Erickson's Notebook Reveals Deceptions, Possible Crimes
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
Just want to jump in here if I may....
Based on my 25 years of experience in working with, on and for non-profits-including crating a few as well as currently serving as privacy officer and chair of our compliance committee fOr a non profit that has both adoption and foster care programs I can tell you with 100% confidence that Freeh was 100% wrong on his reasonable conclusions
Further the false narrative that he created and the one folks like you continue to try and perpetuate only harms more children
Just think about that when you support someone like him.....seriously think about what you are supporting
Well, at least you've revealed yourself, Mr "honest question."
What lies? It is reasonable to ask to review the emails that you will be questioned about.
I never said I was a Penn State fan but I do look at the events objectively I believe. Freeh was correct in not giving Spanier the emails and asking that he come to the interview "unprepared". Freeh should not have given Spanier what he had so he could determine whether Spanier was telling the truth. Common and smart tactic.
Ok, lack of access to documents/emails prevented Spanier from proceeding with an interview. Spanier would only agree to an interview if granted access. As we know, he did agree later to an interview without the access.
If you have nothing substantive to say, why not use ignore? Won't hurt my feelings.
It's time to go home:
Agree 100%. Due to the high visibility of this case, it would have been a great opportunity to educate people around the country about how nice-guy offenders groom not only children, but entire communities. But the Penn State Board of Trustees squandered that opportunity in favor of throwing Penn State football under the bus.
It wasn't Freeh's decision. Penn State originally agreed to given the documents, but the OAG stopped them. Spanier had every right to review documents/emails prior to his GJ testimony, but they were not recovered at the time. If it would have been ok to review prior to the GJ testimony, why not prior to Freeh interviews.
He was far from being the smartest guy in the room, he only had a 3.2 GPA.
Why is he such a miserable pr*ck today? Lost his job?, deep in debt?, bad marriage?, all of the above? Difficult to say for certain but all he does is b*tch online nonstop. No doubt, a miserable pr*ck.
I would liken Freeh's interview to that similiar to a police interview not a GJ. Freeh did not Spanier under oath and I think it was good to see if Spanier would lie to Freeh.
Have no idea about their relationship beyond doctor/patient to define 'close'. I am sure Dr. Dranov had lots of patients besides JVP.
These are emails from 10-15 yrs ago. How in the world would he determine if Spanier was lying? It is completely reasonable to review documents in advance.
Oh come on.
Can you remember emails you wrote a decade earlier?
You are defending the indefensible. A fair investigator doesn't deny someone the opportunity to review a document before asking questions about it - especially a document written so long ago. It's ludicrous. You are really showing your true colors now.
Not sure I get how Freeh's report harms children. The issue I think Freeh uncovered is that when you hear of or see inappropriate activity happening between a child and an adult then you should not deal with it "in house" but report it to the proper outside authorities. The fact is that, often powerful popular institutions, will try to protect their reputations at the expense of the truth or others safety. This is why we have whistleblower laws. Further, the idea that Sandusky "fooled everyone" in the light of the 1998 and 2001 incidents to my mind harms kids more. The moral of this story should be "see or hear something, say something to the PROPER authorities" in addition to the truth that predators are often hiding in plain view.
I don't think the interview was just about the emails. It was about what Spanier knew regarding Sandusky and when did he know it. All Spanier had to say about the emails (or anything else) is that he didn't remember which he did say about one email he was info'ed on in 1998. For that reason his not reading the emails prior to is defensible.
Ok.....everyone who went over to the FSU Boards and made 50 posts regarding the J Winston debacle (you know, just because you were curious, and looking for some insight).....raise your hand:
Probably not as prominent. Doctors are often quite close to their patients especially if they have had them a long time. At least that has been my experience.
If it interests you, have at it hoss. Cute photos BTW.Ok.....everyone who went over to the FSU Boards and made 50 posts regarding the J Winston debacle (you know, just because you were curious, and looking for some insight).....raise your hand:
The actions of those who feel it necessary to try more and more ridiculous (and anonymous) attacks on people like me should tell you all you need to know about the strength of their case and of their character.
Seriously? Freeh's accusations were that the culture and the reverance to the football program (and the power of Joe) were the reasons why JS got away with sexual assaults for years. Freeh presented it as if JS could only exist under these conditions. While there continue to be other JS' in society that we don't even know about, because we are being told they can only exist b/c of a coverup. Complete BS. Also the 1998 incident was investigated and the people at PSU were told nothing criminal occurred. We still don't know what happened in 2001 to conclude what happened. I am not saying everyone was fooled. But it is not unreasonable to conclude that Jerry's reputation of helping kids contributed to some people's assessment.
I will credit Clemente partially for revealing that pedophiles (like serial killers) do not wear a sign on their heads IDing who they are. Often they may appear to be normal even exemplary folk. Therefore, it is very hard to catch them. I read a lot about how Sandusky was "vetted" by all these CYS folks for adopting children and I submit that interviews cannot determine who are pedophiles and who are not. I doubt a psychologist could have sat down with Ted Bundy and then proclaimed that he was a serial killer. The way pedophiles are caught is by people who observe or hear of creepy, sexual, or inapporpriate behavior and then report it promptly to the proper authorities. Even then the authorities may not have enough to charge the person but a history is established and then when it occurs again perhaps you can take more action. For instance, when PSU got the Chambers report after the 1998 incident they might have told Jerry, no more showering with kids alone in the shower and if we see you doing it then your access to our property is closed. PSU could have put out that as a general policy (not mentioning Sandusky) and said to the staff at large, if you see this report it. I think Sandusky got away with a lot because of who he was and PSU was reluctant to do more because of his popularity and regard in the community, which they also benefited from.
