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

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

• 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.

Beyond all that, PSU was in no position to do more than precisely what they did. By Mike McQueary's, his father's and Dr. Dranov's own admission, the decision to handle the matter via PSU's HR Channel as an "administrative investigation" rather than a "Police Report" was made the prior evening while the event was still ONGOING! PSU did everything they could, including turning it over to the proper Child Welfare channels for further handling and investigation (as well as putting an end to Sandusky's TSM On-Campus privileges). What else precisely was "PSU" supposed to do precisely? They had determined no illegal activity, they did not know the child's identity beyond what Sandusky would tell them, etc.... TSM/DPW/CYS were CLEARLY in the best position to investigate the matter and make further determinations......and their further determinations and recommendations were that Sandusky should wear swim-trunks the next time he finds himself in such a situation - so what does that tell you about the conclusions "the child welfare experts" reached in regards to the incident???

 

[LaJolla Lion]

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

Can you point them out? I mean you just joined yesterday...so can you show me all of these get Joe posts? Just one where it states Joe was a bad guy or he made this happen. Just one since you seem to be so well versed after 24 hours. TIA

 

[marshall23]

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.

All requires us to speculate. Keep in mind that Jerry Sandusky was a powerful man with many political friends. I don't dispute that MM was upset at what he may have feared he walked into. However, he saw nothing that he could actually swear to. He was correct not to keep the story to himself. However, empirical evidence is very strong that what ever he said to Dad and Dr. they knew it was not worthy of reporting to LE of CPS. Hence the decision to make an administrative report to MM's superior JVP.
I can speculate a little myself. Mike might have been concerned that reporting a PSU "icon" without absolute certainty of a crime, might destroy his dream of a PSU coaching job.....another reason he never disputed the actions of TC or GS until a decade later under the thumb of the OAG.
GS needed to consult WC for advice. After all, given JS's many friends including powerful trustees, any action (just taking his keys) would have to be justified.
Sorry, I think everyone did what at the time they thought was prudent. The person who was a child care expert certainly had more responsibility to follow up than an AD and a college VP. After all, it was their employee, their program and their child. I don't believe that anyone, including JR really believed JS was a pedophile until it was too late.

 

[marshall23]

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

It is curious isn't it?

 

[Mixolydian]

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

A highly qualified person (Raykovitz) was informed about 2001. Same 57 year old in the shower with a young boy story. He told Jerry to wear swim trunks next time and meanwhile far lesser qualified people were the only ones blamed. How'd that work out for ya?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

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.

No, clearly Mike McQueary, his Dad and Dr. Dranov blithely ignoring the IN-PROGRESS anal-rape of a 10 year old child at Lasch and telling Mike to go to sleep and call his HR Superior in the morning RATHER THAN calling police and reporting the IN-PROGRESS anal-rape of a child is "clear and convincing" evidence that Mike told everyone he spoke with (including JVP the next morning) about a child being raped by Sandusky.... You piece of human excrement @ssholes are so phucking ridiculous with your absurd "spin" and bull$hit it is beyond pathetic... BTW you pathetic @ssmunch, Schultz didn't "call a lawyer" regarding the Administrative HR Report that McQueary filed well AFTER THE FACT, he consulted with the University's General Counsel on the topic -- a perfectly normal thing to do for somebody in Schultz's position (i.e., the effective COO of University Park, PA).

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

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

Yea, but they're not trolls, don't you know? LMFAO.....

 

[getmyjive11]

Can you point them out? I mean you just joined yesterday...so can you show me all of these get Joe posts? Just one where it states Joe was a bad guy or he made this happen. Just one since you seem to be so well versed after 24 hours. TIA

Are you asking a pnny for his thoughts?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Are you asking a pnny for his thoughts?

LOL,,,,yep, dmhshitforbrains handle is oddly absent today. Nice catch. Watch how quickly that lasts. O/U he busts out a Jockstrap call with a new handle is 7pm EST tonight. His OCD may not let him go 24 hours without doing it.

 

[marshall23]

Can you point them out? I mean you just joined yesterday...so can you show me all of these get Joe posts? TIA

Gee, isn't turn about fair play? Many including myself have criticized the JS trial and questioned many aspects of its fairness. I have stated that I'd like to see Sandusky get another trial. I/we have been labeled "free Jerry" and tin foilers etc. Yet, I have never said I'm convinced that JS is totally innocent. In fact I have stated that even if innocent, his own stupid, childish and reckless behavior of showering with boys is at least partially to blame for his predicament.
It only seems fair to paint with the same broad brush and label those who contend that Joe, Gary, Graham and Tim made mistakes as the "Hang JVP and PSU crowd." Don't you agree?

