No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Yeah...well that worked out just fine then...didn't it!!!!! LOL, hit rewind and FIX IT BODE....before your head explodes.

What a pathetic little piece of garbage you are....no answer for any of the unequivocal FACTS presented including the issuance of INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT Presentment / Indictments - go figure! Nearly as cute as your douche-bag, never-ending tactics of putting words and thoughts into people's mouths that they never said or uttered - par for the course with a disingenuous POS such as yourself.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Actually, Schultz did NOT recall that they reported to TSM. At least not in his police interview prior to testifying to the GJ. Is it possible that ten years later he conflated that part of the plan with a report to a CYS (or DPW)?

And... in the six years between his GJ testimony & his testimony at the Spanier trial, how often did he talk to Courtney to try to remember what happened back then?

FYI - it's pretty hard to reconcile Courtney's statements to the media in the early days of the scandal with his testimony at the McQueary & Spnaier trials.


From the police interview (written up by Rossman) prior to his GJ testimony. See Exhibit B, at p.27 in Schultz's 10/31/2012 Omnibus motion: http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/Schultz Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion 10-31-12.pdf

SCHULTZ related he later met with CURLEY and SPANIER and discussed the incident. SCHULTZ related CURLEY came up with a recommendation to address the issue. SCHULTZ related the recommendation was for CURLEY to meet with SANDUSKY and inform him that he was no longer allowed to bring Second Mile kids on Penn State campus facilities.

I asked him if any other things were recommended and he said he did not believe. I asked him if the Second Mile was notified and he said he did not contact them believe and he did not believe that they had been. SCHULTZ related that he did not believe that that was part of the plan.

SCHULTZ related that he thought the proper authorities were notified but he was not able to provide any information about who made the notification or who was notified. SCHULTZ related he thought Children and Youth Services was notified but did not know for sure or who might have notified them. SCHULTZ related he was not sure if the police were involved in this incident or not.


11/16/2011 - Courtney statements to The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/s...xnnlx=1321531211-bTyBxlCusIHxRt8oxFdajw&_r=1#

Courtney was called in to advise Second Mile’s board of directors in 2009 after Sandusky informed it of the Clinton County freshman’s accusations, but Courtney said that was the first he had heard of Sandusky’s alleged inappropriate behavior.

But other than that, “at no time, whether in 1998 or in 2002 or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children,” Courtney said. “Had I 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.”


11/17/2011 - Penn State’s Former Top Lawyer Says He Had No Inkling About Sandusky Allegations Till 2009
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...o_inkling_about_sandusky_allegat/?from=widget

Courtney worked at McQuaide Blasko and served as counsel for Penn State beginning in 1980, when he passed the bar, until 2008, the Centre Daily Times reports. He tells the publication he was never asked about whether to notify police of earlier allegations.

“Had I ever been asked, my response would have been, ‘Absolutely and immediately,’ ” Courtney said. “Had I ever had any inkling that Sandusky was engaging in behavior with children that was even remotely improper, nothing on God’s green earth would have kept me from making certain that the allegations were reported to the police authorities and thoroughly investigated.”

Courtney also spoke to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the New York Times. He said a grand jury report wrongly alleged he was told of a 1998 incident in which a mother reported to university police that her 11-year-old son had showered with Sandusky. The District Attorney decided not to prosecute.

Nor was he aware of allegations by assistant coach Mike McQueary that he had seen Sandusky raping a boy who appeared to be about 10 years old, Courtney said. He told the New York Times he might have been notified that Sandusky was being investigated, but he was never given even general information about the nature of the allegations.

“At no time, whether in 1998 or in 2002 or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children,” Courtney told the New York Times. “Had I 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.”

Don't present Johnny Douche-bag with trivial little things like FACTS - he has no concern for them. Funny how a report to TSM is FACTUALLY a qualifying "Report" to DPW under PA CPS Law via TSM's (and both it's Founder and CEO's) "Agency Relationship" with DPW, but according to Johnny Douche-bag it isn't because "he says so"?!?! LMFAO.....

 

[PSU Dave]

[

the attacks on me are justified because I have accepted the outcome of the trials? Because I believe sworn testimony? Okay.

So you believe all sworn testimony huh? Just start at the 2:00 mark of this clip.

 

[getmyjive11]

Good stuff as usual Jimmy, but don't the emails indicate that they were going to inform TSM and didn't Dr. Jack come back with old swim trunks solution? I just have a had time believing you don't remember calling an agency about a possible abuse of a child. Now it's not impossible to forget...no doubt, but it's kind of one that usually would stick with most people.

Not to mention the "suspected child abuse" billing from counsel. Without the emails or the billing details, what Jimmy posted would certainly be more eye raising. But those documents disputed the statements in that post.

 

[getmyjive11]

View embedded media

So you believe all sworn testimony huh? Just start at the 2:00 mark of this clip.

?
I saw George Carlin back in the day, live. I enjoyed his "tubes" bit.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Good stuff as usual Jimmy, but don't the emails indicate that they were going to inform TSM and didn't Dr. Jack come back with old swim trunks solution? I just have a had time believing you don't remember calling an agency about a possible abuse of a child. Now it's not impossible to forget...no doubt, but it's kind of one that usually would stick with most people.

