FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge

[CDW3333]

No crime was witnessed or reported in 1998, since it was just a mother suspicious of something.

Much like 2001, no crime was witnessed or reported, since it was just a grad assistant suspicious of something.

No crimes committed, yet Sandusky convicted on seven counts involving those two incidents.

Strange.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html

 

[Stufftodo]

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

I have yet to see anyone claim, including Lauro, that anyone told Raykovitz in 1998. It was reported though Childline and to the University Police, so the report did not go through TSM.

Lauro was suppose to inform TSM, but it does not look he did. That isn't Penn State's fault, but it isn't TSM's fault either.

1998 was played very close to the breast, by all concerned. Courtney was not informed about 1998.

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.

The question is, who did they tell, in 1998.

 

[coveydidnt]

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.

Ok Steve, but you're the troll. Ray Blehar has written many pieces that say that v2 isn't who you think he is.

Just a few days ago in another thread I was accused of trolling for disagreeing with Ray.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Connorpozlee]

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.

I understand that the PSU admins are not charged with any crimes in '98. Their knowledge (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the '01 case, unless it can be shown that they were somehow involved in the decision to not charge him with those crimes in '98. And if that were the case then they would be charged with crimes from '98.
Having knowledge that somebody was investigated for a crime once does mean automatically mean that they committed the crime the next time it is accused. There failure to report the incident in '01 has to stand or not stand on its own merits. '98 should not have any bearing on '01 in relation to them. If they were given information that rose to the level of being reportable then a report should have been made. The idea that some like to throw around on here that "he had been investigated for the same thing earlier and was cleared so they didn't see the need to report this" is foolish. You have to handle each episode independently from the other. If '01 was reportable it is because what happened that night was an incident that deserved to be reported, not because he had been accused in '98. His being cleared of any wrongdoing in '98 does make it excusable to not report the incident in '01 if the behavior rose to the level of making a report. I think your attempt to tie '98 to '01 in regards to the PSU administrators is a dead end.
Ha aid all that (and that was much more than I planned on), I put Schultz in a different position than the other admins. He was responsible for overseeing the campus law enforcement so his responsibilities and knowledge would seem to me to be different than the others.

 

[CDW3333]

And what "problem" is that?

Maybe the one Paterno referred to in his testimony when after speaking with McQueary he called Curley and said, "I called him and I said, hey, we got a problem, and I explained the problem to him."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/transcript-joe-paternos-grand-jury-testimony/

 

[Stufftodo]

I understand that the PSU admins are not charged with any crimes in '98. There knowledge (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the '01 case, unless it can be shown that they were somehow involved in the decision to not charge him with those crimes in '98. And if that were the case then they would be charged with crimes from '98.
Having knowledge that somebody was investigated for a crime once does mean automatically mean that they committed the crime the next time it is accused. There failure to report the incident in '01 has to stand or not stand on its own merits. '98 should not have any bearing on '01 in relation to them. If they were given information that rose to the level of being reportable then a report should have been made. The idea that some like to throw around on here that "he had been investigated for the same thing earlier and was cleared so they didn't see the need to report this" is foolish. You have to handle each episode independently from the other. If '01 was reportable it is because what happened that night was an incident that deserved to be reported, not because he had been accused in '98. His being cleared of any wrongdoing in '98 does make it excusable to not report the incident in '01 if the behavior rose to the level of making a report. I think your attempt to tie '98 to '01 in regards to the PSU administrators is a dead end.
Ha aid all that (and that was much more than I planned on), I put Schultz in a different position than the other admins. He was responsible for overseeing the campus law enforcement so his responsibilities and knowledge would seem to me to be different than the others.

I did not say knew of the investigation. I said knew that Sandusky had a "problem."

 

[Connorpozlee]

I did not say knew of the investigation. I said knew that Sandusky had a "problem."

Drinking problem? Financial problems? Marital problems? "Problem" is much too vague a term to use when trying to define something. Use a different term so it is more clearly stated.
Sandusky showering with boys is what I would consider to be a problem. Not illegal, but a problem. Sandusky sexually abusing children is a crime, not a "problem".

 

[Zenophile]

I have yet to see anyone claim, including Lauro, that anyone told Raykovitz in 1998. It was reported though Childline and to the University Police, so the report did not go through TSM.

Lauro was suppose to inform TSM, but it does not look he did. That isn't Penn State's fault, but it isn't TSM's fault either.

1998 was played very close to the breast, by all concerned. Courtney was not informed about 1998.



The question is, who did they tell, in 1998.

Weren't they required to inform TSM? Wow. You could really burn the place down with that kind of info.

 

[didier]

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.

CYS may not have had a hand in the decision but they remained involved until the conclusion. The director Watson was conferring with Gricar in late May. This in spite of their stated conflict of interest. Something is wrong.

