Michigan hit with 6 allegations of Level 1 violations for Sign Stealing Cheating

[Obliviax]

I think that is what the JoeBots are doing, just believing what they wish to believe.

Criminal law procedures did not prevent PSU from taking action to restrict Sandusky from the campus in 1998. They had ample reason to do so but negligently failed and paid a heavy price later. Of course, not as heavy as what the kids paid.

TSM was investigated by the Federal Government and they were not found guilty of anything and no action was taken by the Feds against any TSM folks. JoeBots like to deflect to TSM but their is not "there there". Here is a good recap about this written by a leading JoeBot nonetheless. TSM nothing found

You are simply and totally wrong on this statement:

"Criminal law procedures did not prevent PSU from taking action to restrict Sandusky from the campus in 1998. They had ample reason to do so but negligently failed and paid a heavy price later. Of course, not as heavy as what the kids paid"​

​

At the time, JS was an employee. He coached the 1999 team which shut out TA&M in the Alamo Bowl. Had PSU restricted him, he'd not have been able to perform his job. Had they let him go, PSU would have been liable for civil litigation. In fact, there is little to no evidence PSU was officially informed of the 1998 investigation or it's details. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH PSU. Many years ago, I worked right next to a gal who was once a cheerleader for the Cincy Bengals. One day, the police walked in and arrested her for credit card fraud. Was I legally liable because a coworker defrauded a credit card company? Were the Cincy Bengals?

Your claim is laughable on its very face. The only people at fault were The Second Mile and the criminal justice system in 1998.

 

[Obliviax]

But Seasock did not have a PhD and Chambers did. She was licensed as well land clearly more qualified.

She gave PSU plenty to go on in restricting Sandusky from campus and showering with kids there. The sting operations wouldn't have produced anything as pedophiles are generally too smart for those.

One counselor without a PhD and one Psychologist with a PhD.

But that didn't limit what PSU could do regarding Sandusky

It was ignored by PSU and they continued to allow Sandusky access to campus and showering with kids. Once again, the fact that the local DA chose not to charge Sandusky does NOT mean PSU was powerless to do anything on their end. That argument of yours is bogus.

What he does on campus (abusing kids) IS very MUCH related to his employment and to the responsibilities of PSU.

I am right on the facts, records, events, police, law and the record bears me out. Three top admins went to prison, PSU paid 10s of millions in fines and damages and admitted to wrongdoing. You are wrong now and will always be and when you run into someone like me who knows the case well you will be called out and refuted. Even in your own silo.

It makes no difference what credential Seabrook had. None, nada. he was brought in by the police in an effort to finger JS after the evaluation by the PhD resulted in no actionable information. And, NONE OF THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH PSU!

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

You are simply and totally wrong on this statement:

"Criminal law procedures did not prevent PSU from taking action to restrict Sandusky from the campus in 1998. They had ample reason to do so but negligently failed and paid a heavy price later. Of course, not as heavy as what the kids paid"​

​

At the time, JS was an employee. He coached the 1999 team which shut out TA&M in the Alamo Bowl. Had PSU restricted him, he'd not have been able to perform his job.

Completely false. Restricting him from bringing children on campus and showering with them had nothing to do with whether he could coach. This is laughable.

Had they let him go, PSU would have been liable for civil litigation.

Also bogus. Coaches can be fired at will for any reason. They might have had to pay him but they surely could have gotten rid of him.

In fact, there is little to no evidence PSU was officially informed of the 1998 investigation or it's details.

There is ample evidence of such. The police report was FOUND at PSU. They did know, including Paterno and Spanier.

It had NOTHING TO DO WITH PSU.

It happened on PSU property and they knew about it! It had EVERYTHING to do with them

Many years ago, I worked right next to a gal who was once a cheerleader for the Cincy Bengals. One day, the police walked in and arrested her for credit card fraud. Was I legally liable because a coworker defrauded a credit card company? Were the Cincy Bengals?

IF you and the Bengals knew about it and allowed her to use their resources to do it then yes.

Your claim is laughable on its very face. The only people at fault were The Second Mile and the criminal justice system in 1998.

I've shown you that TSM was fully investigated by the FBI and nothing was found. Blaming the criminal justice system is just a deluded cop out. PSU knew and should be condemned and they were.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

It makes no difference what credential Seabrook had. None, nada.

Yes it does.

he was brought in by the police in an effort to finger JS after the evaluation by the PhD resulted in no actionable information. And, NONE OF THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH PSU!

It was the PSU police who were investigating him! So, yes it had EVERYTHING to do with PSU.

 

[Obliviax]

Yes it does.

It was the PSU police who were investigating him! So, yes it had EVERYTHING to do with PSU.

