FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge

[didier]

In the Seasock report, it was noted that another coach was present at some point during the'98 incident. But you are referring to another victim being present which was not noted in the police report, the Seasock report, nor mentioned by V6 at any point during testimony.

The "other coach" present was incorrect so far as victim 6 was concerned. He stated as such. The other victim, BK, may have had another coach present but we don't know because we've never heard from him and they haven't released the interview transcripts. There's much that is fishy about the Seasock report. OAG made a big push to keep Amendola from seeing it back in the discovery phase for Jerry's trial.

Stufftodo was referring to Ganim's 3/31/11 article where it suggested the other boy was a witness, not a seperate victim. She states that was what the police report said. She either made a mistake, or there is a fabricated copy of the 1998 police report which suggests the two boys were with Jerry together.

 

[didier]

I don't get this point at all. Could you clarify?

Have you seen the movie Spotlight?

 

[bhill29]

Suppose you knew, in 1998, that Sandusky had a "problem." Suppose that also knew that Sandusky wouldn't face prosecution if he "received help with the problem." Suppose that Sandusky either didn't receive that "help" or that it was ineffective. Wouldn't that give you a motive not to inform the authorities?

OK, so you're trying to say, some how CSS knew that Jerry had a problem and if he sought help he would not be prosecuted. Obviously the prosecutor/law enforcement was involved in making the deal, right? After all CSS can't make a deal. Presumably, DPW/CYS were informed and part of the process? They were involved in the investigation. They were also required to tell TSM and common sense would dictate that they did. CSS are not responsible for Jerry getting "help" or determining if it "helped" but some of the other agencies are. Fast forward two years and Curly tells JR at TSM that Jerry is no longer welcome. I don't care how watered down you want to claim this conversation was JR, if he (JR) had any indication of the events of '98 he should have acted especially if Jerry was required to get help. If he had no information from '98 than there was a major screw-up in '98 and it wasn't by CSS.

I find your version of events hard to believe. If your version is correct than there are people much more culpable than CSS, the ones that made the deal, didn't follow-up, and neglected to tell TSM.

 

[didier]

OK, so you're trying to say, some how CSS knew that Jerry had a problem and if he sought help he would not be prosecuted. Obviously the prosecutor/law enforcement was involved in making the deal, right? After all CSS can't make a deal. Presumably, DPW/CYS were informed and part of the process? They were involved in the investigation. They were also required to tell TSM and common sense would dictate that they did. CSS are not responsible for Jerry getting "help" or determining if it "helped" but some of the other agencies are. Fast forward two years and Curly tells JR at TSM that Jerry is no longer welcome. I don't care how watered down you want to claim this conversation was JR, if he (JR) had any indication of the events of '98 he should have acted especially if Jerry was required to get help. If he had no information from '98 than there was a major screw-up in '98 and it wasn't by CSS.

I find your version events hard to believe. If your version is correct than there are people much more culpable than CSS, the ones that made the deal, didn't follow-up, and neglected to tell TSM.

"An investigator in the case told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Tuesday that 'a lot of entities besides Penn State University had a hand in this.'" - 11/9/2011

I would pay particular attention to Centre County CYS.

 

[nittanydave1]

I cannot believe Fina and his porndogs have yet to be recognized for their outstanding work in the area of breast cancer awareness. Stufftodo, you must be outraged.

 

[bjf1991]

Keep guessing.

How about instead, we keep not caring?

Just "suppose" that.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

I cannot believe Fina and his porndogs have yet to be recognized for their outstanding work in the area of breast cancer awareness. Stufftodo, you must be outraged.

FAP wears pink boxers with flamingos on them!

 

[Connorpozlee]

If they knew in 1998 that there was a Sandusky "problem," then they knew that they were covering up for a pedophile in 2001.

You're off there. Completely off. That is really, really faulty logic. '98 was investigated and deemed (rightly or wrongly) to have not been criminal. Knowing about the '98 incident and investigation has no bearing on '01 ('02).
You cannot be covering up for a pedophile that was investigated and found to not be acting in pedophilic activities in '98. You can be covering up for a pedophile if you were told something in '01 ('02) that led you to believe he was a pedophile and purposely chose not to report it because you feared that he would be revealed to be a pedophilic.
Each incident stands separately on its own.