 

[no1lion99]

A highly qualified person (Raykovitz) was informed about 2001. Same 57 year old in the shower with a young boy story. He told Jerry to wear swim trunks next time and meanwhile far lesser qualified people were the only ones blamed. How'd that work out for ya?

Work out for me? It had little direct impact on me. Though considering the history we know now is it surprising to you that JR ignored it? He wasn't exactly and objective observer. He was a longtime friend of Jerry and getting a nice cushy paycheck off of Jerry's inflated child charity stats.

I am curious though, beyond all the yelling some folks do on here about TSM has anyone taken any real concrete actions about their complaints?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Gee, isn't turn about fair play? Many including myself have criticized the JS trial and questioned many aspects of its fairness. I have stated that I'd like to see Sandusky get another trial. I/we have been labeled "free Jerry" and tin foilers etc. Yet, I have never said I'm convinced that JS is totally innocent. In fact I have stated that even if innocent, his own stupid, childish and reckless behavior of showering with boys is at least partially to blame for his predicament.
It only seems fair to paint with the same broad brush and label those who contend that Joe, Gary, Graham and Tim made mistakes as the "Hang JVP and PSU crowd." Don't you agree?

Who is attacking Joe? He made the post, let pnny back it up.

 

[WeR0206]

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?

PSU isn't trying to make any rational defense, they are trying to perpetuate the current narrative. I can't answer for Spanier's defense team but perhaps they felt the state never did step 1 of proving their case so they didn't even call any of their own witnesses or make any of these types of arguments b/c the state never even proved their case to start with. JR's testimony CLEARED the PSU admins and implicated himself for crying out loud! He said TC taking his report to TSM was the right thing to do since they are a charity concerned with child safety/welfare! (JR then went on to try and justify his inaction by lamely claiming the non child care experts at PSU said they looked into it and determined it to be nothing therefore JR didn't have to do anything either).

Look, if you are a layman and you forward an ambiguous assumption riddled report over to more qualified folks running an at risk children's charity who are required to look into any and all incidents and fwd them along to CYS/DPW if need be, then as soon as you tell that charity, it's out of your hands.

The state never should have been allowed to bring ANY of these charges against the admins in the first place. The fact the charges made it past the prelims is an indictment on the judicial/legal system in the state of PA.

The state is trying to blame the admins for EWOC for not knowing that TSM would completely ignore all legal and internal policies, all while giving those same folks at TSM a complete pass. It's completely nonsensical.

I don't like to make comparisons/analogies but it's like the state trying to blame a group of citizens who transported a possibly injured person to a surgeon at a hospital (and the surgeon doesn't lift a finger to actually verify the person was hurt/needed help once there) for the surgeon's/hospital's malpractice even though the citizens who only acted as a conduit had nothing to do with the maltreatment of the patient once they were dropped off at the hospital.

In retrospect do the citizens wish they had taken a different course of action, gone to a different hospital, etc.? Of course, but for the state to charge them with crimes for not knowing the surgeon/hospital would NOT do their damned jobs is absurd.

 

[2turgisgrimm]

Yea, but they're not trolls, don't you know? LMFAO.....

I keep forgetting that they're "all about the kids". (Making farting sound with lips).

 

[getmyjive11]

Gee, isn't turn about fair play? Many including myself have criticized the JS trial and questioned many aspects of its fairness. I have stated that I'd like to see Sandusky get another trial. I/we have been labeled "free Jerry" and tin foilers etc. Yet, I have never said I'm convinced that JS is totally innocent. In fact I have stated that even if innocent, his own stupid, childish and reckless behavior of showering with boys is at least partially to blame for his predicament.
It only seems fair to paint with the same broad brush and label those who contend that Joe, Gary, Graham and Tim made mistakes as the "Hang JVP and PSU crowd." Don't you agree?

Do you think that I or ljl are part of the hang JVP and PSU crowd? If so, why?