Just like you'd have a hard time believing that he FORGOT A DECADE LATER that it was reported to The Second Mile, but Schultz DID IN FACT forget this - go figure! Just like you have no problem reconciling Courtney's conflicting self-serving statements on the matter when it first broke and years later at trial - go figure again! Just like you have no problem with Courtney flat lying to investigators about both 1998 and 2001 telling them he had never heard of any kind of report involving Sandusky and potential CSA prior to speaking with investigators (despite his billing statement / file being labeled as such in 2001) - go figure again?!?! LMFAO....what a phucking tool you are.

 

[JmmyW]

Good stuff as usual Jimmy, but don't the emails indicate that they were going to inform TSM and didn't Dr. Jack come back with old swim trunks solution? I just have a had time believing you don't remember calling an agency about a possible abuse of a child. Now it's not impossible to forget...no doubt, but it's kind of one that usually would stick with most people.

Yes, absolutely. The notes & emails are clear that contacting TSM was part of the plan. My point was Schultz didn't remember that in January 2011. He was going off ten-year memories. And at the time Curley was implementing that 2001 plan, Schultz was on vacation, and when he returned he heard that Curley followed up.

I suspect Schultz might have conflated the TSM part of the plan (and/or the 'conditional' DPW part of the plan) with his belief that a proper organization was contacted (CYS/DPW).

-----
I went through all of those pre-GJ police interviews of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. One of the other somewhat big discrepancies is that Curley was unaware (in 2011) that Schultz met with Courtney.

----- Notable Discrepanices from pre-GJ police interviews:
Paterno: McQueary incident was a year or two after SANDUSKY retired
Curley: McQueary incident was 2000
Schultz: McQueary incident was 2002

Paterno: Said he informed Curley of the incident. [He testified to the GJ that he was unaware of any other university official being aware of the report; in other words, he only told Curley]
Curley: Said Paterno informed him of the incident and requested a meeting with Curley and Schultz.
Schultz: Said a meeting was arranged and he, CURLEY, MCQUEARY and PATERNO met and discussed the incident.

Paterno: Said that MCQUEARY did not give him any specific details about the incident however he rembered MCQUEARY being upset about what he saw.
Curley: Said there was no mention of sexual acts.
Schultz: Said there was not any mention of any sexual acts.

Curley: Said they did not seek legal counsel at the time. [Prosecutors asked Curley a question about whether he consulted with university counsel in front of the GJ; he said no.]
Schultz: Said the incident was discussed with attorney Wendell COURTNEY who was representing Penn State at the time. [Prosecutors did NOT ask Schultz any questions about contacting university counsel in front of the GJ.]

Curley: Said the second part of the plan was for him to meet with Dr. Jack RAYKOVITZ, the director of the Second Mile.
Schultz: Was asked if the Second Mile was notified and he said he did not contact them and he did not believe that they had been. SCHULTZ related that he did not believe that that was part of the plan.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Just like you'd have a hard time believing that he FORGOT A DECADE LATER that it was reported to The Second Mile, but Schultz DID IN FACT forget this - go figure! Just like you have no problem reconciling Courtney's conflicting self-serving statements on the matter when it first broke and years later at trial - go figure again! Just like you have no problem with Courtney flat lying to investigators about both 1998 and 2001 telling them he had never heard of any kind of report involving Sandusky and potential CSA prior to speaking with investigators (despite his billing statement / file being labeled as such in 2001) - go figure again?!?! LMFAO....what a phucking tool you are.

TSM is a charity. It's not a law enforcement agency or state agency...that is why it was considered unreported. 6 years later and the best you have is this? I expect more from you...actually I don't. LOL He basically got trashed, lost his job, and pleaded guilty to EWOC because he "forgot" he called the DPW or...the call was never made. No records, no phone records, no emails....nothing at all saying DPW was called after it was in the emails being discussed. Not to mention the later emails from Tim about the humane approach...nobody called DPW. It sounded more like Tim made that decision and it had very little to do with Schultz.

 

[Mixolydian]

Yes, absolutely. The notes & emails are clear that contacting TSM was part of the plan. My point was Schultz didn't remember that in January 2011. He was going off ten-year memories. And at the time Curley was implementing that 2001 plan, Schultz was on vacation, and when he returned he heard that Curley followed up.

I suspect Schultz might have conflated the TSM part of the plan (and/or the 'conditional' DPW part of the plan) with his belief that a proper organization was contacted (CYS/DPW).

-----
I went through all of those pre-GJ police interviews of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. One of the other somewhat big discrepancies is that Curley was unaware (in 2011) that Schultz met with Courtney.

----- Notable Discrepanices from pre-GJ police interviews:
Paterno: McQueary incident was a year or two after SANDUSKY retired
Curley: McQueary incident was 2000
Schultz: McQueary incident was 2002

Paterno: Said he informed Curley of the incident. [He testified to the GJ that he was unaware of any other university official being aware of the report; in other words, he only told Curley]
Curley: Said Paterno informed him of the incident and requested a meeting with Curley and Schultz.
Schultz: Said a meeting was arranged and he, CURLEY, MCQUEARY and PATERNO met and discussed the incident.

Paterno: Said that MCQUEARY did not give him any specific details about the incident however he rembered MCQUEARY being upset about what he saw.
Curley: Said there was no mention of sexual acts.
Schultz: Said there was not any mention of any sexual acts.

Curley: Said they did not seek legal counsel at the time. [Prosecutors asked Curley a question about whether he consulted with university counsel in front of the GJ; he said no.]
Schultz: Said the incident was discussed with attorney Wendell COURTNEY who was representing Penn State at the time. [Prosecutors did NOT ask Schultz any questions about contacting university counsel in front of the GJ.]