 

[bjf1991]

OK, so you're trying to say, some how CSS knew that Jerry had a problem and if he sought help he would not be prosecuted. Obviously the prosecutor/law enforcement was involved in making the deal, right? After all CSS can't make a deal. Presumably, DPW/CYS were informed and part of the process? They were involved in the investigation. They were also required to tell TSM and common sense would dictate that they did. CSS are not responsible for Jerry getting "help" or determining if it "helped" but some of the other agencies are. Fast forward two years and Curly tells JR at TSM that Jerry is no longer welcome. I don't care how watered down you want to claim this conversation was JR, if he (JR) had any indication of the events of '98 he should have acted especially if Jerry was required to get help. If he had no information from '98 than there was a major screw-up in '98 and it wasn't by CSS.

I find your version of events hard to believe. If your version is correct than there are people much more culpable than CSS, the ones that made the deal, didn't follow-up, and neglected to tell TSM.

"Stuff" and logic don't exactly see eye-to-eye

 

[Connorpozlee]

Have you seen the movie Spotlight?

I have not. Not really a movie person. They take too long.

 

[didier]

I have not. Not really a movie person. They take too long.

It was common for the Church to work out arrangements with local law enforcement to move priests to other parishes and keep them away from kids in exchange for the police not bringing charges. Spotlight dealt with Boston but it happened in Altoona as well.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It was common for the Church to work out arrangements with local law enforcement to move priests to other parishes and keep them away from kids in exchange for the police not bringing charges. Spotlight dealt with Boston but it happened in Altoona as well.

That's fine and I am well aware of the Catholic Church scandal(s). That has nothing to do with what stufftodo was saying earlier.

 

[Nellie R]

Oh, I'm staying and will continue to remind everyone of your support for the person who didn't investigate TSM, Kathleen Kane.

False. And you know it. What was "supported" was a hope that there would be a change from those who did NOT investigate TSM when it was crystal clear from the evidence that was the first place they should have gone. And the beat goes on. About 5 of them now who "didn't investigate TSM".

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the Feds are doing that. I certainly hope they are investigating it. After all, the charity attempted to move a significant amount of funds (along with faulty children's programs) across state lines to a TX corporation 04/2012 before the Sandusky trial.

 

[dshumbero]

False. And you know it. What was "supported" was a hope that there would be a change from those who did NOT investigate TSM when it was crystal clear from the evidence that was the first place they should have gone. And the beat goes on. About 5 of them now who "didn't investigate TSM".

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the Feds are doing that. I certainly hope they are investigating it. After all, the charity attempted to move a significant amount of funds (along with faulty children's programs) across state lines to a TX corporation 04/2012 before the Sandusky trial.

Where Lubert's ass odor is present, there is some tie in to Texas.

 

[coveydidnt]

False. And you know it. What was "supported" was a hope that there would be a change from those who did NOT investigate TSM when it was crystal clear from the evidence that was the first place they should have gone. And the beat goes on. About 5 of them now who "didn't investigate TSM".

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the Feds are doing that. I certainly hope they are investigating it. After all, the charity attempted to move a significant amount of funds (along with faulty children's programs) across state lines to a TX corporation 04/2012 before the Sandusky trial.

A serious question ... if TSM WAS investigated by state or feds & cleared, why would you expect to hear about it. These things are confidential unless they lead to indictments.

 

[Nellie R]

If you chose to engage in a public forum, expect the public to respond.

What does upset me is your total hypocrisy regarding Kane and TSM. You know what, I agree that TSM needed investigation. I won't, however, campaign for the person who effectively dropped that investigation, and then complain about TSM not being investigated.

And, don't worry, at the appropriate time, possible in about 6-7 weeks, I will abandon my anonymity.

" I won't, however, campaign for the person who effectively dropped that investigation"

You seem to be operating with a faulty flux capacitor, upsetting the space-time continuum with a statement like this.

 

[Nellie R]

A serious question ... if TSM WAS investigated by state or feds & cleared, why would you expect to hear about it. These things are confidential unless they lead to indictments.