 

[marshall23]

Work out for me? It had little direct impact on me. Though considering the history we know now is it surprising to you that JR ignored it? He wasn't exactly and objective observer. He was a longtime friend of Jerry and getting a nice cushy paycheck off of Jerry's inflated child charity stats.

I am curious though, beyond all the yelling some folks do on here about TSM has anyone taken any real concrete actions about their complaints?

I believe several individuals who post here (so I must imagine there are many others) have registered complaints to the OAG about TSM. Even though one has to wonder how many times Agent Sassano rode by TSM with shredder trucks in the driveway.... Why did Agent Sassano have so much interest in what was in Mr. Snedden's report and so little curiosity with the shredding going on right under his nose at TSM?

 

[Obliviax]

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

Slight correction. The report said he may be 'grooming' the child, which is not illegal.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I keep forgetting that they're "all about the kids". (Making farting sound with lips).

Yea, because punishing PSU Football and PSU Administrators as sacrificial lambs, rather than investigating the responsible parties: the State-Licensed Charity (which also held an Agency Relationship with Licensor/Regulator) and DPW/CYS is clearly going to do enormous good in "protecting the children". Sadly LMFAO at what a corrupt $hithole Pennsylvania has become.....

 

[LaJolla Lion]

PSU isn't trying to make any rational defense, they are trying to perpetuate the current narrative. I can't answer for Spanier's defense team but perhaps they felt the state never did step 1 of proving their case so they didn't even call any of their own witnesses or make any of these types of arguments b/c the state never even proved their case to start with. JR's testimony CLEARED the PSU admins and implicated himself for crying out loud! He said TC taking his report to TSM was the right thing to do since they are a charity concerned with child safety/welfare! (JR then went on to try and justify his inaction by lamely claiming the non child care experts at PSU said they looked into it and determined it to be nothing therefore JR didn't have to do anything either).

Look, if you are a layman and you forward an ambiguous assumption riddled report over to more qualified folks running an at risk children's charity who are required to look into any and all incidents and fwd them along to CYS/DPW if need be, then as soon as you tell that charity, it's out of your hands.

The state never should have been allowed to bring ANY of these charges against the admins in the first place. The fact the charges made it past the prelims is an indictment on the judicial/legal system in the state of PA.

The state is trying to blame the admins for EWOC for not knowing that TSM would completely ignore all legal and internal policies, all while giving those same folks at TSM a complete pass. It's completely nonsensical.

I don't like to make comparisons/analogies but it's like the state trying to blame a group of citizens who transported a possibly injured person to a surgeon at a hospital (and the surgeon doesn't lift a finger to actually verify the person was hurt/needed help once there) for the surgeon's/hospital's malpractice even though the citizens who only acted as a conduit had nothing to do with the maltreatment of the patient once they were dropped off at the hospital.

In retrospect do the citizens wish they had taken a different course of action, gone to a different hospital, etc.? Of course, but for the state to charge them with crimes for not knowing the surgeon/hospital would NOT do their damned jobs is absurd.

Yes he did, but that is 6 years late. Notice he wasn't raising his hand 6 years ago saying...it's all good guys...they told me. Not to mention they had emails talking about going to a proper agency. They weren't confused as where to go, but they chose not to. It's not hard to see that they simply made a wrong choice. Playing TSM counts card now is 6 years late IMO. Valid of not, it is that way and it isn't going to be taken back. Not sure what else to say there.

 

[Mixolydian]

Work out for me? It had little direct impact on me. Though considering the history we know now is it surprising to you that JR ignored it? He wasn't exactly and objective observer. He was a longtime friend of Jerry and getting a nice cushy paycheck off of Jerry's inflated child charity stats.

I am curious though, beyond all the yelling some folks do on here about TSM has anyone taken any real concrete actions about their complaints?

No it's not surprising to me that he ignored it because for whatever reasons Raykovitz himself obviously didn't believe Sandusky was a pedophile either. People don't put their "cushy" paychecks on the line AND risk putting their freedom on the line if they think they are harboring a pedophile. Instead he helped get Jerry access to another venue to take kids.

 

[Mixolydian]

Yes he did, but that is 6 years late. Notice he wasn't raising his hand 6 years ago saying...it's all good guys...they told me. Not to mention they had emails talking about going to a proper agency. They weren't confused as where to go, but they chose not to. It's not hard to see that they simply made a wrong choice. Playing TSM counts card now is 6 years late IMO. Valid of not, it is that way and it isn't going to be taken back. Not sure what else to say there.

