Lubrano post on Facebook
- Thread starter manofsteel200
- Start date
I'm just speculating here, but I think since Sandusky was a resident of Centre County, Clinton County CYS probably provided them with a copy of the file.
The key difference between 1998 and 2001 is that the victim's mother reported the incident to police in 1998.
Regarding the Sassano testimony about Centre County CYS having the 2008 victim 1 record, the investigators were already aware of that report. Sassano was testifying about going back to Centre County CYS after the date change from 2002 to 2001, and CYS said they had nothing at all except for the 2008 victim 1 report.
FYI - the Moulton report at p.35 indicates Centre County CYS did not have that victim 1 report any sooner than late 2010, at least 2 years after the report:
"There is no indication in the records, or through interviews, that before late 2010 anyone involved in the criminal investigation of A.F.'s allegations contacted Centre County CYS, DPW, Penn State, or the State
College police to ask about other allegations against Sandusky."
Joe could have also turned it into a question with just voice inflection which would not come through on a transcript unless the transcriber added the PS note. IOW, if you say "It was a sexual nature" with your voice rising, it becomes a question and a "?" should have been added.
In response to a Right to Know request for the 1998 investigation, UPPD released a note dated June 2, 1998 that says:
" At 1840 hours, PSO Schreffler requested an incident number for an ongoing investigation".
Now Gricar declined to prosecute that case before June 1...and Harmon told Schreffler on June 1 that the case was closed. Why, then, was Schreffler requesting an incident number on June 2 for an "ongoing case"? What's going on here?
" At 1840 hours, PSO Schreffler requested an incident number for an ongoing investigation".
Now Gricar declined to prosecute that case before June 1...and Harmon told Schreffler on June 1 that the case was closed. Why, then, was Schreffler requesting an incident number on June 2 for an "ongoing case"? What's going on here?
Please allow me to summarize. He's a lying asshole.
Well, I can't help but notice he used to say 'report to cys or police.' And it was the police that got the qualifier as 'outside.' Just a bit different than what he's stating now, even if it was still wrong then too.
You clearly haven't been paying attention. CYS in 2001 could most definitely received a report AND not lifted a finger to investigate.
Many families in Centre County would confirm that CYS ignoring complaints happens all the time. One mother told me that CYS often told her "unless you have blood or a dead body, we aren't going to investigate." This was after her step-daughter was forced to live with her abusive mother -- and attempted suicide -- twice.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I am truly amazed everyday I come back late at night to see the board and this thread is just rolling on.... 
Even more shocking it isn't filled with CR666 posts... although a few in this thread seem like him with other handles...
Even more shocking it isn't filled with CR666 posts... although a few in this thread seem like him with other handles...
doesn't PA CYS have some atrocious answer rate, where they don't even pick up the call most of the time??
Penn State Police is a full police department. They have jurisdiction over the area where the incident took place. If reported to PSU Police, the first 4 *are* off the hook as far as reporting is concerned. Harmon may not be if he was in the loop. Folks seem to think that PSU Police are rent-a-cops and the jurisdiction is in State College, but that's not the case. What you seem to be requiring would be like Philadelphia Police being required to report such an incident to Pittsburgh Police.
This has probably been asked and answered before and I missed it. Why is Joe's actual testimony not public record? Is there audio/video of it, or just transcripts? Regardless of what form, why would they have it read in instead of just submitting it however it was recorded?
It was read into the record in the Dec 2011 prelim hearings. For health reasons, he was unable to attend and testify. It was agreed that his GJ testimony would be read.
Yes, but we're unsure if it was CORRECTLY read into the record. Schultz's attorney filed a motion regarding at least one error that was read into the record. There may have been others, but I'd have to check.
Agree. But Scott has not said a word since Dec 2011 that JVP's testimony was represented incorrectly.
Was Scott actually there when Joe testified or did Joe have another attorney there?
Scott has said he doesn't know whether it was represented properly, but that he would find out.
I am aware of that. But one would think that would have been known walking out of the GJ
You are overestimating people. The fact of the matter is if the legal team & the spokesperson had put the GJ presentment allegations in chronological order prior to November 9th, 2011, they could have refuted the narrative of a PSU cover up enabling Sandusky's abuse.
I just said that...but in a more politically correct manner and without attribution. ;-)