Although on its face that could be true, I would expect such an investigation to take quite some time and to be not yet completed. Like maybe 8-10 years.

 

[Nellie R]

Where Lubert's ass odor is present, there is some tie in to Texas.

I don't approve of your style of writing at times, but in reply:

After that, the entire website was redone, Arrow board membership turned over in less than a year (except 1-2), all references to a certain Board member with initials MB were erased, as well as informational article on the Ranch they operate/operated near Houston for trafficking victims from another country, IIRC.

In addition, the local foster operation they had here in Carrollton seems to have disappeared from the location it was at the time. Arrow also operates/operated in MD and CA.

 

[Stufftodo]

And what "problem" is that?

In the Seasock report, it was noted that another coach was present at some point during the'98 incident. But you are referring to another victim being present which was not noted in the police report, the Seasock report, nor mentioned by V6 at any point during testimony.

The "problem" is a euphemism for Sandusky's pedophilia.

No, I'm referring to Ganim's first story. Shewrote that there was a victim that was hugged (Victim 6), and that there was another boy that was a witness. That other boy, "B.K." did not witness this, but separately was similarly groped by Sandusky. He wasn't part of the case, because in 2011, he was in the armed forces and out of the county. He is mentioned in the first presentment (11/5/11).

How could anyone at PSU "know" if the police didn't?

As indicated by Schreffler's testimony, the police wanted to file charges in 1998. The DA of the day said no.

"An investigator in the case told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Tuesday that 'a lot of entities besides Penn State University had a hand in this.'" - 11/9/2011

I would pay particular attention to Centre County CYS.

I would also pay a huge amount of attention to the Centre County District Attorney's Office in regard to the 1998 incident. Also remember, the decision was not made by any underling, but by the District Attorney of the day.

 

[Stufftodo]

False. And you know it. What was "supported" was a hope that there would be a change from those who did NOT investigate TSM when it was crystal clear from the evidence that was the first place they should have gone. And the beat goes on. About 5 of them now who "didn't investigate TSM".

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the Feds are doing that. I certainly hope they are investigating it. After all, the charity attempted to move a significant amount of funds (along with faulty children's programs) across state lines to a TX corporation 04/2012 before the Sandusky trial.

Which Kathleen Kane did not do in her 3 1/2 tenure, investigate TSM. One of Kane's top supporters was Wendy Silverwood, who now complains that TSM was not investigated.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Which Kathleen Kane did not do in her 3 1/2 tenure, investigate TSM. One of Kane's top supporters was Wendy Silverwood, who now complains that TSM was not investigated.

Yawn

 

[Nellie R]

Which Kathleen Kane did not do in her 3 1/2 tenure, investigate TSM. One of Kane's top supporters was Wendy Silverwood, who now complains that TSM was not investigated.

You really have reading comprehension/timeline construction issues, don't you? Are these issues contrived to disseminate disinformation? Or do you admit you need to work on that skill?

 

[Nellie R]

Well, they cited the breast cancer stuff as "porn."

It is no business of the OAG what legal activities people that were not employees of the office do on their computer.

As for any "appearance of impropriety," it is not up to the OAG to investigate or determine that. She does not discipline attorneys in this state.

It is if it goes thru their servers during work hours.

 

[Stufftodo]

OK, so you're trying to say, some how CSS knew that Jerry had a problem and if he sought help he would not be prosecuted. Obviously the prosecutor/law enforcement was involved in making the deal, right? After all CSS can't make a deal. Presumably, DPW/CYS were informed and part of the process? They were involved in the investigation. They were also required to tell TSM and common sense would dictate that they did. CSS are not responsible for Jerry getting "help" or determining if it "helped" but some of the other agencies are. Fast forward two years and Curly tells JR at TSM that Jerry is no longer welcome. I don't care how watered down you want to claim this conversation was JR, if he (JR) had any indication of the events of '98 he should have acted especially if Jerry was required to get help. If he had no information from '98 than there was a major screw-up in '98 and it wasn't by CSS.

I find your version of events hard to believe. If your version is correct than there are people much more culpable than CSS, the ones that made the deal, didn't follow-up, and neglected to tell TSM.

