague assumption riddled report as a "credible sexual abuse allegation" when he never even so much as filed a written statement to police about it (well, not until 9 YEARS later) or placed an anonymous call to Childline, or the number of other options he had if he really was concerned with what JS was doing that night and wanted him thoroughly investigated.

It's kinda hard for law enforcement or anyone else to do anything when the one and only witness never submits a statement on the record to authorities and instead handles it as an inappropriate HR matter by telling his boss, a football coach the next day. Even with that course of action PSU admins still treated the report seriously, engaged in outside council and reported the incident OUTSIDE of PSU to the child care experts and mandatory reporters at TSM. And yet the OAG still wants to throw the book at the college admins instead of TSM/CYS/DPW.
 
jeez...yeah. His office description said he was the "top law enforcement officer", or something similar to that, when he was in office. I bookmarked the web site but it has since been taken down.

"The Senior Vice President for Finance & Business/Treasurer is responsible for the management of Finance & Business and the strategic planning process for the unit, which includes the offices of Auxiliary and Business Services, Commonwealth Operations, Corporate Controller, Diversity and Inclusion, Enterprise Project Management, Ethics and Compliance, Human Resources, Internal Audit, Investment Management, Physical Plant, and University Police and Public Safety. The position also leads financial, endowment, business and administrative activities at all Penn State campuses. In this capacity, the position serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the Penn State Hershey Medical Center and the Penn State Hershey Health System. In addition, the position serves as a member of the President’s Council, the Penn State Investment Council, and the Board of Directors for the Corporation for Penn State."

Referring to the Sr VP - Finance & Business as a "Police Officer" or "Law Enforcement" would make about as much sense as referring to him as a "Professional Engineer" (since his ADMINSTRATIVE duties also include oversight of the Physical Plant), or a "Physician" (since he has oversight responsibilities for the Medical Center)
 
Commonwealth's response to C/S/S pre-trial motions made public today. Roberto and Farrell requested a chance to respond by Sep 2.

The prosecution also argues that it doesn't matter that Pennsylvania's child endangerment statute did not include supervisors of those who have committed bad acts until 2006, five years after the McQueary report.

Because the 2001 charge against Sandusky was never reported and Sandusky still enjoyed access to Penn State facilities after the law was broadened, the endangerment was ongoing and the defendants are properly charged, Ditka argues.

On a third point, the prosecution asserts a companion count of failure to report suspected child abuse is not time-barred - even if the triggering event occurred in 2001 - because if the report is never made, the failure to report is also an ongoing course of conduct.

.

So does this mean I am still guilty of not reporting multiple cases of underage drinking 45 years ago because my statute of limitations doesn't start until I actually report it? Or does this mean I am safe because underage drinking actually WAS a crime 45 years ago, whereas in the cases of C/S/S, they aren't safe because what they did WASN'T a crime in 2001, but they should have known that it would be 5 years later?

I'm not an attorney, but this thing looks beyond laughable. 99% of the people on this Board know that this thing was never handled strictly "in-house". Even that village idiot Freeh had to admit that. Maybe a good, qualified attorney can dissect this thing for us because on its face, it looks down right comical, and just another gargantuan waste of everyone's money.

Did actual adults really write that thing?????
 
"The Senior Vice President for Finance & Business/Treasurer is responsible for the management of Finance & Business and the strategic planning process for the unit, which includes the offices of Auxiliary and Business Services, Commonwealth Operations, Corporate Controller, Diversity and Inclusion, Enterprise Project Management, Ethics and Compliance, Human Resources, Internal Audit, Investment Management, Physical Plant, and University Police and Public Safety. The position also leads financial, endowment, business and administrative activities at all Penn State campuses. In this capacity, the position serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the Penn State Hershey Medical Center and the Penn State Hershey Health System. In addition, the position serves as a member of the President’s Council, the Penn State Investment Council, and the Board of Directors for the Corporation for Penn State."

Referring to the Sr VP - Finance & Business as a "Police Officer" or "Law Enforcement" would make about as much sense as referring to him as a "Professional Engineer" (since his ADMINSTRATIVE duties also include oversight of the Physical Plant), or a "Physician" (since he has oversight responsibilities for the Medical Center)

What is the date of that description? You've got to go back to the 2001 description and I am 100% sure that is not the one from then. At that time, they referred to Schultz office as the top cop as he owned the resources to investigate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
1. Let's not derail the thread with the whole "was Gary Schultz a cop or not" debate. Everyone agrees that he was at least "the head of police," and now the state is arguing that he was a "law enforcement official."

2. Question. Did any of the motions acknowledge that PSU reported the 2001 incident outside the university to Jerry's employer at The Second Mile where Bruce Heim openly admits to killing the report?
 