 

[Stufftodo]

Weren't they required to inform TSM? Wow. You could really burn the place down with that kind of info.

Lauro was. Ah, this was covered in one of Ganim's articles; it is old news.

 

[didier]

Weren't they required to inform TSM? Wow. You could really burn the place down with that kind of info.

CYS was. It is important to note the distinction in this case between the state DPW (Lauro) and Centre CYS (Miller/Watson). They were not necessarily operating in tandem

 

[Zenophile]

Lauro was. Ah, this was covered in one of Ganim's articles; it is old news.

Fine. No need to flame me over it.

 

[Stufftodo]

Drinking problem? Financial problems? Marital problems? "Problem" is much too vague a term to use when trying to define something. Use a different term so it is more clearly stated.
Sandusky showering with boys is what I would consider to be a problem. Not illegal, but a problem. Sandusky sexually abusing children is a crime, not a "problem".

It is a Penn State euphemism, and unambiguous in context. You would probably think the "Final Solution" was too vague.

Fine. No need to flame me over it.

Not attempting to "flame" you. I'm just indicating that I am not breaking any new ground with that.

A lot of people, Raykovitz, Courtney were out of the loop in 1998. Arnold was kicked out of the loop. 1998 is the key. And the OAG is turning that key in the lock.

 

[Zenophile]

It is a Penn State euphemism, and unambiguous in context. You would probably think the "Final Solution" was too vague.



Not attempting to "flame" you. I'm just indicating that I am not breaking any new ground with that.

A lot of people, Raykovitz, Courtney were out of the loop in 1998. Arnold was kicked out of the loop. 1998 is the key. And the OAG is turning that key in the lock.

Right. By the way Gricar was obviously murdered.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

I see the resemblance to CR66 in Stuff's failed/false logic, total intellectual dishonesty and smug prick attitude but, this person's ability to use the "multi quote" feature is pretty strong. CR66 struggled mightily with this aspect of our message board. Of course, he may have "boned up" over the past several months!

This poster is a riddle wrapped in an enigma shrouded in mystery. It should be a concern that the dark actors of the OAG have concocted something that allows them to perform a miscarriage of justice in a trial on the remaining charges. Of course, if the poster is CR66, then we should just enjoy the Super Bowl and never give it another thought! I am going shopping for wings and avacodos.

 

[dshumbero]

Right. By the way Gricar was obviously murdered.

Just ask JockstrapJohn, he knew Gricar was tossed down a flooded mine shaft by bikers "over a drug deal".

 

[bhill29]

I did not say knew of the investigation. I said knew that Sandusky had a "problem."

Explain to me why the investigators would have shared with PSU administrators that Jerry had a "problem" and not inform the organizations and people who had daily contact with him. It makes no sense and if true is further indictment of PA's child protective services.

Actually, what you are implying is repugnant. LE new they had a pedophile on their hands and they declined to prosecute instead they told him to get help and put no oversight on him. And we are charging PSU administrators. If any of this is true there should be a lot more people charged.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It is a Penn State euphemism, and unambiguous in context. You would probably think the "Final Solution" was too vague.

That's an unnecessarily jackassical response. And I disagree with you on the point anyway. Read my post you reaponded to. A grown man showering with kids is a problem. A grown man molesting kids is a crime. I read it as unambiguous as well, but in the opposite way that you do. That leads me to conclude that it is somewhat ambiguous.

 

[didier]

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

He has stated he didn't. Of course he could be lying. SM in lawsuit filings claimed it was not alerted to 1998.

 

[marshall23]

I am just amazed that there are people who 'visit' here who seem to take absolute delight in the thought that CSSP could be guilty of anything nefarious at all in the JS case. All stemming from just a handful of OGBOT who had it in for JVP for their own personal, selfish reasons. (Ignoring the Gov. vs. PSU Pres. side of the deal). To me, it is so easy to see that if mistakes were made, they were completely unintentional, and we only recognize them as mistakes in hindsight.

It's one thing to objectively want the truth of their actions to come out and then be pissed off as appropriate.
Bizarro world to me and my PSU heart.

Perhaps others share my hunch on this: The A9 have completed the research on the Freeh Farce. My guess is that if and when anything concerning this becomes public, it will be very embarrassing for the OGBOT. The report they paid 8.5 million dollars for (specifically to keep their fingerprints off JS) will be exposed as wild speculation and in addition it might show us that the report was redone to damage JVP. I believe many were sorely disappointed when they could not find NCAA violations etc. to discredit JVP and had to go back and put him in the conspiracy of silence loop.
In addition, MM won a huge judgement which strikes at the heart of 2 of their top stooges. Cindy and Judas. They are desperate to see S,S and C convicted of something...........anything.....otherwise they need to go to jail.

 

[didier]

Right. By the way Gricar was obviously murdered.

