McQueray Hearing Cancelled.

[PrinceIgor]

Again you completely ignore what has been pointed out to you numerous times. The standard for the CC DA to press criminal charges is MUCH higher (they must be able to prove sexual intent/gratification was behind the showering behavior) than the standard for CYS/DPW to indicate JS. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY CCDA "STANDARDS" HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I POSTED. If the state experts thought there was the slightest chance JS would bring harm to children, they would have indicated him thus revoking his state issued clearance to work with kids. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I POSTED. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. I AM NOT QUESTIONING WHETHER JERRY SHOULD -- OR SHOULD NOT -- HAVE BEEN INDICTED. I AM SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY FAMILIAR WITH 1998 HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH REASON TO TAKE MIKE McCREARY SERIOUSLY WHEN EVENTS HE RELATED SUGGESTED THAT 2001 MIGHT BE A REPLAY OF 1998.

DO YOU EVER SLOW DOWN LONG ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY READ WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAYS BEFORE BEGINNING EXTRANEOUS REBUTTAL?

If the state EXPERTS (who were privy to Chambers' report btw--she phoned it in directly to DPW's Childline and it was attached to Schreffler's report on 5/8/98) were fooled by JS, why do you hold college admins/fb coach to a higher standard?? YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY WRONG. CHAMBERS' PHONE CALL TO DPW WAS MADE 2 DAYS BEFORE SHE EVEN WROTE HER REPORT, WHICH SHE GAVE TO SCHREFFLER THE DAY SHE WROTE IT, (IIRC FRIDAY) AFTER WHICH SHE HAD NO FURTHER CONTACT WITH THE MATTER OR WITH UPPD.

Harmon testified that he usually didn't share that kind of info with Schultz or take direction from Schultz on how to perform his investigations, if Schultz did ask about a case Harmon would give a brief summary of what the investigation concluded. In the 1998 case, Harmon testified that he told Schultz nothing criminal happened. NOT TRUE. HARMON TESTIFIED THAT HE KEPT SCHULTZ FULLY INFORMED ON ALL EVENTS PERTAINING TO THE INVESTIGATION. HIS STATEMENT THAT "NOTHING CRIMINAL HAPPENED" WAS IN THE LEGAL, INVESTIGATORY CONTEXT THAT NOTHING THAT WE COULD PROVE HAPPENED.

I feel like George Clooney talking to Anna Kendrick in the movie "Up in the Air." You have all this information, but seemingly little ability or real-world experience to help you interpret or apply it.

 

[CDW3333]

I agree, plenty of questions about what went down in 1998 (like why DPW pushed the Seasock involvement when Arnold said to wait). However, there is nothing to indicate so far that Schultz was told about the content of Chambers report. Schultz was getting updates from Harmon who was updated by Schreffler. Not sure how he would know about the bungling of CYS/DPW.
Still an open question about Curley and JVP's knowledge about 1998. You have a link to the Seasock contract from PSU? Thanks

Only media reports like this one. http://deadspin.com/5925453/in-1998...had-done-this-with-other-children-in-the-past

 

[WeR0206]

I feel like George Clooney talking to Anna Kendrick in the movie "Up in the Air." You have all this information, but no ability or real-world experience to help you interpret or apply it.

Spin/deflect/spin/deflect...that's all your posts consist of. You said "(1) Dropping an investigation for want of evidence is not synonymous with "being cleared." As anyone remotely close to the world of criminal law enforcement will tell you, even when the air on an elevator 'clears,' suspicions on who authored the flatus linger with the knowledge it's rarely a one-time event."

In the above you are suggesting that after CCDA/CYS/DPW performed their joint investigation of 1998, the DA didn't have enough evidence to charge JS but they still had suspicions he was abusing children. If that was the case, there's NO WAY they would be ok with continuing to allow JS 1:1 access to kids.

You also said "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I POSTED. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. I AM NOT QUESTIONING WHETHER JERRY SHOULD -- OR SHOULD NOT -- HAVE BEEN INDICTED. I AM SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY FAMILIAR WITH 1998 HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH REASON TO TAKE MIKE McCREARY SERIOUSLY WHEN HE SUGGESTED THAT 2001 MIGHT BE A REPLAY OF 1998."

I didn't say he would have been indicted, I said he would have been "indicated" thus losing his clearance to work with kids. Apparently you don't know how to read or don't know the difference between the two. Here's my actual text: "If the state experts thought there was the slightest chance JS would bring harm to children, they would have indicated him thus revoking his state issued clearance to work with kids." Nice try though!