1. Let's not derail the thread with the whole "was Gary Schultz a cop or not" debate. Everyone agrees that he was at least "the head of police," and now the state is arguing that he was a "law enforcement official."

2. Question. Did any of the motions acknowledge that PSU reported the 2001 incident outside the university to Jerry's employer at The Second Mile where Bruce Heim openly admits to killing the report?

There has been, and is today, a Chief of Police at University Park......and it ain't (and never was) the Senior VP Finance.

The Senior VP Finance is an administrative position.....which overseas (among other things):
Internal Audit
Information Technology
Physical Plant
Auxiliary and Business Services
Diversity and Ethics (a couple of "new" ones in recent years)
Investment Management
Finance and Business for the Commonwealth Campuses
Human Resources
Finance and Business for the Hershey Medical Center
Corporate Controller
Risk Management
etc
AND (in 2001)
Police Services

Yep, that sounds like the job description of a "Top Cop" :)

The next time I see a "Law Enforcement Official" with those job responsibilities, will be the first time :)


Now, as to your broader point......

"....Let's not derail the thread with the whole "was Gary Schultz a cop or not" debate..."

Absolutely agree
It is a silly premise...and not worthy of any "debate".

And, of even greater impact, your "point #2":

".... Did any of the motions acknowledge that PSU reported the 2001 incident outside the university to Jerry's employer at The Second Mile where Bruce Heim openly admits to killing the report?.."

Is a 1000X more germane issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
1. Let's not derail the thread with the whole "was Gary Schultz a cop or not" debate. Everyone agrees that he was at least "the head of police," and now the state is arguing that he was a "law enforcement official."

2. Question. Did any of the motions acknowledge that PSU reported the 2001 incident outside the university to Jerry's employer at The Second Mile where Bruce Heim openly admits to killing the report?

As to your point 2, that's just one of the many statements in this Filing that make it so laughable.

What's beyond bizarre crazy is that in 1998, a licensed child welfare official knew the name of the kid, the actions involved, and not only verbally told Sandusky, but went so far as actually sending an official letter to Sandusky telling him he did nothing wrong (Lauro).

In 2001, another licensed child welfare official knew the actions involved, the child's name, and didn't even want to talk to the kid. Merely told Sandusky to just wear swim trunks the next time. (Raykovitz).

So who does the State waste all this taxpayer money on???? Three guys who actually followed the laws as they were written in 2001. This kind of fantasy wouldn't even fly on an old Perry Mason movie.
 
There has been, and is today, a Chief of Police at University Park......and it ain't (and never was) the Senior VP Finance.

The Senior VP Finance is an administrative position.....which overseas (among other things):
Internal Audit
Information Technology
Physical Plant
Auxiliary and Business Services
Diversity and Ethics (a couple of "new" ones in recent years)
Investment Management
Finance and Business for the Commonwealth Campuses
Human Resources
Finance and Business for the Hershey Medical Center
Corporate Controller
Risk Management
etc
AND (in 2001)
Police Services

Yep, that sounds like the job description of a "Top Cop" :)

The next time I see a "Law Enforcement Official" with those job responsibilities, will be the first time :)


Now, as to your broader point......

"....Let's not derail the thread with the whole "was Gary Schultz a cop or not" debate..."

Absolutely agree
It is a silly premise...and not worthy of any "debate".

And, of even greater impact, your "point #2":

".... Did any of the motions acknowledge that PSU reported the 2001 incident outside the university to Jerry's employer at The Second Mile where Bruce Heim openly admits to killing the report?.."

Is a 1000X more germane issue

Listen, bud. You are just plain wrong. You can talk all you want about his administrative duties but that's what the description of the office was in 2001, I've read it with mine own beady eyes. Regardless, those resources were as his disposal 7x24 and he was often informed of campus security issues. Of those issues, it was HIS responsibility to report them up to the President (Spanier) when the need arose. He then could call on hundreds of resources within the University and outside the university.

The question was then and is today "What is a cop?" Who has ultimate responsibility? Is a meter maid a cop? the person that answers the phone on 9-1-1? Jerry Orbach? Fact is, at PSU, they ALL funneled up to Schultz who had the ultimate authority on what to do.

Case closed.
 
As to your point 2, that's just one of the many statements in this Filing that make it so laughable.

What's beyond bizarre crazy is that in 1998, a licensed child welfare official knew the name of the kid, the actions involved, and not only verbally told Sandusky, but went so far as actually sending an official letter to Sandusky telling him he did nothing wrong (Lauro).

In 2001, another licensed child welfare official knew the actions involved, the child's name, and didn't even want to talk to the kid. Merely told Sandusky to just wear swim trunks the next time. (Raykovitz).

So who does the State waste all this taxpayer money on???? Three guys who actually followed the laws as they were written in 2001. This kind of fantasy wouldn't even fly on an old Perry Mason movie.
Whatever C or S or S did or didn't do in 2001 (or 2000, or 1999, or 1988.......), when you charge someone with a crime, you are SUPPOSED to have evidence to back it up.