The decision to prosecute or not prosecute came down to the Center County DA Ray Gricar. Your lack of understanding on this case, while you claim to "know a lot" is truly "interesting". here are the facts of the case:

• May 3rd 1998, an incident occurs
• May 4th, mom gets involved and calls Alycia Chambers.
  • Per chambers recommendation, mom calls University Police and that involves Detective Schreffler
  • Dept of Public Welfare is contacted and takes over the case, John Miller
  • Schreffler also contacts Centre County Prosecutor Karen Arnold who works for the DA.
  • They speak to friends of the boy who said that they have often had "bear hugs" with JS
• May 5th, DPW's Jerry Lauro takes the case
• May 7th, Chambers gives them a written evaluation including that it is "likely" JS was grooming (which is not a stand-alone crime) and is "consistent with" pedophilia.
• May 8th, Seasock evaluation. he concludes there is no concrete evidence
• May 12th, Scheffler listens in on convo with JS and the child. On that same day, they listen in on a second conversation with JS and the boy. JS says he didn't mean to make the kid uncomfortable and admits to showering with the child but no sexual actions occurred. This is consistent with what the boy told his mom, Chambers and the investigators.
• June 1, Lauro and Schreffler talk to JS. JS says he won't shower with kids again and the case is dropped.
• June 8th, PSU informed of the case being dropped and Shreffler says no PSU admin interfered with the case.

Those are the facts of the 1998 incident. The case was fully and thoroughly vetted by two qualified counselors and several more investigators with at least three law enforcement organizations (DPW, University Police, Centre County Prosecutors).

Again, your gross misrepresentation of 1998 disqualifies your posts on anything later in this complex case.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I think you should exhibit some self awareness too. Your prior administration covered up for a pedophile.

None of this has anything to do with Michigan cheating and there is zero reason to talk about it again other than to deflect from Michigan's cheating and from the approaching serious punishments.

However, if you are going to bring it up, please get your facts straight.

A federal investigation concluded that there was no cover up. The facts support this conclusion.

EXCLUSIVE: Federal Report on Former Penn State President Concluded There Was No Cover-up | Law & Crime

Next week, almost exactly six years after the “Jerry Sandusky Scandal” broke publicly with a grand jury leak to a local newspaper, three former Penn State administrators will finally go on trial for charges related to an alleged cover-up of child sex abuse.

lawandcrime.com

 

[PSU2UNC]

No, just explaining what violations Penn State committed. The letter explains that. The sanctions were rolled back later when the NCAA determined that Penn State was cooperating with Sen Mitchell once the criminals in the administration were fired and later imprisoned.

If you MUST talk about this (again), please get your facts straight.

PSU committed ZERO NCAA infractions related to Sandusky. In fact, they are the only D1 program to have never been found guilty of a major infraction in any sport. Feel free to check the official NCAA database, but it will confirm this fact.

Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

 

[PSU2UNC]

Their absolutely was a cover up and the top three admins went to jail for endangering the welfare of a child. Further, the US government fined PSU for violating the Clery Act because they did not report Sandusky.

You are taking the Clery Act violations out of context here. The Clery Act is mostly about reporting about public safety to the student body.

The Clery Act

The Clery Act

www.clerycenter.org

It has nothing to do with failing to report something to the police.

In fact, most of what PSU was cited for related to the Clery Act had nothing to do with Sandusky. This is partially because almost all universities struggle to adequately report because it is not a well written law.

The Clery Act does little to improve campus safety, even during a pandemic (opinion)

Thirty years after passage of the landmark law, it has become a bureaucratic mess that can do little to improve campus safety, even during a pandemic, argues Edward Davis, former police commissioner of Boston.

www.insidehighered.com

 

[PSU2UNC]

It was a third party who saw it and reported it the next day.

He was a Grad Assistant and he reported that he did see inappropriate sexual conduct. This was corroborated by Paterno when he was interviewed by OAG Investigator Sassano.

This is incorrect. There is significant evidence that McQueary waited WEEKS to talk to Paterno which doesn't correlate with seeing a sexual assault of a young boy.

PSU covered up the 2001 abuse

PSU did not cover up the 2001 abuse. They in fact took multiple actions based on the reports that they had. The only person who could have filed a police report was McQueary. He opted not to. That should tell you something.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

The decision to prosecute or not prosecute came down to the Center County DA Ray Gricar. Your lack of understanding on this case, while you claim to "know a lot" is truly "interesting". here are the facts of the case:

• May 3rd 1998, an incident occurs
• May 4th, mom gets involved and calls Alycia Chambers.
  • Per chambers recommendation, mom calls University Police and that involves Detective Schreffler
  • Dept of Public Welfare is contacted and takes over the case, John Miller

Contact was made by Chambers

• • Schreffler also contacts Centre County Prosecutor Karen Arnold who works for the DA.
  • They speak to friends of the boy who said that they have often had "bear hugs" with JS
• May 5th, DPW's Jerry Lauro takes the case
• May 7th, Chambers gives them a written evaluation including that it is "likely" JS was grooming (which is not a stand-alone crime) and is "consistent with" pedophilia.

