His asinine reply will be that they were not obligated because they were not told of "suspected child abuse" as the infographic states. They were only told of horseplay that had been investigated.Maybe we can help jive out with an infographic.
No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
All this nonsense about PA CPS code is a foreign language to people like jive. These are the laws that protect children. These are the laws that PSU followed. These are the laws that were violated by The Second Mile, CYS and DPW.
Maybe we can help jive out with an infographic.
More than likely, you would just further confuse his propaganda with these FACTS....inspiring more bull$hit, made-up facts spin and obfuscations.
At which point we would remind him that Jack Raykovitz has a duty to look into any and all incident reports and direct him to Bruce Heim's op-ed about burying Penn State's report in 2001.
Yes, this despite PSU's Report of the incident FACTUALLY made to DPW/CYS under the actual applicable code, the PA CPS Law, (despite PSU not being required to make such a Report under the code!). Also despite DPW/CYS and its Direct Agent (and licensee), TSM, being STATUTORILY REQUIRED to conduct an INVESTIGATION of PSU's Report (regardless of attributions made by "non-expert" PSU when making their "Childline Report") under the same code, the PA CPS Law, subject to punishment under the law for failure to do so!
IOW, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT what attribution PSU gave from their cursory investigation as "non-experts" - once they tell DPW/CYS/TSM the specific circumstances of the matter (i.e., that Sandusky was naked, totally alone in the facility and in a shower with a TSM Participant, while participating in a TSM Sponsored Program [TSM's Friends Fitness Program]), TSM/DPW/CYS have a STATUTORY and REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY to do a FORMAL INVESTIGATION of the matter and the circumstances reported!!! The people who "broke the law", the PA CPS Law, in BOTH 1998 and 2001 are PROVABLY DPW/CYS and its DIRECT AGENT (and licensee), TSM!!! And yet these are the very parties the corrupt OAG clearly went out of its way to SHIELD, while producing INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT Presentments and Indictments regarding both 1998 and 2001 that MALICIOUSLY PROSECUTED innocent parties who broke NO ELEMENT or CLAUSE of the law for these crimes!
Last edited:
But, but, but it's 6 years too late to blame TSM as the carnival barkers have told you Chi. They have their own statute of limitations on doing the right thing. When will you learn?
And besides, the blame has already landed fully on, and only on, Joe and CSS, right where they wanted it. And right where it helped no kid now or in the future.
If you remove the sensationalism that the OAG created prior to the trial and the ill conceived Costas interview, I suspect that Sandusky as a witness would be more believable (as a pillar of the community) than the victims, all of whom had rough upbringings.
My suspicion is that not everything the all of the victims said in court was accurate. Whether this was purposefully false, or mis-remembered through time (this is why statutes of limitations is SO important), it reinforces how absurd it is that you think it is unacceptable to question anything the victims have said.
The Litany of Jacques Coustreppe. Bank on it, when the trolls aren't here they' re sniffing his ass somewhere on Twitter or Stinked In. Dissing Joe or PSU.
Since 2011 I have not been able to understand your shift in posting style........ Are you one of our more experienced alums on this board? Do you have insider knowledge (someone on the PSU Board, a judges, or politician)? Do you still live in California?
Thanks for the response. Some personal connection to child abuse that has been difficult? You don't have to answer, of course, but I do think that makes a difference in thought process for those of us who haven't experienced it first-hand.
Not at all. I certainly don't feel sorry or pity Jerry. You may want to look at some other PSU sites or join the pay site...you may come to find that this board is the exception...not the rule.
I don't think you should feel sorry for Jerry - so far there doesn't appear to be proof he doesn't belong in jail. And I certainly don't care what the general tenor of this or any other message board is.....it just depends on who posts (a Michigan message board sure isn't going to look like this one). I would hope you don't develop your opinion based on the majority. Thanks for your responses.
One more question.....I can't recall, what do (or did) you do for a living?