Probably not. Voluntary disappearance more likely imo. And if he cut Jerry a break some powerful people in CC might have been willing to help him out. Didn't Heim have a private plane? Just wild speculation on my part but everything's on the table.

 

[PSUMATT85]

I have yet to see anyone claim, including Lauro, that anyone told Raykovitz in 1998. It was reported though Childline and to the University Police, so the report did not go through TSM.

Lauro was suppose to inform TSM, but it does not look he did. That isn't Penn State's fault, but it isn't TSM's fault either.

1998 was played very close to the breast, by all concerned. Courtney was not informed about 1998.



The question is, who did they tell, in 1998.

This popcorn is really salty. HA

 

[PSUMATT85]

I did not say knew of the investigation. I said knew that Sandusky had a "problem."

A problem that was fully investigated by the DA and CYS, that JS was neither arrested,charged or indicated by CYS.

Yeah, that makes sense

 

[pandaczar12]

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.

I have stuff on ignore, and highly recommend everyone else does the same.

If someone commits a crime in 1998, that doesn't mean they automatically commit the same crime in 2001. For example, if Sandusky was a shoplifter, and was caught (or nearly caught) in 1998, you can't just assume that if someone saw him in a store that he was shoplifting in 2001, especially when the store owner (i.e. victim #2) is on record saying no shoplifting happened that night. If all C/S/S new was that JS was falsely accused of shoplifting in 1998, that would only lead them to believe 2001 was another false accusation.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I have stuff on ignore, and highly recommend everyone else does the same.

If someone commits a crime in 1998, that doesn't mean they automatically commit the same crime in 2001. For example, if Sandusky was a shoplifter, and was caught (or nearly caught) in 1998, you can't just assume that if someone saw him in a store that he was shoplifting in 2001, especially when the store owner (i.e. victim #2) is on record saying no shoplifting happened that night. If all C/S/S new was that JS was falsely accused of shoplifting in 1998, that would only lead them to believe 2001 was another false accusation.

I don't like to put people on ignore. I appreciate the sharing of different points of view.
I don't agree with your last thought as it applies to this situation either. Personally, I would be more inclined to think that it may have been missed the first time and has now occurred again. Regardless, reporting either would have to stand independently of each other.

 

[BobPSU92]

I see the resemblance to CR66 in Stuff's failed/false logic, total intellectual dishonesty and smug prick attitude but, this person's ability to use the "multi quote" feature is pretty strong. CR66 struggled mightily with this aspect of our message board. Of course, he may have "boned up" over the past several months!

This poster is a riddle wrapped in an enigma shrouded in mystery. It should be a concern that the dark actors of the OAG have concocted something that allows them to perform a miscarriage of justice in a trial on the remaining charges. Of course, if the poster is CR66, then we should just enjoy the Super Bowl and never give it another thought! I am going shopping for wings and avacodos.

If stufftodo is not cr666, aka john zipay, then their both assholes.

 

[pandaczar12]

I don't like to put people on ignore. I appreciate the sharing of different points of view.
I don't agree with your last thought as it applies to this situation either. Personally, I would be more inclined to think that it may have been missed the first time and has now occurred again. Regardless, reporting either would have to stand independently of each other.

If he was sharing a different view point, I would agree. He is just trolling.

 

[dshumbero]

If he was sharing a different view point, I would agree. He is just trolling.

That sums it up. He's been spewing the same crap on Penn Naive for 5 years.

 

[Chris92]

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.

The "other coach" present was incorrect so far as victim 6 was concerned. He stated as such.
Where did you see that?

 

[crm114psu]

I have stuff on ignore, and highly recommend everyone else does the same.

You should always put those with opposing viewpoints on ignore, it is the only way to keep your thoughts pure. Be sure to proudly announce this so that others may admire the purity of your thoughts.

 

[crm114psu]

That sums it up. He's been spewing the same crap on Penn Naive for 5 years.

You have been spewing your same filth for longer than that. What is your point?

 

[Stufftodo]

Explain to me why the investigators would have shared with PSU administrators that Jerry had a "problem" and not inform the organizations and people who had daily contact with him. It makes no sense and if true is further indictment of PA's child protective services.

The obvious reasons not to tell would be to avoid a scandal and because they thought they had the situation under control. Also, there would be no political "blow back" for taking down a legend.

Actually, what you are implying is repugnant. LE new they had a pedophile on their hands and they declined to prosecute instead they told him to get help and put no oversight on him. And we are charging PSU administrators. If any of this is true there should be a lot more people charged.

Repugnant, perhaps, but the same thing happened in Cambria County with the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. An ADA, now a judge, named Patrick Kiniry, went to the bishop and the matter was taken care of by transferring the pedophile priest to another location. It is not unknown in Central Pennsylvania.

