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

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Interesting take for sure from Mr. Cray, Cray. I'm not putting any words in your mouth where as you do it constantly. I never said anything about ANAL rape, but carry on as if I said that even one time. In fact in 25 pages of this thread, the first time I mentioned it was in this post. So once again you feel the need to LIE to make a point. It kills your credibility when you LIE and make things up. You can kick and scream like the little bit*h that you are, it does't phase me at all. I think it's cute.

Wrong @ssmunch - the OAG's double-digit Indictments against C/S/S (along with the FRAUDULENT Presentment that produced them) you continuously and ceasely DEFEND TO THE DEATH and put words in other peoples mouth's about absolutely says that the State will prove BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT McQueary made these types of reports to PSU! Your claim to the CONTRARY is more of your typically weak BULL$HIT and absurd obfuscation! Do tell, you though that the "Perjury" Curley and Shultz were being prosecuted for was that they claimed to have never spoken with McQueary in 2001???

Wrong @sshole, you've been defending the DOUBLE DIGIT Malicious Prosecution, ZERO PROBABLE CAUSE Indictments issued against C/S/S 100% of which hinge on the State's claim (i.e., the corrupt OAG) in the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and accompanying Indictments that McQueary "saw" and "eyewitnessed" the anal rape of a 10 year old child and REPORTED that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" this crime to JVP, Curley and Schultz!

Again, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy charges cannot be brought in an indictment without "Direct Evidence Probable Cause", which the corrupt OAG created by claiming McQueary "saw" and "eyewitnessed" these things and reported that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" these things because only EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY is considered "Direct Evidence" by the court and "conjecturing" as to what you think was going on, but didn't see is INADMISSABLE in court as "eyewitness testimony" and "Direct Evidence Probable Cause"! So the ever-corrupt OAG simply created from whole clothe and conjured FRAUDULENT "Probable Cause" against C/S/S on 100% of the Indictments against them to support their self-serving, Malicious Prosecution withch-hunt, isn't that special???

BTW Genius, why precisely would McQueary not have Dr. Dranov call Police the night of the incident when the incident was still IN-PROGRESS for heaven's sake and Dr. Dranov asked him point blank if he, Mike, wanted him, Dr. Dranov, to call Police (but then mutually deciding along with his dad, that the Police did not need to be called based on what he saw and was reporting to them....and he should just make an HR Report via his workplace supervisor when he got around to it the next day). If he was so anxious to call Police and report the anal rape of a 10 year old he had just "seen" and "eyewitnessed", why would he eschew TWO SEPARATE OPPORTUNITIES to do so while the crime was still IN-PROGRESS - at the scene and moments later at his father's house?!?!?!? Only you "know" the absurd reason McQueary would go to his football coach boss a day later to make "Police Report", when he TWICE clearly eschewed calling Police the night before when the crime was IN-PROGRESS and Dr. Dranov asked him outright if he needed to call police!?!? (And Dr. Dranov testified that he didn't call police because of what MM reported to them - specifically that based on what MM told him, and his own father, he didn't think Police needed to be called as there was no indication that Mike saw anything criminal but seemed primarily concerned about the noises he had heard earlier).

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Things Zigs alleged V2 got wrong:

1. Date of incident - while Mike also got this wrong he equivocated a bit in testimony. Alleged V2 states he was certain of the date.

2. Locker Room layout - it isn't even close. he basically drew a rectangle

3. Date of when Jerry said he may be contacted - again he was off by 3-4 weeks which may be allowable if not for his absolute certainty of the date of the incident

4. When the last time was that he worked out with Jerry on campus - again he says clearly he worked out until 2002 while a member of the WB football team. Again not a problem except he now ties his FB career in HS to the date of the episode. So either he was lying about his FB career or about the date of the incident, or Jerry continued to bring kids on campus in violation of Tim's decree.

5. He says he quit TSM in 6th grade, but I have posted proof he stayed with the program until at least 9th grade.

6. Jerry had multiple contacts with this person in the months leading up to the GJP release.

I would also add that Jerry masterfully duped the wise sage Zig here. Jerry planted this person for Zig to find in the prison interview. He dropped enough clues that he knew Zig would chase down without ever naming him. Likely knowing the wonderboy Zig would out the kid for him.