Raykovitz was out of the loop in 1998, from what anyone can tell.

The question is, in 1998, who was in the look. CYS was out of the decision making process by the time the decision was made not to prosecute Sandusky. Seasock and Lauro were there, but they didn't answer to CYS. Note that in the e-mails from 1998, Schultz mentions nothing relating to the police and his holding his breath, figuratively, with DPW/Seasck.

 

[Zenophile]

" I won't, however, campaign for the person who effectively dropped that investigation"

You seem to be operating with a faulty flux capacitor, upsetting the space-time continuum with a statement like this.

That seems to afflict folks here like the common cold.

 

[Nellie R]

Raykovitz was out of the loop in 1998, from what anyone can tell.

The question is, in 1998, who was in the look. CYS was out of the decision making process by the time the decision was made not to prosecute Sandusky. Seasock and Lauro were there, but they didn't answer to CYS. Note that in the e-mails from 1998, Schultz mentions nothing relating to the police and his holding his breath, figuratively, with DPW/Seasck.

It's mandatory per law for TSM to be advised by DPW in order for a safety plan to be put into place. Take it up with them if they all failed in that area as well.

 

[coveydidnt]

Although on its face that could be true, I would expect such an investigation to take quite some time and to be not yet completed. Like maybe 8-10 years.

8 to 10 YEARS? you have got to be high. Where did you come up with that?

 

[Connorpozlee]

Again, what does '98 have to do with '01 ('02) in regards to Penn State's adminstrators?

 

[Nellie R]

8 to 10 YEARS? you have got to be high. Where did you come up with that?

"High" on factual information and weeding thru all of the BS, yes.

 

[Nellie R]

Again, what does '98 have to do with '01 ('02) in regards to Penn State's adminstrators?

Nothing at all, except everyone and their dog tried (and still does try) to use it to blame all of this on PSU.

This is the part of the narrative that needs to be destroyed if/when this case ever sees a courtroom.

 

[Stufftodo]

Again, what does '98 have to do with '01 ('02) in regards to Penn State's adminstrators?

Well, because if the administrators knew in 1998 that Sandusky was a pedophile, then they knew that what was reported about Sandusky was pedophilia.

It is a question of who knew what when. Who was in the loop in 1998?

While OAG does not share its files with me, I suspect they have that answer.

Nothing at all, except everyone and their dog tried (and still does try) to use it to blame all of this on PSU.

This is the part of the narrative that needs to be destroyed if/when this case ever sees a courtroom.

Nellie, nobody claims that anyone ever told TSM in 1998 about the incident. They were, then, out of the loop.

I suspect this will be part of the case in the CSS trial.

 

[Nellie R]

Well, because if the administrators knew in 1998 that Sandusky was a pedophile, then they knew that what was reported about Sandusky was pedophilia.

It is a question of who knew what when. Who was in the loop in 1998?

While OAG does not share its files with me, I suspect they have that answer.

How were they expected to "know" that if DPW CYS and TSM, the child experts who approved adoptions, fostering, etc, failed for decades to figure that out?

Because if administrators "knew", it was because the child agencies told them so and ---PA child agencies covered it up to protect a pedophile and a child protection system for the purposes of "winning"...something or other.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Well, because if the administrators knew in 1998 that Sandusky was a pedophile, then they knew that what was reported about Sandusky was pedophilia.

It is a question of who knew what when. Who was in the loop in 1998?

While OAG does not share its files with me, I suspect they have that answer.

Horseshit. If they knew in '98 that he was a pedophile then then the system is to blame for him still being free to continue to prey upon children, not the Penn State administrators. It is not their responsibility to lock up pedophiles. That is the job of law enforcement. Again, one thing does not define the other. Him being investigated in '98 does not mean that he is a pedophile in '01 ('02). Likewise, him being cleared in '98 doesn't mean he should not be investigated in '01 ('02).
Honestly stuff, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but your line or reasoning makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Stufftodo]

How were they expected to "know" that if DPW CYS and TSM, the child experts who approved adoptions, fostering, etc, failed for decades to figure that out?