FWIW.....I have always been hesitant to write off the POSSIBILITY that the Fina Boys have some actual evidence linking CSS to some significant overt or covert act of malfeasance (throughout this entire fiasco, I think there is very little that should be written off out-of-hand - - - given the numerous twists and turns, and the never-ending obfuscations we have witnessed).

However, that possibility - the possibility that the Fina Boys have actual evidence to back up their claims - becomes increasingly more and more difficult to give any weight to:
- Given the quality of the "evidence" :) compiled through the Freeh Report
- Along with the inability or unwillingness (has to be one or the other) of the Fina Boys to actually present any meaningful evidence.

At this point, if one is to make exception for that possibility (the possibility that such evidence exists), one would have to assume that the Fina Boys had actual evidence of malfeasance - - - and yet chose to use Cindy Baldwin's (clearly inadmissible) "I decided I didn't really like Spanier" testimony, along with decade old "he said/she said" word parsing (from both the recollections of witnesses, and the e-mail searches) to build the foundation of their case.
All while deciding to keep all of their "real evidence" under wraps for 5 years.

Unless the Fina Boys elected to deliberately tank their "slam dunk case" (is that a possibility?), its kinda' hard to reconcile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Misder2
Sandusky went on to sexually abuse several more boys after 2001, and his access to Penn State teams, athletic events and facilities is considered a major factor in helping to lure them in.

Too bad that "his access to-Penn State facilities" ended in 2001.

And I'm not entirely sure, but I'm pretty sure AT LEAST 107,000 people have access to Penn State athletic events each week in the fall.
 
Listen, bud. You are just plain wrong. You can talk all you want about his administrative duties but that's what the description of the office was in 2001, I've read it with mine own beady eyes. Regardless, those resources were as his disposal 7x24 and he was often informed of campus security issues. Of those issues, it was HIS responsibility to report them up to the President (Spanier) when the need arose. He then could call on hundreds of resources within the University and outside the university.

The question was then and is today "What is a cop?" Who has ultimate responsibility? Is a meter maid a cop? the person that answers the phone on 9-1-1? Jerry Orbach? Fact is, at PSU, they ALL funneled up to Schultz who had the ultimate authority on what to do. [Uh....didn't you just write that "...it was his responsibility to report them up to Spanier..."? :) Anyway, no need to digress into a circle-jerk ]

Case closed.
Was Spanier a "top cop"?

Your argument is even stronger wrt HIS position

How about the PSU BOT Chairman? Was he a "top cop"?

Unless you want to start bringing God, and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court into it.....the BOT Chair is the top dog for oversight within the entire University structure.

LOL

Enjoy.....I don't need to spend any more time on this issue.
It is too reminiscent of "TOS" old message board.
 
Prosecutors say the remaining counts against former Penn State President Graham Spanier and two of his top aides are justified by precedents set in the 2012 conviction of a high-ranking Catholic church official in Philadelphia.

In that case, former Msgr. William Lynn was found guilty of child endangerment because he had reassigned priests who'd had credible sexual abuse allegations lodged against them to new jobs where they could continue to prey on children.

Lynn's conviction was seen as a landmark in sexual abuse cases, because he was the first high-ranking church official in the United States to be convicted based on the actions of his subordinates.

(The Lynn conviction, ironically, has since been reversed on other grounds, though state Supreme Court findings that Lynn as a supervisor could be held criminally liable for the actions of his subordinates are still intact.)
The non lawyers on this Board might find this subject exceedingly dry (read: boring), but I am amazed at the notion that there is Pennsylvania case law holding that a supervisor could be held criminally liable for the actions of his subordinates. I have not read the Lynn opinion, and am wondering if news reports have inaccurately characterized it.

It is one thing to hold someone vicariously liable in a civil case. Dad entrusts the family car to his son, who goes out and runs someone over. Dad is held vicariously liable for the damages sustained by the person his son ran over, on the grounds that dad was negligent in entrusting the car to his son. Employer is held vicariously liable for sexual harassment of one employee by another, on the grounds that the employer had notice of harassment and failed to do anything to stop it. Cases like those are common.

But in the criminal context (where a finding of liability typically has much more profound consequences for the defendant than in a civil case), the law quite reasonably demands a bit more before imposing criminal liability on a defendant. Hence the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (as imposed to the preponderance of evidence standard in most civil cases). Not only that, but most criminal statutes require that the defendant commit some criminal act, and that the act be committed with criminal intent.

In the Lynn case, Monsignor Lynn was the supervisor of the clergy members who committed the sexual assaults, and he apparently reassigned them to other positions (where they could continue their depredations) even though he knew they had committed such assaults. At least there was an affirmative act on Lynn's part (the reassignments) upon which to premise criminal intent and liability.