Of course I also never said he isn't a victim, I said he isn't "victim 2". So no, there is no contradiction in any of my post. Try to follow, or grab a valium.

Too funny, multiple portions of your post demonstrate your extreme hypocrisy relative to other PROVABLE INCONSISTENCIES of supposed Victims that the OAG did not quibble with - they only quibbled with what V2 had to say because they didn't like it and it didn't fit their fraudulent narrative (and he wouldn't change it for them more to their liking!). Here is a perfect example - your insinuation in #2 above is that V2 had never been in the Lasch Locker-room as proven by his sketch......yet we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that V2 absolutely had been in the locker room in question COUNTLESS TIMES with Sandusky as a participant of TSM!!! As to the rest of you points, it makes perfect sense to you that McQueary said he was working before he went to Lasch in his original statement and "remembered it to be the last Friday before Spring Break"....almost postive it was 3/2/2002 (i.e., a last "Friday before Spring Break)....etc...., but then it turns out it was not a "Friday before Spring Break" at all - not even close! Wrong year, wrong month, wrong supposed event that he tied to the incident in his original statement! (but of course, he then changed the event that triggered his memory to watching Rudy @home the actual night, 2/9/2001 via a concocted story in conjunction with Sassano! But this doesn't bother you in the least LMFAO!) But somehow, according to you and the corrupt OAG who morphed McQueary's testimony (which was EXCULPATORY in its vacillation contrary to the corrupt OAG's claims) and all these "inconsistencies" didn't prove Mike was "a liar" or any of the other victims were "liars" (nor do they prove C/S/S's innocence on "perjury" when it isn't even clear which of McQueary's limitless version of events they are even being charged to have made a "Perjurious" statement about!?!?), they only magically prove V2 is "a liar" according to you and the corrupt OAG - funny how that works, LMFAO!!!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Because a man and a boy alone in a shower is a lawsuit waiting to happen. All it takes is an accusation.

The more obvious question is why are there zero references to the boy in any of the written notes and emails related to this incident?

Equally important, a situation like this where the child TSM Participant and the TSM Counselor are isolated like this is a lawsuit waiting to happen as statistics have proven.....and why virtually all "best practice" consultants on this stuff recommend two charity employees be present at all times; hence why they likely called TSM and Raykovitz to inform of the incident, but also that TSM was not welcome on campus any more due to their "loose" policies and procedures. Sure enough, Raykovitz's "solution" was not to tell Sandusky to stop being in isolated situations - it was to send him down to the Hilton Gardens Hotel with children instead of PSU!?!?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Because a man and a boy alone in a shower is a lawsuit waiting to happen. All it takes is an accusation.

The more obvious question is why are there zero references to the boy in any of the written notes and emails related to this incident?

You take denial to a whole new level Indy. I get he is your buddy, but the "subject" or however they referenced the victim was clear as day. Then again you're still looking for clarity with regards to JS.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Wrong @ssmunch - the OAG's double-digit Indictments against C/S/S (along with the FRAUDULENT Presentment that produced them) you continuously and ceasely DEFEND TO THE DEATH and put words in other peoples mouth's about absolutely says that the State will prove BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT McQueary made these types of reports to PSU! Your claim to the CONTRARY is more of your typically weak BULL$HIT and absurd obfuscation! Do tell, you though that the "Perjury" Curley and Shultz were being prosecuted for was that they claimed to have never spoken with McQueary in 2001???

Wrong @sshole, you've been defending the DOUBLE DIGIT Malicious Prosecution, ZERO PROBABLE CAUSE Indictments issued against C/S/S 100% of which hinge on the State's claim (i.e., the corrupt OAG) in the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and accompanying Indictments that McQueary "saw" and "eyewitnessed" the anal rape of a 10 year old child and REPORTED that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" this crime to JVP, Curley and Schultz!

Again, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy charges cannot be brought in an indictment without "Direct Evidence Probable Cause", which the corrupt OAG created by claiming McQueary "saw" and "eyewitnessed" these things and reported that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" these things because only EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY is considered "Direct Evidence" by the court and "conjecturing" as to what you think was going on, but didn't see is INADMISSABLE in court as "eyewitness testimony" and "Direct Evidence Probable Cause"! So the ever-corrupt OAG simply created from whole clothe and conjured FRAUDULENT "Probable Cause" against C/S/S on 100% of the Indictments against them to support their self-serving, Malicious Prosecution withch-hunt, isn't that special???

