right. and that could mean a lot of things
"what are the requirements for reporting suspected child abuse?" for example
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
right. and that could mean a lot of things
"what are the requirements for reporting suspected child abuse?" for example
Looking at things in the simplest forms:
"reporting suspected child abuse"
vs
"report of suspected child abuse"
I also believe this is common knowledge.
However, please reference my earlier post on this (not sure if it is this thread or another recent one) explaining why this isn't necessarily unusual, but certainly could have impacted the GJ.
I have it in front of me. Exact wording was: "Conference with G Schultz re reporting of suspected child abuse; Legal research re same; Conference with G Schultz" 2.90 hours billed
My take? I take that to mean that McQueary got the message across to these guys that, whatever it was that he had and hadn't seen, he at a minimum suspected Jerry was up to no damned good with the kid and conveyed that to Paterno who conveyed that to Curley and Schultz (note that suspecting and knowing are two entirely different things), and they in turn asked Courtney how to go about reporting it and he told them to do something....what exactly? we have no idea since Freeh covered that up...and that ostensibly Courtney's advice was to report the incident to the prez of the Second Mile, since we do know that was their plan all along from the very next day. My personal guess is that reporting to Raykovitz would be because Raykovitz had both legal responsibility for his employee as well as had legal care over the kid signed up to TSM programs and was a legally mandated reporter and therefore it was HIS moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to carry the report further to whichever responsible reporting agency he was expected to under the reporting laws. Pinheads like GTCSA, CR66 and Elmo will say they were passing the buck, which is par for the course for those guys, but it's undeniable (at least for the unbiased) that they were following the reporting laws as they were written at the time and were getting McQueary's report into the most directly responsible hands possible. It's unreasonable to expect that these guys should have known that Raykovitz and the rest of the Second Mile were corrupt and to further anticipate that the TSM would shirk their moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to the kids in their care and that they would simply turn their backs on the boy in the shower.
McQueary testified to the grand jury on 12/14/2010. This was established at Sandusky's trial. See p.273 of the 6/12/2012 transcript. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz all testified to the grand jury on 1/12/2011. This was established at the 12/16/2011 preliminary hearing for Curley and Schultz when their testimonies were read into the record. These dates were confirmed in the Moulton report, which also established the 33rd SWIGJ was seated after those testimonies.
The timeline outlined in the Moulton report indicates that the only testimony given to the 30th SWIGJ that the voting grand jury heard was the testimony that prosecutors chose to have read into the record. Here are the relevant timeline events from the Moulton report:
http://filesource.abacast.com/commo...EPORT_to_AG_ON_THE_SANDUSKY_INVESTIGATION.pdf
- 3/1/2009 – OAG submits the Sandusky investigation to the Thirtieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury [30th SWIGJ].
- 12/14/2010 – Second (and final) 2010 grand jury session. McQueary testifies.
- 1/12/2011 – First 2011 grand jury session. Last session for Thirtieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz testify.
- 1/27/2011 – OAG submits the Sandusky investigation to the Thirty-Third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury [33rd SWIGJ], following expiration of Thirtieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury [30th SWIGJ].
- 6/14/2011 – Eighth 2011 grand jury session. Agent Shaffer reads to the Thirty-Third Grand Jury testimony given before the Thirtieth Grand Jury.
- 6/16/2011 – Ninth 2011 grand jury session. OAG agents read to the Thirty-Third Grand Jury testimony given before the Thirtieth Grand Jury.
- 11/3/2011 – Sixteenth 2011 grand jury session. The Grand Jury [the 33rd SWIGJ] votes to approve a presentment recommending charges against Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz.
Mike McQueary, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Joe Paterno testified to the 30th SWIGJ. But it was the next grand jury, the 33rd SWIGJ, that voted to approve the Grand Jury Presentment. Testimony presented to prior grand jury was read into the record by agents of the Office of Attorney General on June 14th and 16th of 2011. It is not public whether full or partial testimony was read into the record to the voting grand jury. The voting grand jury never heard McQueary, Paterno, Curley or Schultz testify.
At the 11/7/2011 press conference Attorney General Linda Kelly addressed this. At 14:28 in the video below Kelly is asked about the grand jury’s assessment of McQueary’s credibility as compared to their assessment of Curley and Schultz’s credibility.
She stumbles a bit a before saying, “I’m sure as grand juries do that they assess credibility based on what the person says in the grand jury.”
Unequivocally true. The GJ that issued the presentment NEVER heard testimony from MM yet the presentment is littered with conclusions regarding the credibility of MM's testimony. Think about that for a minute.