Curley: Said the second part of the plan was for him to meet with Dr. Jack RAYKOVITZ, the director of the Second Mile.
Schultz: Was asked if the Second Mile was notified and he said he did not contact them and he did not believe that they had been. SCHULTZ related that he did not believe that that was part of the plan.

This was one helluva well planned conspiracy.

 

[2turgisgrimm]

This was one helluva well planned conspiracy.

This was one of the worst planned and executed capers ever.

 

[21Guns]

No, it BobPSU92 or something like that.

Correct.

Every time someone who he disagrees with posts something, he punches in "Please take this opportunity to use the ignore feature" and hits enter on his lap top.

I find it comical that my haters pile on because they think I'm repetitive: Compared to that guy, I'm a novice on repeating myself. He has 8 total posts, and he just rotates them. The SAME. THING. OVER. AND. OVER.

 

[WeR0206]

TSM is a charity. It's not a law enforcement agency or state agency...that is why it was considered unreported. 6 years later and the best you have is this? I expect more from you...actually I don't. LOL

It's not just a charity though, it's a STATE LICENSED charity where one of its missions is child protection (during Spanier's trial JR confirmed that TC did the right thing by taking his concerns to TSM because of this FACT).

As Bushwood has pointed out this charity also had an agency relationship with CC CYS, also JR was a contract worker for CC CYS. So technically, by telling JR at TSM the psu admins also told CC CYS because not only did JR do contract work for CC CYS but he was REQUIRED to inform CC CYS of any and all incidents that may involve CSA (a late night shower where a PSU GA felt uncomfortable is certainly one of these situations) as part of his state licensing/mandatory reporter status and agency relationship with CC CYS. TSM and CYS/DPW worked hand in hand for YEARS running child welfare programs not only in CC but the entire STATE.

Essentially, by informing TSM the admins also informed CC CYS due to TSM requirement as a mandatory reporter and agency relationship.

For some bizarre reason the state tried to argue that the admins telling the mandatory reporters at TSM about an inappropriate shower somehow prevented a report from being made to DPW....which makes ZERO logical sense since TSM was required by law to forward the admin's report.

 

[no1lion99]

Actually, Schultz did NOT recall that they reported to TSM. At least not in his police interview prior to testifying to the GJ. Is it possible that ten years later he conflated that part of the plan with a report to a CYS (or DPW)?

And... in the six years between his GJ testimony & his testimony at the Spanier trial, how often did he talk to Courtney to try to remember what happened back then?

FYI - it's pretty hard to reconcile Courtney's statements to the media in the early days of the scandal with his testimony at the McQueary & Spnaier trials.


From the police interview (written up by Rossman) prior to his GJ testimony. See Exhibit B, at p.27 in Schultz's 10/31/2012 Omnibus motion: http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/Schultz Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion 10-31-12.pdf

SCHULTZ related he later met with CURLEY and SPANIER and discussed the incident. SCHULTZ related CURLEY came up with a recommendation to address the issue. SCHULTZ related the recommendation was for CURLEY to meet with SANDUSKY and inform him that he was no longer allowed to bring Second Mile kids on Penn State campus facilities.

I asked him if any other things were recommended and he said he did not believe. I asked him if the Second Mile was notified and he said he did not contact them believe and he did not believe that they had been. SCHULTZ related that he did not believe that that was part of the plan.

SCHULTZ related that he thought the proper authorities were notified but he was not able to provide any information about who made the notification or who was notified. SCHULTZ related he thought Children and Youth Services was notified but did not know for sure or who might have notified them. SCHULTZ related he was not sure if the police were involved in this incident or not.


11/16/2011 - Courtney statements to The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/s...xnnlx=1321531211-bTyBxlCusIHxRt8oxFdajw&_r=1#

Courtney was called in to advise Second Mile’s board of directors in 2009 after Sandusky informed it of the Clinton County freshman’s accusations, but Courtney said that was the first he had heard of Sandusky’s alleged inappropriate behavior.

But other than that, “at no time, whether in 1998 or in 2002 or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children,” Courtney said. “Had I 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.”


11/17/2011 - Penn State’s Former Top Lawyer Says He Had No Inkling About Sandusky Allegations Till 2009
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...o_inkling_about_sandusky_allegat/?from=widget

Courtney worked at McQuaide Blasko and served as counsel for Penn State beginning in 1980, when he passed the bar, until 2008, the Centre Daily Times reports. He tells the publication he was never asked about whether to notify police of earlier allegations.

“Had I ever been asked, my response would have been, ‘Absolutely and immediately,’ ” Courtney said. “Had I ever had any inkling that Sandusky was engaging in behavior with children that was even remotely improper, nothing on God’s green earth would have kept me from making certain that the allegations were reported to the police authorities and thoroughly investigated.”

Courtney also spoke to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the New York Times. He said a grand jury report wrongly alleged he was told of a 1998 incident in which a mother reported to university police that her 11-year-old son had showered with Sandusky. The District Attorney decided not to prosecute.

Nor was he aware of allegations by assistant coach Mike McQueary that he had seen Sandusky raping a boy who appeared to be about 10 years old, Courtney said. He told the New York Times he might have been notified that Sandusky was being investigated, but he was never given even general information about the nature of the allegations.

“At no time, whether in 1998 or in 2002 or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children,” Courtney told the New York Times. “Had I 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.”

Thorough as always Jimmy.

Point of clarification/explanation re squaring courtney's early comments. My read is that they are quite lawyerly when you examine.