Did you really just say "notice he wasn't raising his hand 6 years saying it's all good guys they told me"? Maybe he could have raised one hand while the other was shoving papers into the shredder. Seriously man. Do you even read some of your posts?

 

[marshall23]

Yes he did, but that is 6 years late. Notice he wasn't raising his hand 6 years ago saying...it's all good guys...they told me. Not to mention they had emails talking about going to a proper agency. They weren't confused as where to go, but they chose not to. It's not hard to see that they simply made a wrong choice. Playing TSM counts card now is 6 years late IMO. Valid of not, it is that way and it isn't going to be taken back. Not sure what else to say there.

I agree that with "the benefit of hindsight" Tim and Gary made the wrong choice. Is that a crime? Did they know that JR and co. would do nothing?You can only make decisions with the information and circumstances that you have in real time.
I agree also, that it is 6 years too late, but only because the OAG and Corbett chose to prosecute the people least responsible and not target the CEO and others at TSM instead.

 

[PSU2UNC]

[

Because I believe sworn testimony? Okay.

You put a lot of stock in sworn testimony, so let me ask you this:

If Sandusky had testified in his own defense and said "I did not molest children" would you believe him? If not, why is his sworn testimony exempt from your enthusiasm for the veracity of all sworn testimony?

 

[AvgUser]

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

In other words, it didn't work out too well because all the right professional organizations were involved and they completely F***ed it up, thus setting the precedent for handling 2001. Oh, and in 2001 the TSM professionals were made aware and they STILL f***ed it up.

What gives you any hope that it would ever be handled properly by "the professionals"?

 

[no1lion99]

Slight correction. The report said he may be 'grooming' the child, which is not illegal.

Incorrect, grooming can be illegal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422

 

[WeR0206]

Yes he did, but that is 6 years late. Notice he wasn't raising his hand 6 years ago saying...it's all good guys...they told me. Not to mention they had emails talking about going to a proper agency. They weren't confused as where to go, but they chose not to. It's not hard to see that they simply made a wrong choice. Playing TSM counts card now is 6 years late IMO. Valid of not, it is that way and it isn't going to be taken back. Not sure what else to say there.

Well, I'd say it was against JR's self interest 6 yrs ago (when the lynch mob was still very active) to draw a lot of attention to his complete FUBAR handling of TC's report so it's not shocking at all to me that he wasn't trying to raise his hand 6 years ago and invite all that attention. Did you see his testimony 6 years later? It's still against his best interest to publicly talk about the 2001 incident. Every time he does he keeps making the case for FTR/EWOC against him even stronger.

In hindsight of course they made the wrong choice by assuming JR would follow the damned law and TSM internal policy but that can only be said in hindsight. Nothing will change the FACT that their report to TSM SHOULD HAVE triggered a report to CCCYS/DPW and that failure is on JR/TSM not the admins.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Yes he did, but that is 6 years late. Notice he wasn't raising his hand 6 years ago saying...it's all good guys...they told me. Not to mention they had emails talking about going to a proper agency. They weren't confused as where to go, but they chose not to. It's not hard to see that they simply made a wrong choice. Playing TSM counts card now is 6 years late IMO. Valid of not, it is that way and it isn't going to be taken back. Not sure what else to say there.

Yea, they clearly made a mistake fulfilling the ordinances of the PA Child Protective Services Law in regards to making a proper report of the incident that should be punished via a criminal conviction for satisfying the ordinance....blah, blah, blah. LMFAO, you are such a phucking joke - it's like listening to the public propaganda ramblings of Stalin and Chavez as to why their opponents deserved to be put to death by the state. You really are a freaking POS tool.

 

[marshall23]

In other words, it didn't work out too well because all the right professional organizations were involved and they completely F***ed it up, thus setting the precedent for handling 2001. Oh, and in 2001 the TSM professionals were made aware and they STILL f***ed it up.

What gives you any hope that it would ever be handled properly by "the professionals"?

Correct. That's one of the biggest knee slappers in this case. By removing JS from campus TC and GS did more to stop JS than LE, CYS and DPW did with their "investigation" in 98.
The Centre Co. CYS,DPW, TSM and the judiciary that placed kids with JS had years to do their jobs.