No. The reporting becomes a report. Schultz reported. Courtney wrote reporting. It's still a report. If Courtney wrote report it would not change a thing.
The way I would determine the meaning behind those phrases would be to ask "what would those files contain?" (in very lay terms)
"reporting suspected child abuse" (a checklist of the steps and one would take in reporting a case of suspected child abuse)
"report of suspected child abuse" (an actual report of abuse)
Well, I think you are over analyzing. Either way 'suspected' makes them equal.
The inclusion of the preposition changes the meaning
I don't think I'm over analyzing anything, I see a big difference in the meanings
"They had no other options"...And Creepy#66 and the OGBOT Misanthropes expect us to believe that THEY acted in the best interests of AND to protect Penn State
Don't forget, though, that Shultz and Curley initially put together their 3 part plan of which the 3rd part was informing the appropriate government agency. But then, Curley e-mailed Shultz and Spanier saying he wasn't comfortable reporting Sandusky without 1st talking to him and informing him of their plans. Shultz and Spanier agreed, but then that 3rd part somehow disappeared after the Curley/Sandusky conversation. The point being that probably Courtney recommended calling DPW or CYS [whichever it was] as that was part of the initial plan.
Weren't there some legal filings from
the CSS attorneys about a year ago asking the OAG to turn over documents concerning statements from Courtney that were apparently exculpatory towards CSS?
the CSS attorneys about a year ago asking the OAG to turn over documents concerning statements from Courtney that were apparently exculpatory towards CSS?
My 2 phrases were taken from Simons post from above. I was illustrating the differences
In the exact wording from mhentz post:
"Conference with G Schultz re reporting of suspected child abuse; Legal research re same; Conference with G Schultz" 2.90 hours billed
"reporting of suspected child abuse" would have the same meaning as my first example (a process, not a an actual report) I guess I could have been more clear but I'm happy to see we agree.
Sort of like the Legal system's version of a Ponzi scheme. The OAG got their "return" (indictment and subsequent "Penn State scandal" nomenclature) from the newer investors (33rd SWIG). The scheme all started with the original investors (MM and the 30th SWIG) who were unaware they were playing a key, originating part in a fraudulent scheme.
Last edited:
It could imply a big difference ....... or none at all (which is just the type of situation GTASCA - The Circle-Jerk King - lives for)
The only way to know would be to look inside the F&CKING file.......but, thus far, the good leaders at PSU have prevented that.
So far THAT fact - that PSU Leaders are preventing the look - is the most meaningful thing (by far) that we know about the file.
You are correct, the best I can do is speculate. Show the file and let the chips fall where they may.
If Courtney looked up the statutes correctly he would have told Schultz that if he wanted to report suspected abuse he'd have to call ChildLine ASAP and also file a written report to CC CYS within 48 HOURS.....not tell DPW two weeks later. This is another little gem that freeh just so happened to not even look up....what the actual 2001 statute said re: reporting suspected abuse. The whole "they changed their plan to not tell DPW therefore they covered up" is a red herring by freeh.
I think they viewed DPW as a fail safe once Tim decided to confront JS instead of go to everyone behind his back.. if JS pushed back on their directives that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop then they would get DPW to drive home that message since they were viewed as "an independent agency concerned with child welfare" that JS couldn't really balk at. TC would still inform the phd in psychiatry and mandatory reporter JR at TSM with or without JS' cooperation as JR was INFINITELY more qualified to deal with the vague assumption riddled report from MM than they were.
Apparently JS agreed with their directives so DPW wasn't needed/would be redundant. As we all know TC still went on to inform JR about the incident and PSU's new directives re: JS' guest privileges being revoked.
Last edited:
If you need to be right, go ahead. There was a report. Headache inducing. Take a shot at the 2nd amendment.
I just referred back to the note and see that the Second Mile was not mentioned in the Monday morning meeting, but they did discuss the Second Mile in their next meeting about two weeks later and before the whole e-mail chain fiasco and supposed change of plan. That idea HAD to come from somewhere. The note in the initial 2/12/01 Monday morning meeting the fourth bullet point reads; "unless he "confesses" to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned w child welfare." Note they are NOT referring to the DPW as the appropriate governmental agency for reporting suspected child abuse, but they're referring to it as an independent agency and is ostensibly one they could possible bring in to mediate a dispute over the matter between Sandusky and Curley. The quotes around the word "confesses" is also noteworthy.