Oh really? Seen me make juvenile versions of any of your names? Post stuff about you I found on the internet to try to score cheap points? Mention your GPA? Mention that I knew you in college and thought you were an idiot/jerk/whatever but refrain from identifying myself?
Totally agree.
Jerry's reputation for helping kids would certainly bias how he was viewed.
Also, the facts about what happened in 2001 are few and far between at this time to be able to form an objective conclusion. That hasn't stopped many people on both sides of the argument from forming some very strong opinions.
Seriously? JS was told not to shower with kids again by DPW and Police in 1998 and JS agreed. PSU was told told nothing criminal occurred. The next known event was 2001, which at the time PSU did tell him and TSM about the incident and that he could not bring kids into the facility. We still do not know what Mike reported.
Who at PSU knew of and reviewed the Chambers report? Who at DPW knew of and reviewed the Chambers report. I can understand some of your points, but through hindsight bias.
Something criminal and something creepy and inappropriate are two different things. Showering naked with a child and grabbing at his privates (which Jerry fully admitted to in 1998) may not be criminal but it sure is creepy and that is one of those things I was saying point towards a pedophile. Common risk managment would have dictated PSU (not just DPW and police) to tell Jerry not to shower with kids and then make that policy and tell the staff to report it if it was seen again.
The Chambers report was given to PSU by Chambers and was part of the PSU police report from 1998.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ky-psychologist-pedophile-1998_n_1377301.html
Not sure where you are getting your information about 1998 and what JS admitted to. I generally agree that JS should have been spoken to by PSU about bringing kids into the facilities after the 1998 incident. We still don't know who at PSU besides Schultz and the police knew exactly what was being investigated.
As for the Chambers report, it was given to the police. But we don't know who else at PSU was aware or reviewed the report.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Don't think GJ prosecutors are under any obligation to provide documents ahead of time to those called to testify and especially if one might be a target . Accordingly, private investigators would be under no such obligation either.
My point was that Spanier could have reviewed any available documents in his preparation for his GJ testimony. The OAG put no restrictions on what he could or could not review in his preparation. These emails/documents were not available at that time, however.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Got it. But Spanky had no idea what the line of questioning was going to be or what documents the prosecutor had. Accordingly, preparing becomes quite problematic. No?
Somewhat. But he was also interviewed by investigators in advance of his GJ testimony, so likely he had a pretty good idea. Either way, it seems Ms. Baldwin advised them not to prep.
I agree about the ad hominem attacks.
Now can you address the fact that the Freeh Report lacks evidence to support Freeh's "reasonable conclusions?"
Actually, there are signs, and adults should know them so they can look out for them. It's very unfortunate the Freeh did not use his very loud megaphone to share this information with the general public. If he had, you and millions of other people would be aware of them now. Louis Freeh didn't do children any favors with his bullshit "cover up" crackpot conspiracy theory.
From the Clemente Report:
-----
Do you know an adult or older child who exhibits one or more of these red flag behaviors
for child sexual victimization?
Doesn’t seem to understand what’s acceptable when it comes to personal space.
Makes others uncomfortable by ignoring social, emotional or physical boundaries or
limits.
Refuses to let a child set any of his or her own limits regarding boundaries or touch.
Uses teasing or belittling language to keep a child from setting a limit.
Insists on hugging, touching, kissing, tickling, wrestling with or holding a child
whether or not the child wants this physical contact or attention.
Frequently walks in on children/teens in the bathroom.
Turns to a child for emotional or physical comfort by sharing personal or private
information or activities, normally shared with adults.
Has secret interactions with teens or children (e.g., games, sharing drugs, alcohol, or
sexual material) or spends excessive time emailing, text messaging, writing to, or
calling children or youth.
Insists on or manages to frequently spend uninterrupted time alone with a child.
Misses or ignores social cues about others’ personal or sexual limits and boundaries.
Often has a “special” child friend, maybe a different one from year to year.
Spends most of his/her spare time with children and shows little interest in spending
time with someone their own age.
Encourages silence and secrets in children.
Seems “too good to be true,” i.e., frequently baby sits different children for free; takes
children on special outings alone; buys children gifts or gives them money for no
apparent reason.
Allows children or teens to consistently get away with inappropriate behaviors.
Is overly interested in the sexuality of children or teens (e.g., talks repeatedly about
the child’s developing body or interferes with normal teen dating).
Frequently points out sexual images or tells dirty or suggestive jokes with children
present.
Exposes a child to adult sexual interactions or images without apparent concern.
Links sexuality and aggression in language or behavior, e.g., sexualized threats or
insults, like “whore” or “slut.”
Makes fun of children’s body parts, describes children with sexual words like “stud”
or “sexy” or talks about the sexual activities of children or teens.
Masturbates so often that it gets in the way of important day-to-day activities.
Has an interest in sexual fantasies involving children and seems unclear about what’s
appropriate with children.
Looks at child pornography or downloads/views internet pornography and is not
willing to show whether children are involved.
Asks adult partners to dress or act like a child or teen during sexual activity.
Minimizes hurtful or harmful behaviors when confronted; denies harmfulness of
actions or words despite a clear negative impact.
The mishandling of the 1998 incident is 100% the fault of DPW. You are saying that university officials with zero expertise in this area should have effectively overruled DPW, which was so unconcerned that they took absolutely no steps to restricts Sandusky's interactions with children after the 1998 incident. You are putting the blame on the wrong institution.
Alright if we are so unreasonable feel free to move on. Multiple posters have raised pertinent facts that counter Freeh's "reasonable conclusions". You have not directly responded to the points they raised; thus exposing the weakness of your arguments. If you feel that PSU had a culture that valued football over the welfare of children I feel sorry for you.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Update on top target set to announce soon (5:30)- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Potentially good news on three 2025 prospects.....
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-