You said "YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY WRONG. CHAMBERS' PHONE CALL TO DPW WAS MADE 2 DAYS BEFORE SHE EVEN WROTE HER REPORT, WHICH SHE GAVE TO SCHREFFLER THE DAY SHE WROTE IT, (IIRC FRIDAY) AFTER WHICH SHE HAD NO FURTHER CONTACT WITH THE MATTER OR WITH UPPD."

What's your point? Are you actually suggesting that the verbal report Chambers made to Childline a few days earlier was different than the typed report she sent to Schreffler on 5/8?? Both her call to DPW and report to Schreffler were based on her interview with V6 where she noticed numerous grooming red flags. My point was that DPW was informed, via two different avenues, of Chambers' evaluation so there's NO WAY DPW can claim they weren't aware of it. One was the verbal call she made directly to DPW's childline, the other was the written report that she sent to Schreffler as "corroboration" for his file. From the day he took the case Schreffler was working hand in hand with Miller/Lauro. Chambers sent her report to Schreffler on 5/8 and the case wasn't closed until early June. The only way Miller/Lauro woudn't have seen Chambers' written report would have been if Schreffler didn't share his file (and the critical info from Chambers' report) with them at any point after 5/8 or before the case was closed in early June. I find that HIGHLY unlikely. How could Lauro determine anything in early June without doing a final review of UPPD Schreffler's file?? Are you actually saying that Schreffler purposely never told Miller/Lauro about this Phd's report that said JS was exhibiting grooming behavior towards V6????

You said "HIS STATEMENT THAT "NOTHING CRIMINAL HAPPENED" WAS IN THE LEGAL, INVESTIGATORY CONTEXT THAT NOTHING THAT WE COULD PROVE HAPPENED."

LOL! Talk about grasping at straws, if that's what Harmon wanted to convey then his email would have said "nothing criminal happened that we could prove". But he didn't. His email said "nothing criminal happened". I guess you forgot about that whole innocent until proven guilty thing huh?

 

[LundyPSU]

Only media reports like this one. http://deadspin.com/5925453/in-1998...had-done-this-with-other-children-in-the-past

Freeh noted that Seasock received less than $12k from PSU from 2000-2006 and found no evidence that his role as an independent contractor had anything to do with the 1998 incident.

 

[sluggo72]

I'm glad we can agree that Seasock was responsible for sandbagging the entire 1998 investigation.

We know for a FACT that DPW brought in Seasock against the wishes of the local ADA (Arnold) and police (Schreffler) -- BTW I wonder if this has ever happened before in any other cases..... A child service agency going against the wishes of the local DA and police?? I highly doubt it. We don't yet know WHO at DPW made that call or if anyone at PSU influenced them to make that call. I can't remember if anyone was ever asked under oath, but my guess is Lauro is the person who brought in Seasock.

If someone at PSU somehow was able to influence a state DPW agency worker to bring in Seasock, that person at PSU would have to be much higher up than C/S. My guess would be someone on the PSU BOT who had money/influence in Harrisburg.

I think it's much more likely that a big wig at TSM was responsible for pulling some strings to get DPW/Lauro sent in who then in turn brought in Seasock (who just so happened to do contract work for TSM at the time in 1998).

Let's face it only Joe would have that kind of weight!!!! Tic

 

[CDW3333]

Freeh noted that Seasock received less than $12k from PSU from 2000-2006 and found no evidence that his role as an independent contractor had anything to do with the 1998 incident.

1. 12 grand is 12 grand. 2. He also got to stick on his resume that he's working with/at Penn State which would count for a lot when getting other jobs. 3. The lead prosecutor didn't want another psychologist opinion but Seasock was retained anyway; 4. Shreffler pointed out that Seasock didn't have a clue what he was talking about; 5. You're relying on Louis Freeh?

 

[sluggo72]

1. 12 grand is 12 grand. 2. He also got to stick on his resume that he's working with/at Penn State which would count for a lot when getting other jobs. 3. The lead prosecutor didn't want another psychologist opinion but Seasock was retained anyway; 4. Shreffler pointed out that Seasock didn't have a clue what he was talking about; 5. You're relying on Louis Freeh?

Let's face it the BOT rely on Freeh, why shouldn't he???