 

[marshall23]

Incorrect, grooming can be illegal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422

Is maybe or can be beyond reasonable doubt? That used to be the standard, until The Commonwealth needed a foil and up came Tim, Gary and Graham.

 

[no1lion99]

In other words, it didn't work out too well because all the right professional organizations were involved and they completely F***ed it up, thus setting the precedent for handling 2001. Oh, and in 2001 the TSM professionals were made aware and they STILL f***ed it up.

What gives you any hope that it would ever be handled properly by "the professionals"?

No it didnt work out too well for the kids Jerry was abusing. THat's different than how it would have worked out for CSS and PSU though. Contemporaneous documented evidence of a report means they would all likely still be at PSU today.

 

[no1lion99]

Is maybe or can be beyond reasonable doubt? That used to be the standard, until The Commonwealth needed a foil and up came Tim, Gary and Graham.

That isn't what we are talking about. Grooming can be a crime, someone incorrectly stated it couldn't. Trials and convictions are different than whether something is defined as a crime. I wish I could say I was surprised that all the people following this on these boards still had no idea about basic CSA stuff like this.

 

[wensilver]

Why did Agent Sassano have so much interest in what was in Mr. Snedden's report and so little curiosity with the shredding going on right under his nose at TSM?

This is a good point. I have to tell you all, after seeing for myself the manner in which these state prosecutors conducted themselves at trial, their dress, their composure in the courtroom, their body lanquage, their conduct before the judge and jury...even the shabby document box prominently placed on their table in full view of the court that was held together with duct tape made a statement.

It just smacked me between the eyes just how dangerous the power of the Office of Attorney General is in the hands of those that aren't skilled enough, professional enough or ethical enough.

This should scare everyone. This is the reckless power that destroyed Mike's life, created a media shitstorm over a lie and then RAN FROM THAT LIE, allowed Joe's legacy to be torched along with his Lettermen, smeared an entire community of people, allowed the NCAA to insert themselves, ushered in the Freeh Farce, polluted any jury pool in the state, and continued to step on the necks of 3 men & their families for over 5 years - and for what?

3 crummy misdemeanors.

And Jack Raykovitz sits up there with a shit eating grin explaining the Best Practice of wearing swim trunks -utterly oblivious as to why Jerry was even alone with a Second Mile teen, nevermind naked in a shower, when accessing kids was not part of his prescribed role with the charity!

Makes me want to scream.

 

[getmyjive11]

You put a lot of stock in sworn testimony, so let me ask you this:

If Sandusky had testified in his own defense and said "I did not molest children" would you believe him? If not, why is his sworn testimony exempt from your enthusiasm for the veracity of all sworn testimony?

No, because there is a preponderance of other sworn testimony that contradicts that claim. When that happens, you need to weigh both sides and decide who is believable and who isn't. Just like the jury did in the Spanier case regarding Tim's testimony. A juror is quoted as saying he wasn't believable.

 

[marshall23]

This is good point. I have to tell you all, after seeing for myself the manner in which these state prosecutors conducted themselves at trial, their dress, their composure in the courtroom, their body lanquage, their conduct before the judge and jury...even the shabby document box prominently placed on their table in full view of the court that was held together with duct tape made a statement.

It just smacked me between the eyes just how dangerous the power of the Office of Attorney General is in the hands of those that aren't skilled enough, professional enough or ethical enough.

This should scare everyone. This is the reckless power that destroyed Mike's life, created a media shitstorm over a lie and then RAN FROM THAT LIE, allowed Joe's legacy to be torched along with his Lettermen, smeared an entire community of people, allowed the NCAA to insert themselves, ushered in the Freeh Farce, polluted any jury pool in the state, and continued to step on the necks of 3 men & their families for over 5 years - and for what?

3 crummy misdemeanors.

And Jack Raykovitz sits up there with a shit eating grin explaining the Best Practice of wearing swim trunks -utterly oblivious as to why Jerry was even alone with a Second Mile teen, nevermind naked in a shower, when accessing kids was not part of his prescribed role with the charity!

Makes me want to scream.

I too am amazed that there is so little outrage by the people of Pa. This Commonwealth OAG uses tactics that would be routine in a totalitarian state. There are virtually no constitutional protections in Pa. if you are targeted for political prosecution.