"Courtney was called in to advise Second Mile’s board of directors in 2009 after Sandusky informed it of the Clinton County freshman’s accusations, but Courtney said that was the first he had heard of Sandusky’s alleged inappropriate behavior."

But other than that, “at no time, whether in 1998 or in 2002 or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children,” Courtney said. “Had I 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.”

It appears the first statement is the author paraphrasing, but I will address as if it were a direct quote anyway for these purposes. Notice the terms used by courtney; "inappropriate behavior", "sexual misconduct", and "improper contact". Now recall how we have thoroughly discussed the "horeseplay" vs "CSA" distinctions. Now check the MM trial transcripts 17-Oct-2016 p66-68. Twice Courtney describes the behavior as "horseplay".

So squaring his statements is simple, from a lawyers perspective. He would say

it was reported to me as horseplay, and horseplay is not "sexual misconduct", "inappropriate behavior" or "improper conduct". I told them you have no legal obligation to report such innocent behavior, however if you want to be sure, go ahead and report because there are no legal ramifications to doing so. He would further state, 'had Schultz implied in any way that he felt the behavior was in some way illegal or inappropriate I would have said report it immediately, which I said anyway'.

Maybe you disagree with my analysis, curious to find out.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Yes, absolutely. The notes & emails are clear that contacting TSM was part of the plan. My point was Schultz didn't remember that in January 2011. He was going off ten-year memories. And at the time Curley was implementing that 2001 plan, Schultz was on vacation, and when he returned he heard that Curley followed up.

I suspect Schultz might have conflated the TSM part of the plan (and/or the 'conditional' DPW part of the plan) with his belief that a proper organization was contacted (CYS/DPW).

-----
I went through all of those pre-GJ police interviews of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. One of the other somewhat big discrepancies is that Curley was unaware (in 2011) that Schultz met with Courtney.

----- Notable Discrepanices from pre-GJ police interviews:
Paterno: McQueary incident was a year or two after SANDUSKY retired
Curley: McQueary incident was 2000
Schultz: McQueary incident was 2002

Paterno: Said he informed Curley of the incident. [He testified to the GJ that he was unaware of any other university official being aware of the report; in other words, he only told Curley]
Curley: Said Paterno informed him of the incident and requested a meeting with Curley and Schultz.
Schultz: Said a meeting was arranged and he, CURLEY, MCQUEARY and PATERNO met and discussed the incident.

Paterno: Said that MCQUEARY did not give him any specific details about the incident however he rembered MCQUEARY being upset about what he saw.
Curley: Said there was no mention of sexual acts.
Schultz: Said there was not any mention of any sexual acts.

Curley: Said they did not seek legal counsel at the time. [Prosecutors asked Curley a question about whether he consulted with university counsel in front of the GJ; he said no.]
Schultz: Said the incident was discussed with attorney Wendell COURTNEY who was representing Penn State at the time. [Prosecutors did NOT ask Schultz any questions about contacting university counsel in front of the GJ.]

Curley: Said the second part of the plan was for him to meet with Dr. Jack RAYKOVITZ, the director of the Second Mile.
Schultz: Was asked if the Second Mile was notified and he said he did not contact them and he did not believe that they had been. SCHULTZ related that he did not believe that that was part of the plan.

Again, your pointing out FACTS that inconvenient for these people. They're only interested in Courtney testifying in a self-serving manner that he recommended this or that recently.....they are completely uninterested that Courtney apparently bold-faced lied to investigators in late-2010 / early-2011 that he had no knowledge of Sandusky ever being involved in a Report of potential CSA administrative or otherwise. Funny how this "selective testimony" thing works with these "champions of the truth"...ditto their ambivalence to the OAG intentionally issuing FRAUDULENT Presentments and indictments, LMFAO!

 

[marshall23]

TSM is a charity. It's not a law enforcement agency or state agency...that is why it was considered unreported. 6 years later and the best you have is this? I expect more from you...actually I don't. LOL He basically got trashed, lost his job, and pleaded guilty to EWOC because he "forgot" he called the DPW or...the call was never made. No records, no phone records, no emails....nothing at all saying DPW was called after it was in the emails being discussed. Not to mention the later emails from Tim about the humane approach...nobody called DPW. It sounded more like Tim made that decision and it had very little to do with Schultz.

CYS had contracts with TSM for services and Raykovitz did contract work for State Child Care agencies in Centre County. I don't think we should discount the close working relationships of the state child care agencies with TSM. I find it difficult to find Tim and Gary at fault and ignore JRs obvious responsibilities.

 

[no1lion99]

TSM is a charity. It's not a law enforcement agency or state agency...that is why it was considered unreported. 6 years later and the best you have is this? I expect more from you...actually I don't. LOL He basically got trashed, lost his job, and pleaded guilty to EWOC because he "forgot" he called the DPW or...the call was never made. No records, no phone records, no emails....nothing at all saying DPW was called after it was in the emails being discussed. Not to mention the later emails from Tim about the humane approach...nobody called DPW. It sounded more like Tim made that decision and it had very little to do with Schultz.

No context here as I have BW on ignore, but....this raises another point:

Most people who defend Schultz (even me in the past) argue that he "was the police", even Mike. If this were the case and Schultz was acting in some sort of "official" duty as the police in this case, where is the police report? I mean even in 1998 they were smart enough to keep the report, though they buried it as administrative so as to keep prying eyes away from it. That is how real police investigate and document an "investigation". So I ask again, if schultz is the police, where is the police report for 2001? The answer is, it didn't exist, because there was no "investigation". So no, Schultz isn't the police really.

