They absolutely did NOT have a legal requirement to report. That is part of why the FTR charges were dropped.
Lubrano was just on the Glenn Beck Program discussing how poorly the scandal was handled
- Thread starter The Spin Meister
- Start date
They absolutely did NOT have a legal requirement to report. That is part of why the FTR charges were dropped.
I'm sorry...what?? We have no idea what courtney told them, only that they went to counsel for advice. You don't go to counsel for advice if you are covering something up.
Hey! I grew up in Mechanicsburg (of all places)!
Still, no city or town should have to bear the burden of being home to that rag.
Thanks for keeping on, Wensilver.
We have no idea what really took place during that conversation (other than Courtney's one sentence answer during a deposition, i.e. "I do remember..."). Hopefully we will learn much more at trial, but I doubt it. Courtney is compromised by being a practicing attorney. He will not say anything other than I advised Schultz to report it.
Also, Schultz may have been satisfied that reporting to TSM was in effect reporting to DPW (or a government entity) because TSM had a relationship with Centre County CYS. We simply don't know. Schultz himself has repeatedly been unable to recall specific thoughts during that time (which was now 15+ years ago). And let's not forget none of these men were mandatory reporters at the time. If Courtney was a through attorney, that fact should have been communicated as well.
Again, like everything here it's complex. There was no clear protocol.
Courtney testified that he recommended them to report it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/23/lawyer-says-told-penn-state-official-to-report-sandusky.html
Listen, I still don't think that C&S tried to cover anything up. I also realize that an attorney would err on the side of caution when giving advice. C&S probably didn't understand the severity if what MM told them and they were inclined to give JS the benefit of the doubt. That said, they didn't even make a formal record of MM's report and how they handled it. That's HR 101 and C&S were derelict in their duties.
That's one of his stories. He also said that he wasn't told of anything improper. So if that's the case, why would he have recommended reporting it?
"Courtney testified in the May 31 deposition that although he did not recall specifics of the phone call, "I do remember that the advice I gave was to report to DPW." The state Department of Human Services, which was called the Department of Public Welfare at the time, maintains a ChildLine hotline to field reports of child abuse.
Courtney told The New York Times in 2011 that he was never told of Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children, and if he had "any idea that there was even remotely improper conduct with children on any day since the beginning of time, nothing in the world would have kept me from being absolutely certain that it was reported to the police immediately. That is my duty."
Hey! I grew up in Mechanicsburg (of all places)!
Still, no city or town should have to bear the burden of being home to that rag.
Thanks for keeping on, Wensilver.
Sorry Bob - but to be honest, the crummy Patriot-News? This is the BEST "we" could do as far as "investigative reporting" on the entire shitstorm?
When this all first blew open I was asking myself - what the hell is PennLive?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?
I don't think MM knew for sure what he experienced but it was very troubling to him. If he actually saw sexual abuse I assume he would have told his dad and Dranov about that. I suspect that he gave C&S a "soft" story because he didn't want to make a false accusation. I believe that at least Shultz had some awareness of 1998 and he shared that knowledge with Curley. I believe that they knew JS was investigated and not prosecuted so they though this time was similar (horsing around, boundary issues, improper contact, etc.). That's probably what they told Courtney. Courtney probably told them to report it anyway just to be safe. Unfortunately they did not take his advice.
IMO you've got to document everything. Every $25 million company has rules to do that. PSU has a $5 billion budget. I'm pretty sure they have rules, forms, etc. including a whistleblower policy. You just don't handle things like this "off the record". Just think if they had a written statement or a recording from MM. Just think if they had documented the conversations. The end result would have been much different even if they decided not to report. No his word against theirs and obviously no coverup theory.
Bottom line is they did a horrible job and now it's bitten them in the ar$e. But that doesn't make they pedophile enablers.
That's nonsense. They were accused of murder and admitted to jaywalking. They've essentially pleaded guilty of letting Sandusky fool them. Spanier is still fighting. He should win and then tear Louis Freeh a new one.
Jaywalking carries a possible 5 year sentence? Jaywalking gets you fired and shamed?
Interesting comparison...
They weren't mandated reporters. They did report it to jack raykovitz, a mandated reporter. From what we know, raykovitz did not follow the law as a mandated reporter and report it.
courtney testified recently that he recommended that PSU report the incident, yet Schultz went to raykovitz afterwards. It stands to reason that Schultz and courtney discussed involvement of the second mile. It would be very strange if they didn't dicuss it.
You should probably wait to see if C/S are testifying for the state before making this declaration.
Vandalism is actually a better comparison.
Both EWOC and Vandalism are misdemeanors.
I believe jaywalking is a summary offense (ticket), but I'm sure Indy was using hyperbole.
You had it right and I had a part of it wrong however...