Because if administrators "knew", it was because the child agencies told them so and ---covered it up to protect one.

Evidence. You seen to forget that Sandusky was convicted regarding the 1998 incident, even though the OAG could not get that second victim, B.K., from 1998. In short, in 1998, the DA's Office had a stronger case.

Further, the DA made the decision not to prosecute prior to Lauro making his decision.

Horseshit. If they knew in '98 that he was a pedophile then then the system is to blame for him still being free to continue to prey upon children, not the Penn State administrators. It is not their responsibility to lock up pedophiles. That is the job of law enforcement. Again, one thing does not define the other. Him being investigated in '98 does not mean that he is a pedophile in '01 ('02). Likewise, him being cleared in '98 doesn't mean he should not be investigated in '01 ('02).
Honestly stuff, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but your line or reasoning makes no sense whatsoever.

The PSU administrator are not being charged with any crime in 1998. They are being charged with a crime committed in 2001. What they knew in 1998 will have a bearing on what they did, or didn't do, in 2001.

1998 sets up the context for 2001.

 

[Nellie R]

Evidence. You seen to forget that Sandusky was convicted regarding the 1998 incident, even though the OAG could not get that second victim, B.K., from 1998. In short, in 1998, the DA's Office had a stronger case.

Further, the DA made the decision not to prosecute prior to Lauro making his decision.

The EVIDENCE points to the child protection systems failing, and no amount of hand-waving can change what that evidence says.

 

[bjf1991]

These things are confidential unless they lead to indictments.

^^^^^. Does he even recognize the ironical irony? I doubt it. ^^^^^

 

[psu1969a]

Technically speaking, and people will say I am trolling, but this is what it is...

We don't know who the boy in the shower was (v2). Actually, most of us do but some claim not to.

As long as that's uncertain, the boy could have been a Penn State student. After all, there are kids as young as 14 admitted some years.

If he was, then PSU and CSS clearly had educational and administrative control & responsibilities.

I don't know how OAG woul'd prove that, because it isn't true, but based on all evidence to date it can be considered a possibility. (It isnt).

You are trolling, you are entitled to your opinion, but not permitted to speculate and make innuendo's that are not remotely provable. Victim 2 (2001) is known and has stated that nothing happened in the shower even though he conned PSU out of a nice settlement.

 

[Stufftodo]

The EVIDENCE points to the child protection systems failing, and no amount of hand-waving can change what that evidence says.

In 1998, I agree. There were multiple failures. CSS are not charged with any crime in 1998.

Keep in mind that there was enough evidence for a conviction in 1998. Sandusky was convicted of those crimes in 2011. The question is what CSS knew in 2001 when they were confronted the report of Sandusky's activities.

 

[Zenophile]

Raykovitz was out of the loop in 1998, from what anyone can tell.

The question is, in 1998, who was in the look. CYS was out of the decision making process by the time the decision was made not to prosecute Sandusky. Seasock and Lauro were there, but they didn't answer to CYS. Note that in the e-mails from 1998, Schultz mentions nothing relating to the police and his holding his breath, figuratively, with DPW/Seasck.

Well this is revolutionary. You know for certain that JR didn't know?

 

[colt21]

Raykovitz was out of the loop in 1998, from what anyone can tell.

The question is, in 1998, who was in the look. CYS was out of the decision making process by the time the decision was made not to prosecute Sandusky. Seasock and Lauro were there, but they didn't answer to CYS. Note that in the e-mails from 1998, Schultz mentions nothing relating to the police and his holding his breath, figuratively, with DPW/Seasck.

You're right Seasock and Lauro didn't answer to CYS -it was the other way around- CYS answered to them (and someone in PA Gov made the call not to "indicate" JS)

Just for clarification that is totally different from the decision not to prosecute JS from a legal perspective - that is as none other than the disappearing DA

So there were two decisions made in 98 which could and should have stopped JS, neither of which were made by PS, that caused this sh!itstorm

Then, more sick individuals not associated with PS with NO REGARD for the children at all made the decision to make this a PSU thing based on 2001 ---- all because of personal and political jealousies - that's what happened. It is really that simple unfortunately.