He also doesn't feel sorry for multiple innocent citizens who have broken no Pennsylvania Law and been prosecuted by a clearly corrupt OAG using a provably false and intentionally fraudulent Presentment and Indictments for the purpose of executing the Malicious Prosecution of multiple citizens that broke no law - all while costing PSU and the PSU Community billions of dollars in damage via cost, carnage and illegally shifted liabilities. Yea, he's a real freaking treat this douche-bag piece of $hit defender of corruption, injustice and immorality..... Especially rich is his bull$hit about "not being a troll" and only defending all this corruption, injustice and massive financial carnage out of his never-ending "love of PSU".....yea, this reprehensible piece of crap is just a wonderful human being, LMFAO!
Last edited:
Of course I do not know for sure but I believe that some of them (Jizz for example) goes on and on for years, repeating the same things endlessly, because he is a lonely 35-ish year old single guy with no real career and no real hobbies.
The constant fighting on this board (well, he spends a large amount of time on various different boards) gives him the attention that he doesn't get elsewhere and hence, makes him feel important/relevant in some way.
There is no possibility that someone in a relationship (married or otherwise), perhaps family, home, career, and/or hobbies (i.e., an actual productive life) could spend so much time repeating themselves on message boards for years.
To me, I find it very depressing when I 'meet' such people who crave this type of hollow attention/people who live such unproductive lives.
I suppose in some ways, the "Internet" has been a blessing to these types of people because it has given them something to do with all of the idle hours and provides some false sense of relevancy.
In Japan, there is a term for similar (not an exact match for what I am describing above) types of men called "herbivores." Very interesting phenomena in our "online" era.
Especially when they use their time to praise the unjust, tyranny and corrupt prosecution done by PA OAG that has zero to do with protecting at-risk children and IN FACT leaves them still at-risk by PROTECTING the true ENABLERS of Sandusky!
A) If they had suspected child abuse, they would have called CYS. Courtney would have insisted on it, rather than leaving it as an option.
B) You're theoretically correct in that they would have been off the hook had they called CYS. But that assumes the OAG painting this as a PSU problem wasn't plan A all along. That's a pretty big leap of faith on your part.
C) Taking a CYA approach to PSU's Sandusky problem wasn't, in Spanier's words, "humane and a reasonable approach". It would not have impacted the safety of any kids, since no abuse was suspected. And it may have unduly harmed the reputations of JS and TSM.
D) C/S/S focused their efforts on preventing future he said/he said possibilities. Rescinding Sandusky's guest privileges would be effective as long as, again in Spanier's words "their message was "heard" and acted upon". That way, PSU would be protected going forward. They weren't the least bit concerned with any need to protect themselves from the incident at hand. If they were, the "only downside" on Spanier's radar would have been the chance that the boy would go to the authorities, not the possibility of being made "vulnerable" by some future incident.
E) What they had no way of anticipating was the OAG's need to make this a Penn State problem, to paint Sandusky in the most horrific light imaginable, to try his case in the court of public opinion, to employ a quantity over quality strategy and most of all, to protect TSM and Tom Corbett at all costs.
Last edited:
There never will be proof that he doesn't belong in jail, because it is impossible to prove a negative. The question is whether there's proof that he does belong in jail.
He didn't leave it as an option. He said (paraphrasing various forms of his testimony) 'to cover your ass, REPORT IT, because there is no downside to that action'. Instead Graham put in an email "we then become vulnerable for not reporting it". Graham should have bet the powerball because he sure sounds prescient in hindsight.
What is that they say about those who fail to learn from history?
The precedent was set in 1998 when a call to CYS did not save the University. TSM's incestuous relationship with the authorities saved Jerry as they shut down the investigation without bothering to interview other potential victims. Lauro straight-up told Jerry that they've investigated far worse allegations and that he shouldn't have anything to worry about. Oh, and CYS/DPW failed their state mandate to officially notify TSM which would have triggered a "plan of supervision." Are you noticing a trend? TSM, CYS, DPW all violated their state mandates. Penn State didn't. So who paid the price for 1998? Yeah, Penn State. You can't make this sh!t up.
If anything, the sad, real-life, practical lesson to others is, "just don't get involved. PSU did the right thing in 1998 and got carpet-bombed."
So, no, based on history, one simple phone call about a former employee would not have saved the University in 2001. Why? Because Jerry was protected. By people far more powerful than Penn State. Just as we saw in 1998. So try again, jive.