Also, during the e-mail chain, contacting the TSM was the main plan of action and contacting the DPW was a contingency; Curly: "Also, we feel a responsibility at some time soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation.' Schultz: "I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation........We can play it by ear to decide about the other organization." These are the two guys who were the primary decision makers, Spanier was way out of the loop and been update only briefly for a coupla minutes on two occasions. It's noteworthy to me that Schultz is the guy insisting that no matter what the TSM is going to get the report. He's also the guy who actually talked to Courtney. To him, contacting the TSM was the imperative and contacting DPW was a contingency. I believe that is because that is what Courtney told him to do.
Regardless, Just because it's not included in that particular 2/12/01 note does not necessarily mean they had not identified TSM as the appropriate agency to contact with regard to reporting of suspected child abuse at that point. One thing to note from the 2/12/01 Monday morning meeting was that other than noting that they had "reviewed 1998 history" Schultz's note deals exclusively with action items for Curley. At that point, it's a possibility that Schultz was already reserving contacting the TSM as an action item for himself or possibly for Harmon whom we know had been brought into the loop. By the time they got around to dealing with all this two weeks later (and the reason for the delay is an enduring mystery that I cannot wait for an answer to) Schultz could no longer keep it as an action item for himself and had to bounce it to Curley since he left vacation the day after the 2/25/01 meeting with Spanier.
The whole thing just give me a headache. Honestly, I do not believe there would be all these open issues and questions if the Freeh report had been anywhere near what it purported to be.
Of course, many witnesses were not interviewed by request of the OAG.
If this was an "internal investigation" - then why was there a need to comply with the OAG's request? Just tell the OAG that this was solely an internal investigation. I mean, unless there was some kinda of active collusion between Freeh and the OAG (ha,ha, I know - so silly right?) then there shouldn't be any issue should there?
Does anyone actually have a copy of what the 'original' plan really was? Did they plan on telling him at 7 pm and switched it to 6 pm?
Mark, go check pages 49 and 50 of Schultz's 10/31/2012 omnibus motion.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...Schultz Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion 10-31-12.pdf
It's a hard copy print-out of the TSM website listing the board members. This was probably in his "secret file" that Belcher delivered. Be sure to check the bottom of the pages - it says it was printed on 2/12/2001. Seems clear Schultz was trying to figure out who was on the board or who the chairman was. Notably, it does not identify the chair.
We don't know that. That is nothing but a "conclusion" drawn by Freeh. The state has also asserted that it was not reported, but there is no proof of that.
You miss the "re" in the note as context. In other words, Courtney met with Schultz about reporting suspected child abuse and did legal research about reporting suspected child abuse. The note does not imply what conclusion Courtney came to or the legal advice he gave from this meeting and research.
It is probably safe to assume Courtney himself did not report or he would have noted this in billable hours, but beyond that it is too tenuous to assume that Courtney advise to report, and if so, too whom, and whether Schultz followed or deviated from that advice. Courtney could have conclude a report was not necessary or that it should be reported to TSM or that it should go to child line/LE/DPW.
A couple of additional items on this topic - Courtney was supposedly doing Legal Counsel work for The Second Mile at the time (e.g., in 2001) on a "volunteer" basis (e.g., this is equivalent to contributing professional services to a NPO/Charity for tax purposes I believe.
Secondly, Curley and Schultz were not "Mandated Reporters" under CPS Law as written at the time (2001) - Jack Raykovitz and all empolyees of The Second Mile WERE "MANDATED REPORTERS" under CPS Law in 2001 - not just "Mandated Reporters" but OBLIGATED parties to conduct an investigation of any report of "Inappropriate Behavior" with a child by one of their SUPERVISED EMPOLYEES. Lastly, The Second Mile was a DIRECT SUBCONTRACTOR to DPW regarding all manner of "evaluations" relative to DPW/CYS Family Services including adoptions, foster parenting, investigating/evaluating reports of Child Abuse (which is why Seasock was hired by DPW/CYS in 1998 - Centre County CYS/DPW referenced that they would usually hire TSM to evaluate, but TSM would have a "conflict of interest" preventing them from subcontracting on the 1998 Case, e.g., V6, - the potential Victim was a recipient of TSM Programs and was under the care of TSM at the time of the incident!).