 

[no1lion99]

CYS had contracts with TSM for services and Raykovitz did contract work for State Child Care agencies in Centre County. I don't think we should discount the close working relationships of the state child care agencies with TSM. I find it difficult to find Tim and Gary at fault and ignore JRs obvious responsibilities.

I don't think anyone outside of Strawberry Square is ignoring TSM's responsibility here. I have personally pushed the state, along with others not only to investigate TSM, but also to revoke Dr. Jacks license.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It's not just a charity though, it's a STATE LICENSED charity where one of its missions is child protection (during Spanier's trial JR confirmed that TC did the right thing by taking his concerns to TSM because of this FACT).

As Bushwood has pointed out this charity also had an agency relationship with CC CYS, also JR was a contract worker for CC CYS. So technically, by telling JR at TSM the psu admins also told CC CYS because not only did JR do contract work for CC CYS but he was REQUIRED to inform CC CYS of any and all incidents that may involve CSA (a late night shower where a PSU GA felt uncomfortable is certainly one of these situations) as part of his state licensing/mandatory reporter status and agency relationship with CC CYS. TSM and CYS/DPW worked hand in hand for YEARS running child welfare programs not only in CC but the entire STATE.

Essentially, by informing TSM the admins also informed CC CYS due to TSM requirement as a mandatory reporter and agency relationship.

For some bizarre reason the state tried to argue that the admins telling the mandatory reporters at TSM about an inappropriate shower somehow prevented a report from being made to DPW....which makes ZERO logical sense since TSM was required by law to forward the admin's report.

It's not essentially or connecting the dots...that isn't how it works. Yes TSM should have done more too and they should have gotten investigated. I'm not saying they did a great job, but telling the charity of the man you caught doing this isn't exactly the same thing. I know people want to make the connection, but how in the world did the defense team or PSU not try to use that as a rational defense...because it's not maybe?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

TSM is a charity. It's not a law enforcement agency or state agency...that is why it was considered unreported. 6 years later and the best you have is this? I expect more from you...actually I don't. LOL He basically got trashed, lost his job, and pleaded guilty to EWOC because he "forgot" he called the DPW or...the call was never made. No records, no phone records, no emails....nothing at all saying DPW was called after it was in the emails being discussed. Not to mention the later emails from Tim about the humane approach...nobody called DPW. It sounded more like Tim made that decision and it had very little to do with Schultz.

It's not just a charity though, it's a STATE LICENSED charity where one of its missions is child protection (during Spanier's trial JR confirmed that TC did the right thing by taking his concerns to TSM because of this FACT).

As Bushwood has pointed out this charity also had an agency relationship with CC CYS, also JR was a contract worker for CC CYS. So technically, by telling JR at TSM the psu admins also told CC CYS because not only did JR do contract work for CC CYS but he was REQUIRED to inform CC CYS of any and all incidents that may involve CSA (a late night shower where a PSU GA felt uncomfortable is certainly one of these situations) as part of his state licensing/mandatory reporter status and agency relationship with CC CYS. TSM and CYS/DPW worked hand in hand for YEARS running child welfare programs not only in CC but the entire STATE.

Essentially, by informing TSM the admins also informed CC CYS due to TSM requirement as a mandatory reporter and agency relationship.

For some bizarre reason the state tried to argue that the admins telling the mandatory reporters at TSM about an inappropriate shower somehow prevented a report from being made to DPW....which makes ZERO logical sense since TSM was required by law to forward the admin's report.

Again, you need to stop confusing @ssmunch with FACTS! Douche-bag keeps saying that PSU did not make a qualifying legal report of Mike McQueary's AFTER THE FACT HR Administrative Report to authorities under the applicable code, the PA CPS Law, which is an UNEQUIVOCALLY false and WRONG claim. But it hasn't prevented Johnny Douche-bag from making it over and over and over and over has it??? Go figure!!!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Again, you need to stop confusing @ssmunch with FACTS! Douche-bag keeps saying that PSU did not make a qualifying legal report of Mike McQueary's AFTER THE FACT Administrative Report to authorities under the applicable code, the PA CPS Law, which is an UNEQUIVOCALLY false and WRONG claim. But it hasn't prevented Johnny Douche-bag from making it over and over and over and over has it??? Go figure!!!

Rant some more nutjob. If you're right how come they weren't off the hook from the beginning...I mean they told TSM...all is well. LOL How come they needed to even discuss DPW in the emails of telling TSM was the end all. I'm not saying there is some grand conspiracy, but the TSM angle is a day late and a dollar short.

 

[getmyjive11]

I don't think anyone outside of Strawberry Square is ignoring TSM's responsibility here. I have personally pushed the state, along with others not only to investigate TSM, but also to revoke Dr. Jacks license.

Regardless of what "side" you are on, I don't think that anyone disagrees that JR should have been indicted. He was part of the failure. With that being said, there is zero indication that Curley or Schultz believed that making a report to JR was the same as making a report to CYS.

 

[marshall23]

I don't think anyone outside of Strawberry Square is ignoring TSM's responsibility here. I have personally pushed the state, along with others not only to investigate TSM, but also to revoke Dr. Jacks license.

I'm still trying to understand how Tim and Gary endangered a child (victim) who has never been identified. It has already been established that they were not mandatory reporters. Even if a call was made it is likely no record would exist. So an employee of TSM was observed showering with an unidentified child......Tim and Gary ended the employees privileges at PSU and informed his employer. The employer, a state approved child care agency with close working ties with DPW and CYS.....gave the employee keys to a different venue. Who dropped the ball?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Thorough as always Jimmy.

Point of clarification/explanation re squaring courtney's early comments. My read is that they are quite lawyerly when you examine.

"Courtney was called in to advise Second Mile’s board of directors in 2009 after Sandusky informed it of the Clinton County freshman’s accusations, but Courtney said that was the first he had heard of Sandusky’s alleged inappropriate behavior."

But other than that, “at no time, whether in 1998 or in 2002 or any other point in time, was I made aware or did I have knowledge of Jerry Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children,” Courtney said. “Had I 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.”

It appears the first statement is the author paraphrasing, but I will address as if it were a direct quote anyway for these purposes. Notice the terms used by courtney; "inappropriate behavior", "sexual misconduct", and "improper contact". Now recall how we have thoroughly discussed the "horeseplay" vs "CSA" distinctions. Now check the MM trial transcripts 17-Oct-2016 p66-68. Twice Courtney describes the behavior as "horseplay".

So squaring his statements is simple, from a lawyers perspective. He would say

it was reported to me as horseplay, and horseplay is not "sexual misconduct", "inappropriate behavior" or "improper conduct". I told them you have no legal obligation to report such innocent behavior, however if you want to be sure, go ahead and report because there are no legal ramifications to doing so. He would further state, 'had Schultz implied in any way that he felt the behavior was in some way illegal or inappropriate I would have said report it immediately, which I said anyway'.

Maybe you disagree with my analysis, curious to find out.

Just like it's easy to square creating intentionally fraudulent Presentments and Indictments "from a lawyers perspective" for lawyers like Corrupt Corbutt and his ilk (i.e., state-employed scumbag lawyers who are more corrupt, bigger criminals and have more disrespect for the spirit of the law & the Constitution than the people they are prosecuting! IOW, self-serving, self-ingratiating, immoral, megalomaniac narcissists who are huge believers in tyranny and injustice a la Hitler or Mussolini.).

 

[no1lion99]

I'm still trying to understand how Tim and Gary endangered a child (victim) who has never been identified. It has already been established that they were not mandatory reporters. Even if a call was made it is likely no record would exist. So an employee of TSM was observed showering with an unidentified child......Tim and Gary ended the employees privileges at PSU and informed his employer. The employer, a state approved child care agency with close working ties with DPW and CYS.....gave the employee keys to a different venue. Who dropped the ball?

How about D - all of the above?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I'm still trying to understand how Tim and Gary endangered a child (victim) who has never been identified. It has already been established that they were not mandatory reporters. Even if a call was made it is likely no record would exist. So an employee of TSM was observed showering with an unidentified child......Tim and Gary ended the employees privileges at PSU and informed his employer. The employer, a state approved child care agency with close working ties with DPW and CYS.....gave the employee keys to a different venue. Who dropped the ball?

The Foreman of the Jury also publicly stated that the conviction was a "mistake" and he should have never let it happen.....and only let it happen due to cowardice and not being willing to stand up to a lynch-mob who demanded a blood sacrifice and a corrupt politically-tainted "State Actors" who put forth Spanier among others as the sacrificial lamb via massive and disgraceful Prosecutorial Misconduct and Abuse of State Powers & Authorities.

 

[marshall23]

How about D - all of the above?

Actually, since no one including his father(MM) has backed his claim that he reported CSA.....I beg to differ. I think the report was handled as an administrative issue and that decision was made by Dad and Dr. D, hearing Mike's original version of events. TC turned that report over to JS's employer.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Rant some more nutjob. If you're right how come they weren't off the hook from the beginning...I mean they told TSM...all is well. LOL How come they needed to even discuss DPW in the emails of telling TSM was the end all. I'm not saying there is some grand conspiracy, but the TSM angle is a day late and a dollar short.

Gee, "how come" the OAG intentionally FALSE and FRAUDULENT Presentments & Indictments??? Gee, I don't know - "how come" all of these things point to the same conclusion under Occam's Razor, an PA OAG Framejob and Political Hitjob to protect the political allies (TSM) and unjustly, immorally use PSU & PSU Football (and PSU Administrators) as the "Fall Guys". Gee, I can't figure it out......LMFAO, no wonder you failed your "paint by numbers class" too @sshole.

 

[getmyjive11]

The Foreman of the Jury also publicly stated that the conviction was a "mistake" and he should have never let it happen.....and only let it happen due to cowardice and not being willing to stand up to a lynch-mob who demanded a blood sacrifice and a corrupt politically-tainted "State Actors" who put forth Spanier among others as the sacrificial lamb via massive and disgraceful Prosecutorial Misconduct and Abuse of State Powers & Authorities.

My personal opinion is that the prosecution did not prove Spanier guilty, but it seems that the jurors felt that the emails did the job for the state. I think it is very conceivable that Spanier was mislead by C&S, and have felt that way since 2012. However, it sure seems that Spanier didn't do his due diligence here. Even just Sandusky showering with a boy alone on University property should have warranted more of an effort on his part, IMO. It is surprising that he never sought out MM or Paterno for their stories directly. While not criminal, that is where he failed the University.

 

[no1lion99]

Actually, since no one including his father(MM) has backed his claim that he reported CSA.....I beg to differ. I think the report was handled as an administrative issue and that decision was made by Dad and Dr. D, hearing Mike's original version of events. TC turned that report over to JS's employer.

You and others keep making two mistakes.