I see no affirmative act in C/S/S's case. If anything, we are talking about an omission (the failure to report or further investigate an assault which had already occurred) rather than an affirmative act. Although the fallure to report or investigate could, at least arguably, have facilitated further assaults by Sandusky, the courts put us on a very slippery slope when defendants are found criminally liable for the acts of others, particularly if there is no conspiracy or other affirmative act upon which to premise a finding of criminal liability. Consider the implications of this ruling for people who witness (but fail to report) criminal activity. Are they now to be held vicariously liable for the underlying crime due to their failure to report it? Does this duty apply if they are former supervisors of the perpetrator? Seems to me that the Commonwealth's attorneys are stretching things a bit farther than they should go.
 
Last edited:
Was Spanier a "top cop"?

Your argument is even stronger wrt HIS position

How about the PSU BOT Chairman? Was he a "top cop"?

Unless you want to start bringing God, and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court into it.....the BOT Chair is the top dog for oversight within the entire University structure.

LOL

Enjoy.....I don't need to spend any more time on this issue.
It is too reminiscent of "TOS" old message board.

Of course....so who is a "cop?" Clearly, Schultz was brought in as a person that a "cop" would have informed anyway. So Schultz had the power to call in whomever he wanted. He could go up (to Spanier) or down (to an investigator). Regardless, he was the cop in charge. At the very least, in charge of the cops in charge. So Paterno did inform a "cop" no matter how you want to define that term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
Pitiot stupid post of day: "A lack of proof doesn't equal innocence". These people are so stupit thank God put most of them in one idiot den.
 
Of course....so who is a "cop?" Clearly, Schultz was brought in as a person that a "cop" would have informed anyway. So Schultz had the power to call in whomever he wanted. He could go up (to Spanier) or down (to an investigator). Regardless, he was the cop in charge. At the very least, in charge of the cops in charge. So Paterno did inform a "cop" no matter how you want to define that term.
Uh....ok :)

 
Listen, bud. You are just plain wrong. You can talk all you want about his administrative duties but that's what the description of the office was in 2001, I've read it with mine own beady eyes. Regardless, those resources were as his disposal 7x24 and he was often informed of campus security issues. Of those issues, it was HIS responsibility to report them up to the President (Spanier) when the need arose. He then could call on hundreds of resources within the University and outside the university.

The question was then and is today "What is a cop?" Who has ultimate responsibility? Is a meter maid a cop? the person that answers the phone on 9-1-1? Jerry Orbach? Fact is, at PSU, they ALL funneled up to Schultz who had the ultimate authority on what to do.

Case closed.

Honest question...do you need pass a course and/or be 'certified' in some way to be a police officer. IE...the head administrator of a hospital is not a doctor (assuming he didn't goto med school and actually was a doctor) because he is not licensed. Don't policeman have to licensed in some way. And if Schultz was not licensed police officer, he was not the top cop.
 
On a separate note, I do agree it would be interesting if this went to trial as C/S/S lawyers are NOT going to be Amendola like incompetent. Getting MM on the stand and getting grilled by a really good defense lawyer would be extremely informative. Also be great if they called Corbett to the stand and grilled him on what he knows about JS and why it took so long, etc...
 
There has been, and is today, a Chief of Police at University Park......and it ain't (and never was) the Senior VP Finance.

The Senior VP Finance is an administrative position.....which overseas (among other things):
Internal Audit
Information Technology
Physical Plant
Auxiliary and Business Services
Diversity and Ethics (a couple of "new" ones in recent years)
Investment Management
Finance and Business for the Commonwealth Campuses
Human Resources
Finance and Business for the Hershey Medical Center
Corporate Controller
Risk Management
etc
AND (in 2001)
Police Services

Yep, that sounds like the job description of a "Top Cop" :)

The next time I see a "Law Enforcement Official" with those job responsibilities, will be the first time :)


Now, as to your broader point......

"....Let's not derail the thread with the whole "was Gary Schultz a cop or not" debate..."

Absolutely agree
It is a silly premise...and not worthy of any "debate".

And, of even greater impact, your "point #2":

".... Did any of the motions acknowledge that PSU reported the 2001 incident outside the university to Jerry's employer at The Second Mile where Bruce Heim openly admits to killing the report?.."

Is a 1000X more germane issue

No, it's the defacto description of the "police commissioner" (Merriam-Webster defines "police commissioner" generically as the "Civilian director or head of a duly-authorized municipal police force". However, the "police commissioner" is not a "law enforcement officer" - the highest ranking LE Officer is the Police Chief, but the Police Chief and his Police Department are accountable to the "police commissioner" (i.e., civilian they report to within the political entity - "University Park, PA" in this case - that employs the duly-authorized municipal police force.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT