Juror speaks

[pandaczar12]

McQueary did report it....just like Joe did....to the people in power....who should've reported it to DPW, CYS, cops, who-ever-the-fvck. apparently, they reported it TSM...but that didn't amount to jack sh*t

I don't understand the selective outrage at the folks in the middle of the chain for not calling the cops, CYS, or DPW. What about those at the beginning of the chain on the night of the incident, or the mandatory reporter at the end of the chain who had direct oversight of JS?

 

[Mixolydian]

McQueary did report it....just like Joe did....to the people in power....who should've reported it to DPW, CYS, cops, who-ever-the-fvck. apparently, they reported it TSM...but that didn't amount to jack sh*t

Of all the people this was ever reported to by anyone in 2001, Raykovitz was the most qualified and in the best position to do something about it. Yet the guys who decided to report it to him were charged, and no one else up or down the reporting chain ever was. Makes sense. Yep.

 

[Lion8286]

jesus

"in fact legally he should not have known".....yyyeah, that's my point...Curley said he did.....what entirely?....obviously, nobody knows.

I don't believe Joe was ever asked if he had heard of ANY investigation. The questions were more specific.

If you've ever had a real job, you'd know that matters such as these would be kept close hold.

Numerous instances where I was made aware of an investigation going on in my workplace without knowledge of who or what exactly were being investigated, and unless something came of it I never learned the details.

 

[pandaczar12]

a saint that was confirmed...alone and naked with a boy.....twice.....late at night on the 2nd one....after being told to never effin do it again after the 1st time.

i'm pretty sure nobody here denies this fact

Denies what fact... that people don't shower with clothes on?

 

[getmyjive11]

Really? So among other things you are a human memory expert. If I had been unfairly harassed, and targeted for prosecution, the last thing I would want to do is kiss the asses of the slime that made my life a living hell. You can say anything you want about TC, IMO he is a good and decent man.

Well he is a guilty man who, at best, made poor choices that hurt a lot of people and the University. Sorry that I don't have much sympathy for him.

 

[bplionfan]

No one is using my account. You guys will make up all kinds of nonsense................. if it fits your needs.

You can always tell when the paterno loyalists have taken a setback for the statue coming back. Even though this is actually all over with, the rehashing of the last 15 years starts back up again. 5 years of trying to fix it went up in smoke by Tim and Gary not sticking to the plan and pleading guilty.....

Where did I say Mike is using your account?

 

[PSUPALY]

That's where our thoughts on this go in different directions, then. Imo, Tim reported it, just not to the preferred agency(s). The fact that TSM was not the preferred agency at that time is part of the 2011+ hindsight bias. Without hindsight, TSM seems to be a logical place to take the report.

But he reported it to a mandated agency in any event. I think he likely did that because of the built in bias from the outcome of the '98 investigation.

The degree of C/S/S accountability grows with hindsight bias. The degree of TSM accountability stays at the same very high level regardless if 2011 or 2017 imo.

i don't know man....that's an extremely optimistic outlook.

i can't imagine being presented this kind of info about a man of Jerry's stature, and hindsight 20/20 is tricky, no doubt......but reporting to TSM, JR saying...nah, Jerry's cool...i told him to wear swim trunks....and me being...aight...sounds good to me...yo Jer, that's strike 2 for you....stop bringing kids around the facilities and we should be straight.

i want all of this sh*t to NOT be true.....facts keep f**king with me though.

 

[getmyjive11]

Hahaha, are you kidding me? The guy is a millionaire. This scandal is the best thing that ever happened to him. He wouldn't change a thing.

Money isn't everything. MM lost a lot for being a coward.

 

[bjf1991]

That's where our thoughts on this go in different directions, then. Imo, Tim reported it, just not to the preferred agency(s). The fact that TSM was not the preferred agency at that time is part of the 2011+ hindsight bias. Without hindsight, TSM seems to be a logical place to take the report.

But he reported it to a mandated agency in any event. I think he likely did that because of the built in bias from the outcome of the '98 investigation.

The degree of C/S/S accountability grows with hindsight bias. The degree of TSM accountability stays at the same very high level regardless if 2001 or 2017 imo.

Paly ain't exactly a Rocket Surgeon

 

[psugisher]

ok...now you're accusing me of not thinking. for last 5.5 years, i've been thinking about this plenty.

here's the other thing...i want you to be right....but the 2nd mile wasn't on trial.....C/S/S were....they had the ability to report it....did they not? should JR/2nd mile have MORE of a responsibility to report it?...i won't argue that.....but i have a tough time believing that relieves C/S/S's responsibility in the matter.....since the info was laid in their lap

C/S/S weren't mandated reporters. The endangerment charges aren't equivalent to failure to report charges. Hindsight is the only reason they should've reported at this point. We can all say now that they should've done this and that's what the jury basically did. The issue is C/S/S didn't have all the information we have now. And they didn't sit on the info they did have. They went to the organization that Sandusky and the child in question were believed to be a part of and made them aware of their concerns. The mandated reporter from Second Mile then chose to not act further than advising swim trunks.. Again, all the behaviors of all the key players show that MM didn't communicate what he thinks he did. MM's father, Dranov, PSU admin, Second Mile.. all didn't contact CPS or police. Either they're all guilty of something more or MM didn't get his point across.

 

[pandaczar12]

Well he is a guilty man who, at best, made poor choices that hurt a lot of people and the University. Sorry that I don't have much sympathy for him.

Who exactly are these "a lot" of people that he hurt?

How do you weigh his responsibility with the other key players, such as Sandusky, MM, Raykovitz, CYS, DPW, and TSM? Feel free to assign percentages to make your case.

 

[bplionfan]

It's hindsight bias to think that knowing about 1998 would raise a flag in 2001. All they knew about 1998 in 2001 was that JS was cleared of wrong doing. Human nature would lead them to believe this was just another "false alarm" with the saint who helps troubled youth.

And with such an involved investigation using multiple agencies in 1998...Hindsight bias no doubt.

 

[PSUPALY]

I don't understand the selective outrage at the folks in the middle of the chain for not calling the cops, CYS, or DPW. What about those at the beginning of the chain on the night of the incident, or the mandatory reporter at the end of the chain who had direct oversight of JS?

the difference would be...MM, MM's dad, and Dranov....1. thought MM incident was inappropriate and not sexual assault. 2.had no idea of first incident in '98

I wish to god those 3 DID know about 1998...maybe it would've went straight to the police that night before even going to Joe.....or shoot, maybe the same course of events would've occurred.....no need to speculate.

 

[psudukie]

I think there are a lot of opinions here and we don't even have transcripts from the trial.

If you believe press clippings, and maybe someone who was in attendance can comment, the report to dr r was well ambigious at best and seem to be a hey this happened but don't worry we handled it type report.

To confirm tims words I think we will need the transcripts.

 

[Omar81]

McQueary did report it....just like Joe did....to the people in power....who should've reported it to DPW, CYS, cops, who-ever-the-fvck. apparently, they reported it TSM...but that didn't amount to jack sh*t

It is ridiculous to compare Joe with McQueary. McQueary claims (now) to have witnessed a crime. When you witness a crime, you report it to the police. Joe witnessed nothing. His job (under then-current PSU policy, and under now-current NCAA policy) was to report it to his bosses within the PSU administration. Joe did as required; McQueary did not. End of story (unless you want to get into the fact that the 6'4" 28-year-old coward left a fat, naked 55-year-old in the shower with a naked child -- and I doubt you want to get into that).

 

[marshall23]

Well he is a guilty man who, at best, made poor choices that hurt a lot of people and the University. Sorry that I don't have much sympathy for him.

I doubt TC would want your sympathy. In fact, he probably would prefer to be judged "by the enemies he has made."

 

[PSUPALY]

Paly ain't exactly a Rocket Surgeon

i'm not smart because we disagree?....that cuts me deep.

 

[Lion8286]

i'm not smart because we disagree?....that cuts me deep.

The Rutgers board is calling you back home PALY.

 

[marshall23]

I think there are a lot of opinions here and we don't even have transcripts from the trial.

If you believe press clippings, and maybe someone who was in attendance can comment, the report to dr r was well ambigious at best and seem to be a hey this happened but don't worry we handled it type report.

To confirm tims words I think we will need the transcripts.

Dukie, ambiguous or not....the report was made and it concerned their employee being banished from further use of the PSU facilities with children who were Second Mile clients.
"If you are telling me the Jerry is a ...." TSM, unlike PSU was an organization created to benefit and protect at risk children. JR fumbled big time.

 

[Bob78]

Paly ain't exactly a Rocket Surgeon

Neither am I. (You may have even told me so at one point! )

I don't mind what I perceive to be a level-headed, name-calling-free, discussion involving opposing opinions. Like adults can sometimes have. Those are hard to found on here, no matter what the subject, far too often!

And I am part of the problem at times with certain posters who are on my personal 'ignore' waiting list. I try to catch myself, but sometimes it just feels too damn good to throw out that fun little slam.
You know what I mean, right, bjf?!

Other times, even with the insults and slams and such, the info or POV provided by certain posters still provides an interesting angle or thought. Not all that often, but enough where I will decide to wade through their muck and mire to see if I can learn something or understand something better. That is why I doubt I will ever put you on ignore, bjf. Sometimes, when I can decipher what you are trying to get across, it's a "Hmmm. Interesting." moment. But not being a rocket surgeon, it can be tough to keep up with you!

 

[Mixolydian]

I think there are a lot of opinions here and we don't even have transcripts from the trial.

If you believe press clippings, and maybe someone who was in attendance can comment, the report to dr r was well ambigious at best and seem to be a hey this happened but don't worry we handled it type report.

To confirm tims words I think we will need the transcripts.

I understand and am sympathetic to your bias but come on man. Even if the transcript shows exactly verbatim what you typed, why don't you see that is seriously problematic for Raykovitz?

An athletic director asks for a meeting to tell a director of a child welfare charity don't worry we handled an investigation into possible child molestation by someone who doesn't work for us but does work for you. Seriously???

 

[PSUPALY]

Neither am I. (You may have even told me so at one point! )

I don't mind what I perceive to be a level-headed, name-calling-free, discussion involving opposing opinions. Like adults can sometimes have. Those are hard to found on here, no matter what the subject, far too often!

And I am part of the problem at times with certain posters who are on my personal 'ignore' waiting list. I try to catch myself, but sometimes it just feels too damn good to throw out that fun little slam.
You know what I mean, right, bjf?!

Other times, even with the insults and slams and such, the info or POV provided by certain posters still provides an interesting angle or thought. Not all that often, but enough where I will decide to wade through their muck and mire to see if I can learn something or understand something better. That is why I doubt I will ever put you on ignore, bjf. Sometimes, when I can decipher what you are trying to get across, it's a "Hmmm. Interesting." moment. But not being a rocket surgeon, it can be tough to keep up with you!

 

[getmyjive11]

I doubt TC would want your sympathy. In fact, he probably would prefer to be judged "by the enemies he has made."

That's right, I'm the bad guy in this.

 

[pandaczar12]

the difference would be...MM, MM's dad, and Dranov....1. thought MM incident was inappropriate and not sexual assault. 2.had no idea of first incident in '98

I wish to god those 3 DID know about 1998...maybe it would've went straight to the police that night before even going to Joe.....or shoot, maybe the same course of events would've occurred.....no need to speculate.

So you think that C/S/S should have acted on a report of "inappropriate but not CSA" from MM when they knew that JS was CLEARED of wrong doing in 1998 because it was "inappropriate but not CSA"? SMH!

Given the situation they faced, reporting it to Sandusky's boss who had authority and was infinitely better trained to handle this situation was the perfect response. Only in hindsight was it a mistake.

 

[pandaczar12]

I understand and am sympathetic to your bias but come on man. Even if the transcript shows exactly verbatim what you typed, why don't you see that is seriously problematic for Raykovitz?

An athletic director asks for a meeting to tell a director of a child welfare charity don't worry we handled an investigation into possible child molestation by someone who doesn't work for us but does work for you. Seriously???

If I ever get into a car accident I'm going to call the other guy's insurance company and tell them that I investigated and it was 100% their client's fault. I'm sure that will fly.

 

[kentuckycb]

I think there are a lot of opinions here and we don't even have transcripts from the trial.

If you believe press clippings, and maybe someone who was in attendance can comment, the report to dr r was well ambigious at best and seem to be a hey this happened but don't worry we handled it type report.

To confirm tims words I think we will need the transcripts.

So are C/S/S not good men? Mike testified to the contrary about Curly and Schultz at least.

And Raykovitz told Sandusky to "wear shorts in the shower." Enough of the message got through.

Also, your father and Dranov didn't feel Mike's report was worthy of police involvement.

IMO no one in your family should be painting anyone else out to be the bad guy here...except Sanudsky of course.

 

[Mixolydian]

So you think that C/S/S should have acted on a report of "inappropriate but not CSA" from MM when they knew that JS was CLEARED of wrong doing in 1998 because it was "inappropriate but not CSA"? SMH!

Given the situation they faced, reporting it to Sandusky's boss who had authority and was infinitely better trained to handle this situation was the perfect response. Only in hindsight was it a mistake.

Raykovitz had access to and some level of responsibility for Sandusky and most likely the kid in the shower with him and apparently never lifted a finger to find out what happened. Swim trunks...

 

[WeR0206]

after being told to never effin do it again

And who exactly at PSU was privy to this directive, were any of the admins even aware of this directive??

If LE/DPW didn't want JS showering with kids again, perhaps they should have told the folks at TSM/PSU about this little directive so it could be enforced or they could have just revoked JS' ChildLine clearance or restricted his 1:1 access to kids...but nope, they couldn't be bothered with any of that...JS pinky swearing to a few police officers about not showering with kids again was apparently enough to appease the concerns of these LE/DPW professionals.

 

[bjf1991]

Of all the people this was ever reported to by anyone in 2001, Raykovitz was the most qualified and in the best position to do something about it. Yet the guys who decided to report it to him were charged, and no one else up or down the reporting chain ever was. Makes sense. Yep.

And - whatever it was - where did it END?

Unequivocally - - - - TTBOMK, this has never even been CHALLENGED by ANY of the folks involved - - - - it DIED while in the care of Dr Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim.

Actually, they MURDERED it.

And in all the years since - NO ONE, in a position of responsibility and authority, even asks why?

All the while:

HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS are spent to cover up, to hide, this most basic of "truths"
COUNTLESS LIVES are negatively impacted to cover up, to hide, this most basic of "truths"

And six years later....... the circle-jerk of MM/TC/GS/GS continues, while JR and BH stroll about their merry way.



Yep...... I'm good with that.

 

[kentuckycb]

I understand and am sympathetic to your bias but come on man. Even if the transcript shows exactly verbatim what you typed, why don't you see that is seriously problematic for Raykovitz?

An athletic director asks for a meeting to tell a director of a child welfare charity don't worry we handled an investigation into possible child molestation by someone who doesn't work for us but does work for you. Seriously???

Exactly...which is why you can't blame anyone else for thinking this was just "Jerry being Jerry" rather than some monster.

 

[PSUPALY]

And who exactly at PSU was privy to this directive, were any of the admins even aware of this directive??

If LE/DPW didn't want JS showering with kids again, perhaps they should have told the folks at TSM/PSU about this little directive so it could be enforced or they could have just revoked JS' ChildLine clearance or restricted his 1:1 access to kids...but nope, they couldn't be bothered with any of that...JS pinky swearing to a few police officers about not showering with kids again was apparently enough to appease the concerns of these LE/DPW professionals.

so, you're arguing that C/S/S weren't privy to this directive?....you know what, you're probably right. though, how does it matter?.....C/S/S (at least Curley/Shultz, for sure) knew he was being investigated for showering naked with a boy...charges are dropped...great....but then Jerry does it again.....and what did they do with that alarming info?...they report to the 2nd mile (bit of a conflict of interest) who does jack sh*t and remove Jerry's guest privileges.....fantastic

 

[Mixolydian]

so, you're arguing that C/S/S weren't privy to this directive?....you know what, you're probably right. though, how does it matter?.....C/S/S (at least Curley/Shultz, for sure) knew he was being investigated for showering naked with a boy...charges are dropped...great....but then Jerry does it again.....and what did they do with that alarming info?...they report to the 2nd mile (bit of a conflict of interest) who does jack sh*t and remove Jerry's guest privileges.....fantastic

Investigating child molestation shouldn't be a conflict of interest for the head of a child welfare charity. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? The problem is Raykovitz apparently saw it as a conflict of interest and acted accordingly. He should be in jail.

 

[PSUPALY]

Investigating child molestation shouldn't be a conflict of interest for the head of a child welfare charity. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? The problem is Raykovitz apparently saw it as a conflict of interest and acted accordingly. He should be in jail.

i agree with everything you said

 

[bplionfan]

I know there are some great sleuths on here. Anyone check Victoria Navazio social media accounts for previous opinions on the Sandusky story?

 

[psudukie]

Where did I say I think they are bad men. I am not here to judge or assign judgement.

I do think for five years mike, on these boards and maybe in fact only on these boards mike has been the target of many attacks. To a lesser extent my father myself my mom and my brother in law. People have a right to opinion. I do find a lack of consistency in standards applied to mike vs others.

Anyway Kentucky I never said they were bad men. Not in one post will you find this words from me.

So are C/S/S not good men? Mike testified to the contrary about Curly and Schultz at least.

And Raykovitz told Sandusky to "wear shorts in the shower." Enough of the message got through.

Also, your father and Dranov didn't feel Mike's report was worthy of police involvement.

IMO no one in your family should be painting anyone else out to be the bad guy here...except Sanudsky of course.

here

 

[Countrylion]

he learned of 98...in 98...based on the 1998 email chain where Curley said the "coach is anxious to get an update" was Joe (the anxious coach).

Wrong, Curly testified that was Sandusky who was anxious, Curley merely stated he appraised Joe of the 98 situation - no more details were testified to than that. Stop making things up.

 

[Zenophile]

Investigating child molestation shouldn't be a conflict of interest for the head of a child welfare charity. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? The problem is Raykovitz apparently saw it as a conflict of interest and acted accordingly. He should be in jail.

While it seems unlikely, I remain open to the notion that, despite his training & advanced degrees, Raykovitz may have been genuinely unaware of the truly nefarious nature of Sandusky's activity.

What strikes me as ridiculous in the absurd are those who aren't open to the notion that a university athletic director, administrator and football coach could be genuinely unaware of the same.

 

[Bob78]

so, you're arguing that C/S/S weren't privy to this directive?....you know what, you're probably right. though, how does it matter?.....C/S/S (at least Curley/Shultz, for sure) knew he was being investigated for showering naked with a boy...charges are dropped...great....but then Jerry does it again.....and what did they do with that alarming info?...they report to the 2nd mile (bit of a conflict of interest) who does jack sh*t and remove Jerry's guest privileges.....fantastic

fantastic

But that's hindsight again, imo. Again, all my opinion, Raykovitz is trained to understand that things may not be as they appear on the surface wrt CSA and predators... espcially pillar of the community predators.
To execute his responsibility in the expected manner, he needed to say, in essence.... "Tim, let me help you with this. I understand you looked into it. What exactly did you do? There are some additional things we need to do with such a report. I will handle that on my end since you brought 'something' to my attention. I may or may not keep you apprised depending on what we find and what steps we need to take."

I'm in HR. I tell managers that they need to keep me in the loop whenever they get wind of anything that may have a little bit of a gray area involved, and I'll help them with the process and who needs to know and what needs to be done. Once they have told me, they are probably out of it for the most part. I'm better trained in this than they are at this point (even though I've provided the managers with training on how to at least triage issues). Now it is on me to investigate no matter how little of deal they may have thought it was. How big a deal it is is now on me. It may truly be nothing. But at the very least I likely need a little more info than they have given me. Not always, but if a flag goes up for me from an HR view, I gotta look into it earnestly and maybe report it for further help and guidance. The manager does not need to explicitly ask me for help. I know my job and my role in situations like this. And it isn't to tell them they are crazy (well, usually!).
In this above scenario, I'm Raykovitz and the manager is Curley. Not a perfect analogy but the important points are made.

 

[PSUPALY]

Wrong, Curly testified that was Sandusky who was anxious, Curley merely stated he appraised Joe of the 98 situation - no more details were testified to than that. Stop making things up.

fine....but like you said, Curley implicated Joe of being aware of the situation....let's not mince words.

"Schulte presented Curley with email streams during which he and Schultz discussed the 1998 investigation. In one entry, Curley asked for an update and told Schultz, "I have touched base with coach. Keep us posted."

The coach mentioned in the email was head football coach Joe Paterno, Curley said. In another email seeking an update, Curley told Schultz that "coach is anxious to hear where it stands."

 

[Connorpozlee]

McQueary did report it....just like Joe did....to the people in power....who should've reported it to DPW, CYS, cops, who-ever-the-fvck. apparently, they reported it TSM...but that didn't amount to jack sh*t

Major difference there is that Mike was the witness.