1. CSA is a complicated topic and often a difficult on to discuss. Until this scandal I never once use the term or abbrev CSA that I can recall so it isn't likely that Mike would walk in and say "hey I just saw child sexual assault". CSA encompasses many subtle activities like grooming, touching, varying states of arousal, and other things that it isn't as if there is one clearly defined action alone that has to constitute CSA. Mike has been clear that while never stating that he saw outright intercourse that the behavior was "over the line". That line was a naked 57 year old man in a shower with a naked child and touching him to some degree. Does it need to be explained to you exactly what line Mike was talking about? If it does, please come collect your sign, you can wear it proudly with Tim, Gary, and Graham.

2. Yes someone did back Mike's report of something sexually inappropriate, and his name was Joseph Vincent Paterno. Question mark or not, he has been consistent in stating that Mike was very very upset when he met with Joe. Upset about what? Does Mike find horseplay with children offensive? Please refer back to point 1.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Gee, "how come" the OAG intentionally FALSE and FRAUDULENT Presentments & Indictments??? Gee, I don't know - "how come" all of these things point to the same conclusion under Occam's Razor, an PA OAG Framejob and Political Hitjob to protect the political allies (TSM) and unjustly, immorally use PSU & PSU Football (and PSU Administrators) as the "Fall Guys". Gee, I can't figure it out......LMFAO, no wonder you failed your "paint by numbers class" too @sshole.

LOL, oh so it's your conspiracy theory. Sh!t...I feel even dumber for entertaining you now. idiot.

 

[AvgUser]

...I just have a had time believing you don't remember calling an agency about a possible abuse of a child. Now it's not impossible to forget...no doubt, but it's kind of one that usually would stick with most people.

Not being (completely ) argumentative, but let's not forget:

• There was an 'internal' investigation by C&S and they did not believe CSA had occurred in 2001. Time fades memories.
  
• This [2001] presumably "looked like 1998" all over again and the conclusion from 1998 was that nothing criminal occurred by the proper authorities and investigating organizations;
• Schulz did recall that someone had the action to contact proper organization, or words to that effect. We learned during the Spanier trial that Curley contacted TSM. So, Schultz' recollection was close and I would say true. He just did not do it himself.
  
• Also, didn't Schultz also take an overseas vacation in and around the time of the investigation such that he may not have been 100% attentive to this situation
• Let us also not forget how Harmon was asked about the 1998 report by Schultz in 2001 and allegedly didn't ask one question about why. Yep, that is as believable as the Easter Bunny. Harmon investigated Potential CSA in 1998 and forgot all about it by 2001.

Short Story: I went through a very intense situation back in 2006 in my life. Ten years ago I would have sworn that I would remember every last detail, comment, conversation and visual observation for eternity. As I sit here in 2017, I am amazed at how easily the "I'll never forget moments" have slipped away from my consciousness. [note: I chronicled everything in a diary so I look back to what i forgot]

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Actually, since no one including his father(MM) has backed his claim that he reported CSA.....I beg to differ. I think the report was handled as an administrative issue and that decision was made by Dad and Dr. D, hearing Mike's original version of events. TC turned that report over to JS's employer.

It was unquestionably turned over to PSU Admin via the "HR Administration Channel" -- and the choice to do this versus turning it over to police was absolutely made by Mike McQueary WHILE THE EVENT WAS ONGOING with direct advice from his Dad and Dr. Dranov - all 3 of these parties say this is so and is part of the story that McQueary told PSU. Anyone who argues the opposite is claiming that Mike McQueary, his Dad and Dr. Dranov explicitly choose to not report the ANAL RAPE IN-PROGRESS OF A PREPUBESCENT CHILD!?!? (it is undeniable that McQueary has testified that he left Lasch with the Child still in Sandusky's custody and in the Lasch Building!!!).

Complete nonsense that McQueary's AFTER THE FACT HR Administrative Report of After-Hour Suspicious Activity in the Workplace was not handled "by the book" by PSU via their HR Policies & Procedures for such things. INCLUDING a report being made to the proper child welfare authorities for further appropriate handling and investigation! But these PSU Administrators (and PSU Football) were "prosecuted" for handling the matter exactly as they were supposed to - go figure!?!? LMFAO at what a corrupt, cesspool PA Government and the lawyers-turned-politicians who run it are.

 

[Obliviax]

My personal opinion is that the prosecution did not prove Spanier guilty, but it seems that the jurors felt that the emails did the job for the state. I think it is very conceivable that Spanier was mislead by C&S, and have felt that way since 2012. However, it sure seems that Spanier didn't do his due diligence here. Even just Sandusky showering with a boy alone on University property should have warranted more of an effort on his part, IMO. It is surprising that he never sought out MM or Paterno for their stories directly. While not criminal, that is where he failed the University.

• why would he seek out Paterno? He didn't see anything.
• why would he seek out MM if he trusted C&S?
• JS had a history of showing with boys, as did many people back in the day. He showered with a boy, alone, which was alarming. There is nothing illegal or warranting of a CYS or criminal investigation for showing with a boy.
• If you worked in the industry, at risk and fatherless boys, you would know that many do not know how to groom. It isn't uncommon for well meaning counselors to be in, what many would consider, creepy positions if witnessed out of context. Again, not unlike a dr checking for a hernia.
• If you are a man working in the industry, you can expect to have boys make allegations against you. These kids, in the system, learn how to push buttons to get what they want, especially against people that disciplined them. It is a way to lash out.

People who have never worked in the system don't understand this. It is the way that priests and JS were able to live on the edge for so long. There was always an excuse. What convicted JS wasn't v-1, v-2, v-3, v-n, or MM. What convicted JS was v-1, v-2, v-3, v-n AND MM. So what is the common denominator here? TSM. They were the only ones in a position to assure accurate records and to connect the dots.

 

[marshall23]

You and others keep making two mistakes.

1. CSA is a complicated topic and often a difficult on to discuss. Until this scandal I never once use the term or abbrev CSA that I can recall so it isn't likely that Mike would walk in and say "hey I just saw child sexual assault". CSA encompasses many subtle activities like grooming, touching, varying states of arousal, and other things that it isn't as if there is one clearly defined action alone that has to constitute CSA. Mike has been clear that while never stating that he saw outright intercourse that the behavior was "over the line". That line was a naked 57 year old man in a shower with a naked child and touching him to some degree. Does it need to be explained to you exactly what line Mike was talking about? If it does, please come collect your sign, you can wear it proudly with Tim, Gary, and Graham.

2. Yes someone did back Mike's report of something sexually inappropriate, and his name was Joseph Vincent Paterno. Question mark or not, he has been consistent in stating that Mike was very very upset when he met with Joe. Upset about what? Does Mike find horseplay with children offensive? Please refer back to point 1.

You and others keep making one mistake. We don't know what Mike actually said to anyone. What he said 10 years later after he was cornered by investigators and lawyer-ed up .....or what 80 year old JVP said after he was huddled with prosecutors or investigators......is not nearly as reliable as the ACTIONS everyone took after speaking to MM immediately or a few weeks after the incident.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

My personal opinion is that the prosecution did not prove Spanier guilty, but it seems that the jurors felt that the emails did the job for the state. I think it is very conceivable that Spanier was mislead by C&S, and have felt that way since 2012. However, it sure seems that Spanier didn't do his due diligence here. Even just Sandusky showering with a boy alone on University property should have warranted more of an effort on his part, IMO. It is surprising that he never sought out MM or Paterno for their stories directly. While not criminal, that is where he failed the University.

Wrong again moron - the PSU Administrators DID CAUSE A QUALIFYING REPORT TO BE MADE UNDER PA CPSL!!! This is a FACT that you keep blithely ignoring! The only party who should have been prosecuted for Endangering the Welfare of Children via their PROVEN actions was Jack Raykovitz, the CEO of The Second Mile and he wasn't even Indicted, nor was TSM even investigated, by that "crack OAG" team you keep speaking of.....LMFAO!

 

[AvgUser]

That line was a naked 57 year old man in a shower with a naked child and touching him to some degree.

In 1998 a 54 year old man was alone in a shower with a 14 year old touching to some degree? How did that turn out?

 

[no1lion99]

You and others keep making one mistake. We don't know what Mike actually said to anyone. What he said 10 years later after he was cornered by investigators and lawyer-ed up .....or what 80 year old JVP said after he was huddled with prosecutors or investigators......is not nearly as reliable as the ACTIONS everyone took after speaking to MM immediately or a few weeks after the incident.

My entire post above actually shows that I am not assuming I know exactly what Mike said. I am saying that Joe said he was very upset about whatever he said. If Mike didn't care about it he probably wouldn't have talked to his dad, dranov, paterno, schultz, and curley. Instead he did do that, and Paterno was concerned enough to alert Tim, and up the chain it went. As noted, Schultz further called a lawyer. These are not the actions of people who think nothing of the situation.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Not being (completely ) argumentative, but let's not forget:

• There was an 'internal' investigation by C&S and they did not believe CSA had occurred in 2001. Time fades memories.
  
• This [2001] presumably "looked like 1998" all over again and the conclusion from 1998 was that nothing criminal occurred by the proper authorities and investigating organizations;
• Schulz did recall that someone had the action to contact proper organization, or words to that effect. We learned during the Spanier trial that Curley contacted TSM. So, Schultz' recollection was close and I would say true. He just did not do it himself.
  
• Also, didn't Schultz also take an overseas vacation in and around the time of the investigation such that he may not have been 100% attentive to this situation
• Let us also not forget how Harmon was asked about the 1998 report by Schultz in 2001 and allegedly didn't ask one question about why. Yep, that is as believable as the Easter Bunny. Harmon investigated Potential CSA in 1998 and forgot all about it by 2001.

Short Story: I went through a very intense situation back in 2006 in my life. Ten years ago I would have sworn that I would remember every last detail, comment, conversation and visual observation for eternity. As I sit here in 2017, I am amazed at how easily the "I'll never forget moments" have slipped away from my consciousness. [note: I chronicled everything in a diary so I look back to what i forgot]

I have a similar story about reporting someone a decade ago. I know for a fact the report was made as I took it up two different channels as the first one did not yield results. It was nothing as serious as this, but I still remember documenting this, emailing people, and then eventually calling an external hotline. The person was gone within 2 weeks of the external call being made. I cannot tell you the dates or times today, but my email history would certainly have rendered the details as well as my PC. I can see him forgetting who they spoke to or the time or date...that isn't what I talking about. Those details come and go...I get it. The I don't know if we called a state agency on Jerry is another. Not to mention Tim's email shows they went a different route.

 

[no1lion99]

In 1998 a 54 year old man was alone in a shower with a 14 year old touching to some degree? How did that turn out?

A licensed psychologist said it indicated he might be abusing the child. That testimony was overruled by a less qualified person.

 

[2turgisgrimm]

I've never seen so many so called Penn Staters wanting to hang Joe and Penn State over anything.