 

[getmyjive11]

Well, I'd say it was against JR's self interest 6 yrs ago (when the lynch mob was still very active) to draw a lot of attention to his complete FUBAR handling of TC's report so it's not shocking at all to me that he wasn't trying to raise his hand 6 years ago and invite all that attention. Did you see his testimony 6 years later? It's still against his best interest to publicly talk about the 2001 incident. Every time he does he keeps making the case for FTR/EWOC against him even stronger.

In hindsight of course they made the wrong choice by assuming JR would follow the damned law and TSM internal policy but that can only be said in hindsight. Nothing will change the FACT that their report to TSM SHOULD HAVE triggered a report to CCCYS/DPW and that failure is on JR/TSM not the admins.

Again, I don't believe there is any indication that CSS believed TSM would report the incident to CYS.

 

[AvgUser]

No it didnt work out too well for the kids Jerry was abusing. THat's different than how it would have worked out for CSS and PSU though. Contemporaneous documented evidence of a report means they would all likely still be at PSU today.

C(SS) informed TSM! Whether they [CSS] documented it in their personal notes or not is now immaterial. It was in fact reported.

Therefore, what you are saying is that CSS were erroneously charged and convicted of crimes they did not commit. Do i have that right?

 

[marshall23]

That isn't what we are talking about. Grooming can be a crime, someone incorrectly stated it couldn't. Trials and convictions are different than whether something is defined as a crime. I wish I could say I was surprised that all the people following this on these boards still had no idea about basic CSA stuff like this.

I think most folks understood "nice guy"offenders. Admittedly, it usually referenced Priests, coaches, teachers or scout leaders etc. Understanding the MO and knowing the vocabulary (grooming) are different. This case has taught me the proper terms.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Correct. That's one of the biggest knee slappers in this case. By removing JS from campus TC and GS did more to stop JS than LE, CYS and DPW did with their "investigation" in 98.
The Centre Co. CYS,DPW, TSM and the judiciary that placed kids with JS had years to do their jobs.

Let's not forget that the State via their direct Agency, the DPW, also placed dozens upon dozens of children into a Serial Pedophiles DIRECT CUSTODY for decades via State-
Administered Adoption Programs and State Administered Foster-Parenting Programs!!! (not only that, but JR and other TSM Professionals provided many of the "evaluations" under subcontract to DPW for both sides of the adoption / foster-parenting agreements). None of these agreements which placed untold numbers of children under Sandusky's direct custody inside his hellish torture chambers had bupkis to do with PSU, PSU Football, PSU Admins, etc... - so who precisely did The State hold accountable for these failures that provided direct, unsupervised access and custody to children for Sandusky directly inside his home!?!?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Again, I don't believe there is any indication that CSS believed TSM would report the incident to CYS.

Huh??? Are you really trying to claim that PSU had no idea TSM was a State-Licensed Charity with a long, well-established relationship with DPW/CYS when PSU's General Counsel, Wendell Courtney, did volunteer work for TSM....his wife was a Board Member of TSM.....and countless PSU Board Members had relationships with TSM/Sandsuky? Seriously? Another absurdly outrageous "made-up" bull$hit extraneous "supposed fact" - that has absolutely nothing to do with CPS Law and what constitutes a qualifying report and is complete BULL$HIT beyond even that! As an attorney and General Counsel to PSU, Wendell Courtney would absolutely be aware of the prescriptions of the CPSL Code you insufferable, nonsensical, ever-spinning douche- bag!!!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Well, I'd say it was against JR's self interest 6 yrs ago (when the lynch mob was still very active) to draw a lot of attention to his complete FUBAR handling of TC's report so it's not shocking at all to me that he wasn't trying to raise his hand 6 years ago and invite all that attention. Did you see his testimony 6 years later? It's still against his best interest to publicly talk about the 2001 incident. Every time he does he keeps making the case for FTR/EWOC against him even stronger.

In hindsight of course they made the wrong choice by assuming JR would follow the damned law and TSM internal policy but that can only be said in hindsight. Nothing will change the FACT that their report to TSM SHOULD HAVE triggered a report to CCCYS/DPW and that failure is on JR/TSM not the admins.

I don't doubt Jack slid out the back door. The problem people here want to ignore is the right people were on the table and Tim decided no to. I'm not saying TSM shouldn't be looked into but this idea now that TSM was the right call or acceptable is a reach. Nobody is buying that and why they didn't try to sell it.