And do yourself a favor and read Matt Sandusky's book, "Undaunted." It will shatter your simplistic, two-dimensional understanding of who really "enabled" Jerry. When you're done, come back and try to tell us again how "one simple phone call" would've changed everything in 2001.
^^ Jive, do you know who the judge was, referenced in red? If you can't answer that question, do us all a favor and keep your unqualified, absent-minded opinions to yourself. You don't know the first thing about the "Jerry-rigged" system that continues to put kids at risk today.
Chi - I think the only reason 1998 was included as part of the narrative was because of 2001, along with the shadiness of Harmon in both cases. Had calls been made both times, or had 1998 stood alone as the only incident anyone at PSU had been aware of they are certainly covered by the reports. There is no way, IMHO, that the OAG could have played the PSU narrative in either case. Spanier's words in the fateful email were prescient.
PS - Judge Grine.....
Both 1998 and 2001 were reported under PA Child Protective Services Law, but as per usual don't let little things like facts get in the way of the corrupt OAG's false and fraudulent indictments...and Malicious Prosecutions.
I'm sorry, but no one cares about 1998 regarding PSU. None of the charges against CSS were from 1998. The only thing that was from 1998 was a settlement payment to the victim. That was fine merely to make the situation go away. PSU never claimed any responsibility for 1998 (as it shouldn't have).
1. No, dullard. Pointing out that "one call to CYS" did not relieve PSU of any culpability for 1998. See NCAA sanctions, public sentiment, etc.
2. Name of the judge, let's have it. Oh, that's right. Your attention span limits your interests to bright, shiny objects.
3. You care not for the kids and you have 11,000 posts to prove it. You're in good company with the OAG, Louis Freeh and our OG BOT.
Believe what you want, but we would not have even been in a position to have to make settlements if 2001 was reported to CYS. The University would have gotten through this largely unscathed.
Your suspicion is wrong. The victims still would have testified that he abused them (some via anal and oral rape) and the jury would not have believed him.
The emails prove that they did suspect that CSA may have occurred. Why even discuss contacting DPW if they didn't?
If that were the case, you and the few others with your tinfoil hat, wacko point of view wouldn't still be here.
I think some of us are hoping for testimony that brings light to truths, not for JS's vindication.
It's a shame Jive isn't a dog. We could have him put to sleep. Jive would come in second to a border collie, among other dogs, in almost any intelligence test.
That's often the way it works. Shakespeare covered this behavior centuries ago.
Your assertion contradicts the evidence. Their aim was prevention. If Sandusky did not get their message and act upon it, another situation could occur. And if it did, who knows? All it would have taken would have been an accusation and PSU would be left holding the bag in a civil suit. And it would look bad for PSU. They would have been vulnerable.
If they thought an abuse had occurred, the boy would have been the topic of their communications, not Jerry's "appropriate future use of the University facility", as Schultz discussed in his notes. If they thought abuse could have occurred, his going to the authorities would have been their "only downside" and they surely would have covered their butts by calling CYS.
How much was that settlement? Was it higher than any other victim as some have said? If so why?
Haven't you argued in the past that Shultz was the PSU head of Police and that the appropriate action (or AN appropriate action) was to report to a charity associated with the child.
Have your views evolved?
Because I don't think that Shultz was or ever did act as head of police.
nor is reporting a diluted version to a charity exactly reporting. further, they didn't have an ID of the kid & couldn't be sure he was actually a member of TSM at the time. IDK what that nuance does to the reporting statues as they apply to PSU, CSS, or TSM & I suspect no one else really knows either as it's a weird exception case.
LOL LaJolla saying don't read or understand what others have posted
Jerry: "We were just showering after a hard workout!"
Multiple victims: "Jerry abused me."
BWI: "See????? Jerry did nothing wrong!!!!"
Jerry: "We were just showering after a hard workout!"
Multiple victims: "Jerry abused me."
BWI: "See????? Jerry did nothing wrong!!!!"
Jive: "I'm a blabbering buffoon that repeats the same shit day after day, regardless of the topic, without ever adding an single new or interesting thought"
BWI: "We know. please go away."