BTW: It is not illegal in either case as District Attorney's have the discretion not to prosecute. In other words, no crime by Kiniry (who is still a sitting judge) and no crime in 1998 for CSS, Paterno, or Gricar, if he shows up.

It would, however, create a situation where people at Penn State knew and if any of those people is Curley, Schultz, Spanier, or Paterno, it throws a completely different light on their actions in 2001.

 

[Zenophile]

The obvious reasons not to tell would be to avoid a scandal and because they thought they had the situation under control. Also, there would be no political "blow back" for taking down a legend.



Repugnant, perhaps, but the same thing happened in Cambria County with the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. An ADA, now a judge, named Patrick Kiniry, went to the bishop and the matter was taken care of by transferring the pedophile priest to another location. It is not unknown in Central Pennsylvania.

BTW: It is not illegal in either case as District Attorney's have the discretion not to prosecute. In other words, no crime by Kiniry (who is still a sitting judge) and no crime in 1998 for CSS, Paterno, or Gricar, if he shows up.

It would, however, create a situation where people at Penn State knew and if any of those people is Curley, Schultz, Spanier, or Paterno, it throws a completely different light on their actions in 2001.

I'll bet you'll really be an expert witness in this trial.

Also I understand that Gricar was looking into Sandusky as late as 2005. What do you make of that?

 

[Chris92]

It would, however, create a situation where people at Penn State knew and if any of those people is Curley, Schultz, Spanier, or Paterno, it throws a completely different light on their actions in 2001.

No one at PSU continued to reissue an annual Childline Clearance to Sandusky. In '98, JS admitted to showering with other boys in the past and the DPW chose not to investigate and continued to clear him to work with children. If anyone "knew" about JS, it was certainly the DPW.

 

[Zenophile]

No one at PSU continued to reissue an annual Childline Clearance to Sandusky. In '98, JS admitted to showering with other boys in the past and the DPW chose not to investigate and continued to clear him to work with children. If anyone "knew" about JS, it was certainly the DPW.

That's an interesting point. @Stufftodo how many people at DPW knew in 1998?

 

[bjf1991]

The obvious reasons not to tell would be to avoid a scandal and because they thought they had the situation under control. Also, there would be no political "blow back" for taking down a legend.



Repugnant, perhaps, but the same thing happened in Cambria County with the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. An ADA, now a judge, named Patrick Kiniry, went to the bishop and the matter was taken care of by transferring the pedophile priest to another location. It is not unknown in Central Pennsylvania.

BTW: It is not illegal in either case as District Attorney's have the discretion not to prosecute. In other words, no crime by Kiniry (who is still a sitting judge) and no crime in 1998 for CSS, Paterno, or Gricar, if he shows up.

It would, however, create a situation where people at Penn State knew and if any of those people is Curley, Schultz, Spanier, or Paterno, it throws a completely different light on their actions in 2001.

Good Grief .......... You may be the last person left on Earth (the Omega Man? ) who would consider that anyone would believe that no one at PSU had any "inkling" wrt "1998"

And you think you're some kind of "Karnac"?

 

[Stufftodo]

I'll bet you'll really be an expert witness in this trial.

Also I understand that Gricar was looking into Sandusky as late as 2005. What do you make of that?

Police have said there was nothing in Gricar's stuff relating to Sandusky. In both the trial and a media request, there were absolutely no records of Sandusky in the DA's Office. Strange, right?

As far as can tell, your understanding is incorrect.

That's an interesting point. @Stufftodo how many people at DPW knew in 1998?

DPW may have been relying on CYS, which brings back to Didier's point.

 

[Zenophile]

Police have said there was nothing in Gricar's stuff relating to Sandusky. In both the trial and a media request, there were absolutely no records of Sandusky in the DA's Office. Strange, right?

As far as can tell, your understanding is incorrect.



DPW may have been relying on CYS, which brings back to Didier's point.

What did the people at DPW know in 1998?

 

[didier]

BTW: It is not illegal in either case as District Attorney's have the discretion not to prosecute. In other words, no crime by Kiniry (who is still a sitting judge) and no crime in 1998 for CSS, Paterno, or Gricar, if he shows up. .

Seems like lawmakers need to address this issue. Have there been any changes implemented recently to stop these kinds of arrangements from happening? I know they've been trying to tighten up mandated reporting laws but this seems to be almost as much of s problem.

 

[marshall23]

What did the people at DPW know in 1998?

It is reasonable to assume that after Sandusky, the most likely criminals in the case worked for The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The employees of CYS/DPW who slept on the job for decades. The prosecutors who fashioned a case intent on steering clear of this fact and TSM (where Corbett and his predecessors neglected their charity oversight responsibilities), the state police who lied under oath, the certified child care director at TSM who was a mandated reporter and never instituted safeguards to protect the children he knew JS was seeing one on one. The judges who continually sent foster children to JS.