Add all that up, and Wendell Courtney providing the legal advice to PSU Executives, C/S/S, as GC for the University (does not matter that he was an "outside GC", that's what PSU used at the time regarding the named General Counsel) to report the matter to The Second Mile, which is almost certainly what his recommendation was, is EQUIVALENT to a report to DPW/CYS as Courtney would have known full well that ALL EMPLOYEES, most especially the Senior Executive and lead "Family Services" expert at the NPO, are MANDATED REPORTERS and would have been obligated to report the matter to DPW/CYS including their own internal investigation of the matter relative to Sandusky given that they had SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY over Sandusky in the very matter in question. So Courtney would have assumed that once Curley reported the matter to Raykovitz via the proposed plan, by law TSM would have made a report to DPW/CYS - especially given that TSM would have clearly been conflicted on the matter given their MANDATED REPORTER STATUS and the fact that they were told that PSU suspected the child was a TSM Participant (and Sandusky claims he told C/S/S as much when questioned about it). It is impossible for Raykovitz and Heim to claim that PSU did not tell them about suspected INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR on the part of Sandusky as Curley told Raykovitz that they were RESCINDING some of Sandusky's TSM privileges at PSU due to their CONCERNS regarding his behavior and that they NEVER wanted Sandusky on the campus ALONE with TSM Participants EVER AGAIN and they wanted Raykovitz to see to it that this change in "policy" relative to Sandusky's "TSM provisions of his retirement agreement" be abided by as Sandusky's, and all TSM counselors, direct monitor and supervisor as well as creator of policies & procedures at TSM.
In any event, at the time (2001), a report to TSM by PSU was equivalent to a report to DPW/CYS given their MANDATED RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER BOTH CPS LAW AND THEIR CHILDREN'S DEDICATED CHARITY LICENSING!!! Wendell Courtney would have known this and taken this into consideration in regards to his REPORTING RECOMMENDATION and would have known the implications of his RECOMMENDATION even if Curley and Schultz did not understand it as well as Courtney - that's what PSU pays a General Counsel for, this very type of advice, once C/S/S follow Courtney's advice they should be perfectly protected.
Exactly right...JR did contract work for CC CYS and was also a mandatory reporter. For the state to argue FTR/EWOC in addition to proving they were mandatory reporters at the time (the state has already conceded they weren't) they'd have to show that CSS' actions somehow PREVENTED a report from being made.
How in the world does forwarding the inappropriate showering report and PSU's new directive that JS' guest privileges were revoked PREVENTING a report from being made to CC CYS? If TSM followed their own licensing policy and the damned law they should have made a report to CC CYS....CCS' actions certainly didn't prevent a report from being made they should have caused a report from being made. It's a non sequitur to argue otherwise.
Since JR was actually a contractor for CC CYS, for all we know CYS/DPW considered JR THE child care expert in CC. I doubt any CC CYS case workers had Phd's in Psychiatry.
What this all boils down to is JR was infinitely more qualified to handle MM's vague assumption riddled report than some college admins/football coach. Nothing idiot freeh or his cheerleaders who lurk on this board say will change that FACT.
You are right. The 're' does change the meanng. Apology to Misder, though he didn't present the question with the 're' I don't think.
Courtney could have, in fact, recommended any number of things as the PSU General Counsel - that's what he was paid to do (e.g., provide "legal advice" to Senior PSU Executives and the Board - Board at the time, I believe one of the things they've done since Nov 2011 is establish a separate Board Counsel from the University's GC). Courtney would have been in the best position to provide advice on the topic after reviewing the 1998 Case File (which he undoubtedly worked and commented upon in 1998) and his intimate knowledge of the implied legal reporting requirements of both PSU and The Second Mile (given the "volunteer" free legal services he was providing TSM, he would have had deep knowledge of their legal reporting requirements). The chances that C/S/S didn't follow the advice provided by PSU's paid and titled General Counsel is "absolute zero" percent (e.g., even less than a limit approaching zero!) - in addition, if there was ANY EVIDENCE, let alone documented evidence, that C/S/S did not follow the University's General Counsel's explicit advice, we would have heard all about it by now!
They released the transcript. It's pretty cut and dry unless you wear the official Sandusky truther tinfoil hat.
The original link to the Freeh report went dead when the progress website disappeared, but you can still find in on the web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20130128...su.edu/assets/content/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
FYI - when the progress site disappeared, PSU just moved various Freeh and related files to another site. It's worth a look: http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/
Here's a link to the Freeh report on that site: http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
Except that nobody has seen the actual transcript, right?
We have seen the part of the transcript where Paterno said that it was a sexual nature. That's all we need to know.
mmm...not really. He says right after that "I don't know what you'd call it".
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting December 2 NitBits - Early Signing Period is here- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