 

[Aoshiro]

1. 12 grand is 12 grand. 2. He also got to stick on his resume that he's working with/at Penn State which would count for a lot when getting other jobs. 3. The lead prosecutor didn't want another psychologist opinion but Seasock was retained anyway; 4. Shreffler pointed out that Seasock didn't have a clue what he was talking about; 5. You're relying on Louis Freeh?

$12,000 over six years is peanuts. Your law practice must truly suck if you think that $2000/year is something to get excited about.

Louis Freeh had $8.5 million dollars to come up with some kind of evidence that anyone at Penn State influenced John Seasock's findings. Freeh, too, must be a really crappy investigator if he was unable to find evidence of something that you think is so manifestly true.

 

[PrinceIgor]

Spin/deflect/spin/deflect...that's all your posts consist of. You said "(1) Dropping an investigation for want of evidence is not synonymous with "being cleared." As anyone remotely close to the world of criminal law enforcement will tell you, even when the air on an elevator 'clears,' suspicions on who authored the flatus linger with the knowledge it's rarely a one-time event."

In the above you are suggesting that after CCDA/CYS/DPW performed their joint investigation of 1998, the DA didn't have enough evidence to charge JS but they still had suspicions he was abusing children. If that was the case, there's NO WAY they would be ok with continuing to allow JS 1:1 access to kids.

You also said "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I POSTED. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. I AM NOT QUESTIONING WHETHER JERRY SHOULD -- OR SHOULD NOT -- HAVE BEEN INDICTED. I AM SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY FAMILIAR WITH 1998 HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH REASON TO TAKE MIKE McCREARY SERIOUSLY WHEN HE SUGGESTED THAT 2001 MIGHT BE A REPLAY OF 1998."

I didn't say he would have been indicted, I said he would have been "indicated" thus losing his clearance to work with kids. Apparently you don't know how to read or don't know the difference between the two. Here's my actual text: "If the state experts thought there was the slightest chance JS would bring harm to children, they would have indicated him thus revoking his state issued clearance to work with kids." Nice try though!

You said "YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY WRONG. CHAMBERS' PHONE CALL TO DPW WAS MADE 2 DAYS BEFORE SHE EVEN WROTE HER REPORT, WHICH SHE GAVE TO SCHREFFLER THE DAY SHE WROTE IT, (IIRC FRIDAY) AFTER WHICH SHE HAD NO FURTHER CONTACT WITH THE MATTER OR WITH UPPD."

What's your point? Are you actually suggesting that the verbal report Chambers made to Childline a few days earlier was different than the typed report she sent to Schreffler on 5/8?? Both her call to DPW and report to Schreffler were based on her interview with V6 where she noticed numerous grooming red flags. My point was that DPW was informed, via two different avenues, of Chambers' evaluation so there's NO WAY DPW can claim they weren't aware of it. One was the verbal call she made directly to DPW's childline, the other was the written report that she sent to Schreffler as "corroboration" for his file. From the day he took the case Schreffler was working hand in hand with Miller/Lauro. Chambers sent her report to Schreffler on 5/8 and the case wasn't closed until early June. The only way Miller/Lauro woudn't have seen Chambers' written report would have been if Schreffler didn't share his file (and the critical info from Chambers' report) with them at any point after 5/8 or before the case was closed in early June. I find that HIGHLY unlikely. How could Lauro determine anything in early June without doing a final review of UPPD Schreffler's file?? Are you actually saying that Schreffler purposely never told Miller/Lauro about this Phd's report that said JS was exhibiting grooming behavior towards V6????

You said "HIS STATEMENT THAT "NOTHING CRIMINAL HAPPENED" WAS IN THE LEGAL, INVESTIGATORY CONTEXT THAT NOTHING THAT WE COULD PROVE HAPPENED."

LOL! Talk about grasping at straws, if that's what Harmon wanted to convey then his email would have said "nothing criminal happened that we could prove". But he didn't. His email said "nothing criminal happened". I guess you forgot about that whole innocent until proven guilty thing huh?

Look, I'm a person who likes to have a linear conversation dealing with one thought or idea at a time, in order to hopefully resolve one conflict of opinion at a time. I'm not willing to engage in free-for-alls in which my opponent issues free-form diatribes all over the map, stating supposition as fact, putting words in my mouth while asking unrelated questions to which he supplies his own ridiculous answers.

And you preface this absurd exercise in the name of countering deflection and spin? I can't hang with you, man. Which I'm sure you'll take as a compliment.