They pleaded guilty to EWOC because of a Failure to Report which was the cause of the EWOC. My theory was "once removed" but still relevant in my opinion. Had the they reported the incident none of this would have happened but the weren't required to report the incident. C&S did not shower with Victim #2 but that act got JS EWOC. Where is the fairness in that?
There is no EWOC if there is no FTR.
CS&S are charged with EWOC but not 10 other people who had as much or more information on the subject like JR and Bruce Heim? The real cover up still stands with the AOG, Corbutt, all the people who worked the 98 case because the cover up was their lack of investigative care that was their job. They were the ones who allowed JS to groom and then abuse additional kids.
So I think you are partially right.
If C/S/S reported 2001, then you could argue that there would be no EWOC (at least as it relates to 2001). However, just because they didn't report it doesn't mean there is automatically EWOC.
EWOC requires that they are shown to be in the supervision of the child and/or prevented a report. I don't think that is an easy burden to prove for the OAG.
It appears Lubrano believes Sandusky is innocent as well. Beck asked him the question and Lubrano refused to comment. If Lubrano believes Sandusky is guilty, why not just say it? Of course, if he believes Sandusky is innocent, it makes sense for him to not comment on the issue, since it would damage his career and credibility and make him subject to "pedophile enabler" attacks.
I have never heard Lubrano give any indication he believed JS is innocent, and I'm certainly not going to put words into his mouth or make assumptions about things that I know nothing about.
I totally disagree. Lubrano doesn't need to give an opinion about Sandusky because it's not relevant to what Lubrano is trying to accomplish. Sandusky has been convicted and has his own legal team to help him try to convey wrongful conviction. What Lubrano thinks doesn't matter in any way to the situation at hand.
---
Umnnn no. He was smart to not answer directly but point out how terribly they handled the case Just points to further incompetence or deception by the state in this case. By doing so, it shows that this entire case was screwed up from the start.
Sandusky was given a terrible trial and deserves a good one, as we all do. If the state can do this to him they can do it to any one of us. Not saying he is innocent as I think he is guilty. But that trial was a joke and that level of incompetence/corruption should not be allowed to stand.
The call for a Sandusky retrial is NOT saying that he is innocent. What is being said is the LEGAL case on which the trial was based and a verdict delivered was NOT anywhere near what should legally have been allowed. Too much focus on the Sandusky-Penn State connection (a single incident event - the prior investigated case does not count). This refocusing of the public away from actual facts and on to "the Story" --- The "Story" of a "Monster Pedophile" enabled by a "Criminal Football Culture" led a coach who only met the legal requirements of the law and "...morally should have done more..."(A/K/A "The Most Hated Man on Earth").
The "Story" with all its inconsistencies of OAG actions and "purposefully skewed information" created a LEGAL climate where a complete, unbiased legal trial (and legal playing field) was nothing short of impossible. The OAG knew the "liberties" they took in this case would allow them to ENGINEERED a "visually legal" environment that did not need to conform to foundation legal processes. In addition the State's unique ability to control what "evidence" was admissible created the mountains of public misinformation on which a biased trial outcome was based. These engineered abuses continue to provide coverup today in 2017!!
You can not try C/S/S on the charges the OAG made and let TSM and those associated with TSM go COMPLETELY FREE!! You don't charge someone with a crime and then BURN DOWN THE SCENE OF THE CRIME without investigating the crime scene!! Come on!
Something has been rotten here since day one - no other "reasonable conclusion" based on the total 6 years of OAG-led manipulation.
It is further complicated by the fact that Curley and Schultz didn't know who the child they supposedly endangered was.
That's ca
Huge point as there are kids as young as 14 admitted as students every year. So they really did need to try to find out whether this kid was one of them.
Which epic pile of BS is that? I haven't heard Spanier testify or say (in the NYT interview) anything I would categorize as BS.
I'm not sure what you have against Spanier (or is it against all of PSU in general), but I'd encourage you to use some critical thinking skills here. Nothing about any of this adds up to a conspiracy of any kind. No laws were broken by the admins.
Given that Lubrano is a member of the BOT, he cannot say he believes Sandusky is innocent. It is too toxic and politically charged of an issue to do so. If he did, he would be taken even less seriously that he is now.
What he did say was that he acknowledged Ziegler's 6 years of effort on the case and that Ziegler has had a tough road to hoe in that time and that he personally has serious concerns about the process that was used to try Sandusky in 6 months where that it has been around 6 years and the cases against CSS are just now getting to trial. Lubrano said that he was pleased that Judge Foradora has recently scheduled 3 more evidentiary hearings in Sandusky's quest to win a new trial and that he personally believes that he should have a new trial. Since Lubrano has been to several of the past Sandusky PCRA hearings and has been friendly with Ziegler, I would say that at least he believes that there is a good chance that Sandusky is not guilty of the crimes that he has been convicted of.