She said he was a likely pedophile. That alone was enough for PSU to restrict Sandusky from showering with kids. PSU did nothing.

• May 8th, Seasock evaluation. he concludes there is no concrete evidence

Far less qualified than Chambers and should not have taken precedence over her eval.

• May 12th, Scheffler listens in on convo with JS and the child. On that same day, they listen in on a second conversation with JS and the boy. JS says he didn't mean to make the kid uncomfortable and admits to showering with the child but no sexual actions occurred. This is consistent with what the boy told his mom, Chambers and the investigators.
• June 1, Lauro and Schreffler talk to JS. JS says he won't shower with kids again and the case is dropped.
• June 8th, PSU informed of the case being dropped and Shreffler says no PSU admin interfered with the case.

Sheffler also pressed Gricar to charge but do to Sandusky's status in SC and only one incident he declines. PSU was still free to restrict Sandusky. They did not.

Those are the facts of the 1998 incident. The case was fully and thoroughly vetted by two qualified counselors and several more investigators with at least three law enforcement organizations (DPW, University Police, Centre County Prosecutors).

Again, your gross misrepresentation of 1998 disqualifies your posts on anything later in this complex case.

Nothing complex about it. PSU was told in 1998 that Sandusky was a likely pedophile by a qualified licensed psychologist. They ignored the report and continued to give Sandusky access to PSU showers with kids.

 

[Obliviax]

Contact was made by Chambers

She said he was a likely pedophile. That alone was enough for PSU to restrict Sandusky from showering with kids. PSU did nothing.

Far less qualified than Chambers and should not have taken precedence over her eval.

Sheffler also pressed Gricar to charge but do to Sandusky's status in SC and only one incident he declines. PSU was still free to restrict Sandusky. They did not.

Nothing complex about it. PSU was told in 1998 that Sandusky was a likely pedophile by a qualified licensed psychologist. They ignored the report and continued to give Sandusky access to PSU showers with kids.

You are foolish. How is PSU going to restrict Sandusky from "showering with kids?" Are they going to put a guard at his home? Are they going to follow him on his vacations? Are they going to go into The Second Mile and do something? And none of your recommendations have anything to do with PSU. They are between Centre County and DPW.

Again, your assertion is asinine, at best. Think before you post.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

None of this has anything to do with Michigan cheating and there is zero reason to talk about it again other than to deflect from Michigan's cheating and from the approaching serious punishments.

You guys brought it up. You guys are also guilty of institutional misconduct and shouldn't throw stones in a glass house.

However, if you are going to bring it up, please get your facts straight.

They are

A federal investigation concluded that there was no cover up. The facts support this conclusion.

EXCLUSIVE: Federal Report on Former Penn State President Concluded There Was No Cover-up | Law & Crime

Next week, almost exactly six years after the “Jerry Sandusky Scandal” broke publicly with a grand jury leak to a local newspaper, three former Penn State administrators will finally go on trial for charges related to an alleged cover-up of child sex abuse.

lawandcrime.com

This article is false and was simply a background check on Spanier by a PSU grad sympathetic to Spanier and who now is a real estate agent living in SC.
Problems with Snedden narrative:

he didn't investigate Jerry
he didn't interview Jerry
he didn't interview McQueary
he didn't interview Corbett or any of Corbett's circle though he lays the blame there
he didn't interview any TSM folk
his investigation was not to exonerate or clear Spanier, but rather to see if he should hold a clearance. Many people accused of and even convicted of crimes have clearances renewed, so in Spanier's case it does not say anything about his innocence (he's still guilty in court)
Snedden had no background in assessment of people accused of Jerry's crimes

Here is the only real Federal Investigation of the scandal

Inside the Penn State Clery Act Report

The U.S. Department of Education on Thursday issued a 242-page report, accompanied by a 35-page letter, announcing the results of its Clery Act investigation of Penn State and proposed $2.4 million fine for violations of the law requiring universities to report and notify the public about campus cri

www.statecollege.com

PS. Not reporting is covering up.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

If you MUST talk about this (again), please get your facts straight.

I have

PSU committed ZERO NCAA infractions related to Sandusky. In fact, they are the only D1 program to have never been found guilty of a major infraction in any sport. Feel free to check the official NCAA database, but it will confirm this fact.

Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

Penn State Sanctions

$60 million fine. The NCAA imposes a $60 million fine, equivalent to the approximate average of one year's gross revenues from the Penn State football program,

www.ncaa.org

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

This is incorrect. There is significant evidence that McQueary waited WEEKS to talk to Paterno which doesn't correlate with seeing a sexual assault of a young boy.

This is a BS theory concocted by John Zeigler that has been debunked repeatedly.

PSU did not cover up the 2001 abuse. They in fact took multiple actions based on the reports that they had. The only person who could have filed a police report was McQueary. He opted not to. That should tell you something.

PSU did cover up the abuse and allowed it to continue. That is why CSS went to prison. MM was not the only one who could call the police. He told Joe and left it up to him. That should tell you something as Joe later participated in the decision to not report Sandusky.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

You are foolish. How is PSU going to restrict Sandusky from "showering with kids?" Are they going to put a guard at his home? Are they going to follow him on his vacations? Are they going to go into The Second Mile and do something?

They tell him don't bring kids here again or shower with them and if we find out you are doing it we will fire you. Real simple even for a fool like you.

And none of your recommendations have anything to do with PSU. They are between Centre County and DPW.

It's PSU property and he was a PSU employee with no right to bring kids on campus. It has everything to do with PSU.

Again, your assertion is asinine, at best. Think before you post.

Your ideas are delusional. Is that coach so important to you? Bizarre.

 

[Obliviax]

I have

Penn State Sanctions

$60 million fine. The NCAA imposes a $60 million fine, equivalent to the approximate average of one year's gross revenues from the Penn State football program,

www.ncaa.org

that is an old article. The NCAA walked all of those back and agreed to give PSU the money if they donated it to children's causes.

NCAA walks back Penn State punishment for second time, returns Joe Paterno's wins

Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno jumped ahead of Florida State's coach Bobby Bowden on the all-time wins list after the NCAA returned 111 victories.

www.syracuse.com

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

that is an old article. The NCAA walked all of those back and agreed to give PSU the money if they donated it to children's causes.

NCAA walks back Penn State punishment for second time, returns Joe Paterno's wins

Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno jumped ahead of Florida State's coach Bobby Bowden on the all-time wins list after the NCAA returned 111 victories.

www.syracuse.com

Another poster previously stated that all the sanctions were not walked back and the fines were paid and not returned. Same with bowls and transfers/scollies. They did that later because PSU cooperated with Sen Mitchell after they fired the wrongdoers. Restoring the wins was part of a settlement about where to spend the fines.

That link is still on the NCAA web site. The NCAA never admitted that sanctions were wrong either. PSU violated the constitution of the NCAA by not operating in an ethical manner while covering up Sandusky's crimes.

 

[joeaubie21]

No, you really haven't proven anything of the sort.

The report was absolutely disregarded by PSU who continued to let Sandusky shower with kids when a licensed psychologist told them he was a likely pedophile.

The police wanted to charge Sandusky but the elected DA probably fearing for his job didn't think they had enough to prosecute him. This does not absolve PSU from banning Sandusky from bringing kids to campus and showering with them. That the DA didn't charge him did not mean PSU should have sat on their hands.

But certainly enough for PSU to take action and deny him bringing kids on campus and showering with them AND reporting him to DPS if he disobeyed them. Do you think Sandusky would have gotten Emeritus status from the board if they had seen Chambers report? Not likely.

And was far less qualified.

Obviously the police report containing Chamber's report was not destroyed (and was not required to be under PA law only the CYS one)

Who was competently reported as a likely pedophile and who was bringing children onto PSU and showering with them. It had EVERYTHING to do with PSU. Sandusky has no constitutional right to Emeritus status or to bring kids on campus and shower with them. You are conflating PSU's duties with criminal legal standards which PSU was not obliged to follow.

I will persist and you are only embarrassing yourself.

What a jackass. Is that you Jockstrap John?

 

[joeaubie21]

Another poster previously stated that all the sanctions were not walked back and the fines were paid and not returned. Same with bowls and transfers/scollies. That link is still on the NCAA web site. The NCAA never admitted that sanctions were wrong either. PSU violated the constitution of the NCAA by not operating in an ethical manner while covering up Sandusky's crimes.

Sounds just like JerkoffinPhila.

 

[joeaubie21]

But Seasock did not have a PhD and Chambers did. She was licensed as well land clearly more qualified.

She gave PSU plenty to go on in restricting Sandusky from campus and showering with kids there. The sting operations wouldn't have produced anything as pedophiles are generally too smart for those.

One counselor without a PhD and one Psychologist with a PhD.

But that didn't limit what PSU could do regarding Sandusky

It was ignored by PSU and they continued to allow Sandusky access to campus and showering with kids. Once again, the fact that the local DA chose not to charge Sandusky does NOT mean PSU was powerless to do anything on their end. That argument of yours is bogus.

What he does on campus (abusing kids) IS very MUCH related to his employment and to the responsibilities of PSU.

I am right on the facts, records, events, police, law and the record bears me out. Three top admins went to prison, PSU paid 10s of millions in fines and damages and admitted to wrongdoing. You are wrong now and will always be and when you run into someone like me who knows the case well you will be called out and refuted. Even in your own silo.

Shove Penn live up your ass, Jockstrap.

 

[PSU2UNC]

That alone was enough for PSU to restrict Sandusky from showering with kids. PSU did nothing.

Since you know so much about the case (LOL) can you please provide documentation that PSU admins were aware of Chambers' assessment. This assessment was made to SCPD, correct?

Far less qualified than Chambers and should not have taken precedence over her eval.

Qualifications are not everything. As a PhD I know that sometimes people with MS's (or sometimes "just" BS degrees) can do work that far exceeds what some PhDs do. I doubt you know either counselor personally or have worked with them. You are basing this purely on their degrees. I believe this is called "appeal to authority".

Sheffler also pressed Gricar to charge but do to Sandusky's status in SC and only one incident he declines. PSU was still free to restrict Sandusky. They did not.

Restrict him based on what? There were no charges filed and conflicting evaluations.

Nothing complex about it. PSU was told in 1998 that Sandusky was a likely pedophile by a qualified licensed psychologist. They ignored the report and continued to give Sandusky access to PSU showers with kids.

Just for the record, adults and minors simultaneously using a large group shower is neither sexual nor illegal.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I have

You obviously have not.

Penn State Sanctions

$60 million fine. The NCAA imposes a $60 million fine, equivalent to the approximate average of one year's gross revenues from the Penn State football program,

www.ncaa.org

So your position is that the official NCAA database is incorrect?

Sanctions =/= infractions. PSU has NEVER been found guilty of a major infraction by the NCAA.

 

[Obliviax]

They tell him don't bring kids here again or shower with them and if we find out you are doing it we will fire you. Real simple even for a fool like you.

It's PSU property and he was a PSU employee with no right to bring kids on campus. It has everything to do with PSU.

Your ideas are delusional. Is that coach so important to you? Bizarre.

the "where" is immaterial. It is also pedantic. if he couldn't use the PSU shower he'd have used the high school, jr. high, local public pool, or YMCA (there is a song about that, actually). And just so you know, JS was granted emeritus status between the 98 incident and any other accusations; in August of '99. It is unclear who would have known about 98 within the group that voted for it. And if it was divulged, could have caused civil litigation. Of course, in retrospect, everyone would have done a lot of things differently. But hindsight is 20/20.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It's PSU property and he was a PSU employee with no right to bring kids on campus. It has everything to do with PSU.

Demonstrating your ignorance again here. PSU is still (although to a lesser extent today thanks to the hysteria over Sandusky) an OPEN campus. Because it is a state funded school ANYONE is allowed on campus including children. If your assertion is that children should not be allowed in Lasch, even that is silly because there are HS camps, tours, offical visits by high school prospects -- all of which involve minor children being in Lasch.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Since you know so much about the case (LOL) can you please provide documentation that PSU admins were aware of Chambers' assessment. This assessment was made to SCPD, correct?

No the assessment was given to the Penn State police (LOL guess I know more than you?). They work for Penn State. Therefore maintaining that the Penn State Police who work for Penn State did not tell their bosses at Penn State is laughable. Even if true, if the admins did not ask to see their own police report about one of their high profile coaches involved in child abuse then they are criminally negligent.

Qualifications are not everything. As a PhD I know that sometimes people with MS's (or sometimes "just" BS degrees) can do work that far exceeds what some PhDs do. I doubt you know either counselor personally or have worked with them. You are basing this purely on their degrees. I believe this is called "appeal to authority".

BS qualifications do matter and you are only saying that because it suits your delusion. Her evaluation should have had more weight than a counselors. Unfortunately for PSU they didn't listen to here and she was right.

Restrict him based on what? There were no charges filed and conflicting evaluations.

Chambers report. Any leader who receives a report from such an authority that indicates a likely pedophile and STILL allows that employee to shower with kids is criminally negligent and of course that is why CSS went to prison.

Just for the record, adults and minors simultaneously using a large group shower is neither sexual nor illegal.

Not alone, late at night. It is improper and should be reported to police especially when there is inappropriate sexual contact happening.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

the "where" is immaterial.

No, the "where" is what put CSS in prison and PSU about a quarter of a billion in the whole. Not counting the shame of the scandal. You must be crazy to think that that abuse happening on PSU property was immaterial.

It is also pedantic. if he couldn't use the PSU shower he'd have used the high school, jr. high, local public pool, or YMCA (there is a song about that, actually). And just so you know, JS was granted emeritus status between the 98 incident and any other accusations; in August of '99. It is unclear who would have known about 98 within the group that voted for it. And if it was divulged, could have caused civil litigation. Of course, in retrospect, everyone would have done a lot of things differently. But hindsight is 20/20.

PSU wasn't harmed by what he did elsewhere were they?

 

[PSU2UNC]

This is a BS theory concocted by John Zeigler that has been debunked repeatedly.

It has not been debunked. In fact it was confirmed by an third party source.

PSU did cover up the abuse and allowed it to continue.

Incorrect, per a federal investigation. Just because YOU don't like the conclusion doesn't make it incorrect.

That is why CSS went to prison.

No, they went to prison because the judicial system in PA is corrupt. This is the correct ruling:

Pennsylvania Federal Court Reverses Child Endangerment Charges Against Former Penn State President Graham Spanier – Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn

hlerk.com

MM was not the only one who could call the police. He told Joe and left it up to him.

Clearly you have not interacted with the police much. If you call the police to report a secondhand piece of information, they will insist on talking to the eye witness.

If someone came to me and said "I think I saw XYZ" I'd tell them if they thought they could have potentially witnessed a crime that they should call the police. At BEST MM wasn't sure what he saw (at worst he saw nothing and lied), but clearly did not see enough to warrant calling the police. Nor, when he presenting this information to his father and Dr Dranov, did they counsel him to call the police. Nor when he told Paterno, did he tell him to call the police.

So what you can glean from all of that is NOT "OMG, everyone is a horrible person including MM's father and Dranov" but the simplest explanation is that MM did not see a sexual assault.

That should tell you something as Joe later participated in the decision to not report Sandusky.

 

[Obliviax]

No the assessment was given to the Penn State police (LOL guess I know more than you?). They work for Penn State. Therefore maintaining that the Penn State Police who work for Penn State did not tell their bosses at Penn State is laughable. Even if true, if the admins did not ask to see their own police report about one of their high profile coaches involved in child abuse then they are criminally negligent.

BS qualifications do matter and you are only saying that because it suits your delusion. Her evaluation should have had more weight than a counselors. Unfortunately for PSU they didn't listen to here and she was right.

Chambers report. Any leader who receives a report from such an authority that indicates a likely pedophile and STILL allows that employee to shower with kids is criminally negligent and of course that is why CSS went to prison.

Not alone, late at night. It is improper and should be reported to police especially when there is inappropriate sexual contact happening.

the decision wasn't penn state's to make, and not their "police". it was the DA and the prosecutor for Centre County who made the call to not prosecute. Their final action, regarding 98, was to meet with JS and try to scare him into compliance. JS also committed to never shower with kids again.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

You obviously have not.

As I've shown I have

So your position is that the official NCAA database is incorrect?

Sanctions =/= infractions. PSU has NEVER been found guilty of a major infraction by the NCAA.

No infractions without sanctions. The NCAA used another method because of the grievousness of the crimes by PSU. PSU violated the NCAA Constitution is acting unethically.

 

[Obliviax]

No, the "where" is what put CSS in prison and PSU about a quarter of a billion in the whole. Not counting the shame of the scandal. You must be crazy to think that that abuse happening on PSU property was immaterial.

PSU wasn't harmed by what he did elsewhere were they?

Wrong.

The conviction was made because of the entirety of the case involved dozens of kids, six of which testified. (IIRC) For example, one of the pieces of evidence was allowed where a janitor who had lost his marbles by the time the 2011 investigation and trial rolled around, told another janitor that he had seen JS lying around with a kid on a floor mat and when approached, JS told the janitor that they were "wrestling". PSU had no knowledge of that. Another was a kid that was from a high school who claimed to have been molested that had nothing to do with PSU. Yet others claimed JS molested them in his basement.

PSU had nothing to do with these incidents nor would they have known about them.

 

[PSU2UNC]

You guys brought it up. You guys are also guilty of institutional misconduct and shouldn't throw stones in a glass house.

I did not bring it up. I'm here to talk about how Michigan is going to get crushed for cheating.

This article is false and was simply a background check on Spanier

It was a thorough investigation to see if Spanier was worthy of a VERY high clearance level. He would not have been if was deemed high risk (which includes being guilty of a crime).

Problems with Snedden narrative:

he didn't investigate Jerry
he didn't interview Jerry
he didn't interview McQueary
he didn't interview Corbett or any of Corbett's circle though he lays the blame there
he didn't interview any TSM folk

Oh, so you have a copy of the entire investigative packet? I don't think you do. At best you've seen the highly redacted final report, which is only summarizing the information relative to the security clearance. So you have no clue what all is contained in the file. BUT if you've listened to Snedden talk about this you know he did a far more thorough investigation than Freeh did.

Many people accused of and even convicted of crimes have clearances renewed,

Please provide a citation for this. Clearance is based (not entirely on, but mostly) threat of being compromised which being guilty of crimes (including crimes that are still in litigation) definitely plays into.

Here is the only real Federal Investigation of the scandal

Inside the Penn State Clery Act Report

The U.S. Department of Education on Thursday issued a 242-page report, accompanied by a 35-page letter, announcing the results of its Clery Act investigation of Penn State and proposed $2.4 million fine for violations of the law requiring universities to report and notify the public about campus cri

www.statecollege.com

You continue to misunderstand what the Clery report is. It has nothing to do with reporting to police and everything to do with an annual report to the student body about campus safety.

PS. Not reporting is covering up.

First, no, they are two different things.
Two, there was nothing to report.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

It has not been debunked. In fact it was confirmed by an third party source.

Who? It is not consistent with the evidence at trial.

Incorrect, per a federal investigation. Just because YOU don't like the conclusion doesn't make it incorrect.

Correct. It was a background check of Spanier not an investigation of the scandal.

No, they went to prison because the judicial system in PA is corrupt. This is the correct ruling:

Pennsylvania Federal Court Reverses Child Endangerment Charges Against Former Penn State President Graham Spanier – Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn

hlerk.com

Clearly you have not interacted with the police much. If you call the police to report a secondhand piece of information, they will insist on talking to the eye witness.

Many times. If you call them they will respond to you then go investigate talking to the eyewitness. Just because you didn't see it won't preclude you from calling. They will respond.

If someone came to me and said "I think I saw XYZ" I'd tell them if they thought they could have potentially witnessed a crime that they should call the police. At BEST MM wasn't sure what he saw (at worst he saw nothing and lied), but clearly did not see enough to warrant calling the police. Nor, when he presenting this information to his father and Dr Dranov, did they counsel him to call the police. Nor when he told Paterno, did he tell him to call the police.

MM was upset the night he talked to Dranov and his Dad. He was more gathered the next day when he told Paterno as Paterno testified. MM was a GA and Sandusky a local god. MM was scared (rightfully so) of that power disparity and went to the one person who could (and did till he was fired) protect him from institutional retaliation.

So what you can glean from all of that is NOT "OMG, everyone is a horrible person including MM's father and Dranov" but the simplest explanation is that MM did not see a sexual assault.

No, MM saw CSA and told Paterno as Paterno testified. CSS covered it up (Joe went along with it) and later it exploded on PSU. After more kids were harmed.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

Wrong.

The conviction was made because of the entirety of the case involved dozens of kids, six of which testified. (IIRC) For example, one of the pieces of evidence was allowed where a janitor who had lost his marbles by the time the 2011 investigation and trial rolled around, told another janitor that he had seen JS lying around with a kid on a floor mat and when approached, JS told the janitor that they were "wrestling". PSU had no knowledge of that. Another was a kid that was from a high school who claimed to have been molested that had nothing to do with PSU. Yet others claimed JS molested them in his basement.

PSU had nothing to do with these incidents nor would they have known about them.

PSU was blamed because they did not report Sandusky in 2001 as they should have. But 1998 they had the opportunity to act and maybe prevent more abuse on their campus. They chose not to and paid for all the other incidents later on.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

I did not bring it up. I'm here to talk about how Michigan is going to get crushed for cheating.

Your buddies did.

It was a thorough investigation to see if Spanier was worthy of a VERY high clearance level. He would not have been if was deemed high risk (which includes being guilty of a crime).

It was not an investigation of the Scandal. Spanier's part was not fully apparent then.

Oh, so you have a copy of the entire investigative packet? I don't think you do. At best you've seen the highly redacted final report, which is only summarizing the information relative to the security clearance. So you have no clue what all is contained in the file. BUT if you've listened to Snedden talk about this you know he did a far more thorough investigation than Freeh did.

Do you have a full copy of the report? If not then you can't say it was thorough can you? LOL

Please provide a citation for this. Clearance is based (not entirely on, but mostly) threat of being compromised which being guilty of crimes (including crimes that are still in litigation) definitely plays into.

Does Spanier still have his clearance? He says he does. He is a convicted criminal now. Q.E.D.

You continue to misunderstand what the Clery report is. It has nothing to do with reporting to police and everything to do with an annual report to the student body about campus safety.

First, no, they are two different things.
Two, there was nothing to report.

PSU had a duty to report Sandusky's crimes to the Fed. They covered it up and didn't report. As to whether they had a something to report I'll let numerous court verdicts answer that.

 

[Obliviax]

PSU was blamed because they did not report Sandusky in 2001 as they should have. But 1998 they had the opportunity to act and maybe prevent more abuse on their campus. They chose not to and paid for all the other incidents later on.

They didn't act in 1998 because it was up to law enforcement to act. If you know anything about the law, you would know that if PSU did anything, Sandusky could sue them into oblivion. At that point, there wasn't anything PSU could do. BTW, do you have any idea how many charges are made against male caregivers of children? That is why there are very few male teachers today. My wife has a PhD in behavioral psychology and worked in the system. She has always said if you are a man working in that system, you are taking your life into your own hands. BTW, all of this happened before a complete redo of laws governing these situations that were put into place after the Catholic Church scandal. So PSU was judged for an occurrence that happened governed by 1998 laws through 2011 eyes.

 

[joeaubie21]

Since you know so much about the case (LOL) can you please provide documentation that PSU admins were aware of Chambers' assessment. This assessment was made to SCPD, correct?

Qualifications are not everything. As a PhD I know that sometimes people with MS's (or sometimes "just" BS degrees) can do work that far exceeds what some PhDs do. I doubt you know either counselor personally or have worked with them. You are basing this purely on their degrees. I believe this is called "appeal to authority".


Restrict him based on what? There were no charges filed and conflicting evaluations.

Just for the record, adults and minors simultaneously using a large group shower is neither sexual nor illegal.

The 🤡 is JJ the jo in phila. I recognize his style of bullshit.

 

[joeaubie21]

Your buddies did.

It was not an investigation of the Scandal. Spanier's part was not fully apparent then.

Do you have a full copy of the report? If not then you can't say it was thorough can you? LOL

Does Spanier still have his clearance? He says he does. He is a convicted criminal now. Q.E.D.

PSU had a duty to report Sandusky's crimes to the Fed. They covered it up and didn't report. As to whether they had a something to report I'll let numerous court verdicts answer that.

Piss Is His Profession is a plain jackass, with his Penn live bullshit.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Your buddies did.

I don't have any "buddies" on this board.

It was not an investigation of the Scandal. Spanier's part was not fully apparent then.

Incorrect. Listen to the many interviews Snedden has done on this topic.

Do you have a full copy of the report? If not then you can't say it was thorough can you? LOL

Again, listen to the interviews that Snedden has done on this topic.

Does Spanier still have his clearance? He says he does. He is a convicted criminal now. Q.E.D.

He was convicted of ONE misdemeanor. The clearance process also takes into account the circumstances around the conviction (e.g. that it was Constitutionally incorrect).

PSU had a duty to report Sandusky's crimes to the Fed.

No. You continue to completely misunderstand the Clery Act.

They covered it up and didn't report. As to whether they had a something to report I'll let numerous court verdicts answer that.

Again, incorrect. There was no coverup and no crime to report.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Who? It is not consistent with the evidence at trial.

What evidence was submitted at trial that would nail down the date? There is not physical evidence and there is no confirmatory information. Keep in mind the OAG got the date wrong MULTIPLE times before the trial. All we have is McQueary's testimony which does not match up with what was happening on campus that night (a concert and a club hockey game).

The confirmatory information is that the date Sandusky suggests it was is confirmed by a phone call with his friend/college rooomate and the timing of the UVA job interview process.

Correct. It was a background check of Spanier not an investigation of the scandal.

Can't do one without the other.

View embedded media

Many times. If you call them they will respond to you then go investigate talking to the eyewitness. Just because you didn't see it won't preclude you from calling. They will respond.

They won't ignore you, but if you you know they need to talk to the eyewitness and you are not sure what the eyewitness has seen the proper thing to do is to encourage the eyewitness to call the police if they believe they have observed a crime.
McQueary did not think it was necessary to call the police. This is very telling.

MM was upset the night he talked to Dranov and his Dad.

I'd be upset too if I was about to tell a major lie.

He was more gathered the next day when he told Paterno as Paterno testified.

Paterno's age (and the time between the incident and the trial) makes anything he said somewhat questionable.

MM was a GA and Sandusky a local god.

Sandusky wasn't a local god.

MM was scared (rightfully so) of that power disparity

Not rightfully so. Sandusky certainly didn't have the ability to fire McQueary. There was zero reason for him to expect any sort of blowback for doing the right thing as Paterno (who was famous for doing the right thing) was his supervisor (not Sandusky).

and went to the one person who could (and did till he was fired) protect him from institutional retaliation.

No, he went to Paterno trying to get a promotion.

No, MM saw CSA

No, he's not sure what he saw. See emails between MM and OAG's office.

and told Paterno as Paterno testified.

See comment above re: Paterno's testimony.

CSS covered it up (Joe went along with it) and later it exploded on PSU. After more kids were harmed.

 

[Peace is Our Profession]

They didn't act in 1998 because it was up to law enforcement to act.

Obviously it was not as they had to pay millions to victims and their top admins went to prison! Are you paying attention?

If you know anything about the law, you would know that if PSU did anything, Sandusky could sue them into oblivion.

I know lots about the law, and while you can sue anybody for anything, Sandusky would have lost and had no right to shower with kids alone on campus. Plus as a pedophile I doubt he would have wanted that report released.

At that point, there wasn't anything PSU could do.

BS as the later payments and fines attest.

BTW, do you have any idea how many charges are made against male caregivers of children?

And you must report every one.

That is why there are very few male teachers today. My wife has a PhD in behavioral psychology and worked in the system. She has always said if you are a man working in that system, you are taking your life into your own hands. BTW, all of this happened before a complete redo of laws governing these situations that were put into place after the Catholic Church scandal.

Baloney. We knew then that any sexual activity between an adult and a child was unlawful.

So PSU was judged for an occurrence that happened governed by 1998 laws through 2011 eyes.

No, it was judged for trying to protect it's image at the expense of children.