BTW Genius, why precisely would McQueary not have Dr. Dranov call Police the night of the incident when the incident was still IN-PROGRESS for heaven's sake and Dr. Dranov asked him point blank if he Mike wanted him, Dr. Dranov, to call Police (but then mutually deciding along with his dad, that the Police did not need to be called based on what he saw and was reporting to them....and he should just make an HR Report via his workplace supervisor when he got around to it the next day). If he was so anxious to call Police and report the anal rape of a 10 year old he had just "seen" and "eyewitnessed", why would he eschew TWO SEPARATE OPPORTUNITIES to do so while the crime was still IN-PROGRESS - at the scene and moments later at his father's house?!?!?!? Only you "know" the absurd reason McQueary would go to his football coach boss a day later to make "Police Report", when he TWICE clearly eschewed calling Police the night before when the crime was IN-PROGRESS and Dr. Dranov asked him outright if he needed to call police!?!? (And Dr. Dranov testified that he didn't call police because of what MM reported to them - specifically that based on what MM told him, and his own father, he didn't think Police needed to be called as there was no indication that Mike saw anything criminal but seemed primarily concerned about the noises he had heard earlier).

I don't read your lying rants. Stop making things up and act like an adult...maybe then cray, cray!!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You take denial to a whole new level Indy.

This from the genius who claims that The State does not have to list "particulars" in terms of the specific alleged "Perjurious Statement" (or listed legitimate "Probable Cause" support and evidence for the charge) in a Felony Perjury Indictment - and related OOJ and Conspiracy Indictments - by not only the letter of the law, but the letter of the Constitution (both PA and U.S.)!?!?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

This from the genius who claims that The State does not have to list "particulars" in terms of the specific alleged "Perjurious Statement" (or listed legitimate "Probable Cause" support and evidence for the charge) in a Felong Perjury Indictment by not only the letter of the law, but the letter of the Constitution (both PA and U.S.)!?!?

Another lie. Quote where I said that you crazy liar. You keep making things up, scary. I guess that is all you have though.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Another lie. Quote where I said that you crazy liar. You keep making things up, scary. I guess that is all you have though.

This from the guy who doesn't read my posts.....rotglmfao. BTW, it isn't a "lie" - you're the one who claimed McQueary telling Curley and Schultz "anything" would satisfy the burden of the Indictments of the INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" brought by the corrupt PA OAG....

 

[LaJolla Lion]

BODE IS A LYING POS!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

BODE IS A LYING POS!

Sorry moron, but claiming McQueary saying "anything", regardless of what it specifcally was, to JVP, Curley and Schultz about the incident does not satisfy the requirements of the "particulars" and "Probable Cause" requirements of a legitimate Indictment under the law & Constitution (both PA & U.S.), especially when said Indictment references a specific SWIGJ Presentment's Probable Cause claims (i.e., SPECIFIC supposed "eyewitness" testimony and Reports by claimed "eyewitness"). LMFAO that I'm now lying by quoting your absurd claims....

 

[LaJolla Lion]

 

[L.T. Young]

More pathetic drivel from the "Defender and Champion of the Corrupt": "OG BoT did the majority of damage to PSU by making it about football.".

Hey dip$hit, this False Narrative was CREATED and jammed down the throats of the gutlless, corrupt PSU OGBOT by none other than your hero Mr. Corrupt Scumbag himself, AG-turned-Governor Corbutt!!! Gee, did you forget that Corbutt did a "Boardroom Putsch" in November 2011 holding a gun to the heads of the cowardly PSU BOT at the time his provably FRAUDULENT "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" was issued by his personally-named, toady, servile lame-duck AG via National Press Conference - including "Most Wanted" posters of two PSU Admins who the court system says was FALSELY ACCUSED of double-digit felonies via illegitimate Indictments and PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT directly attachable to that INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT "33rd SWIGJ Presentment"???

Now, you want to claim that this CLEARLY and INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT NARRATIVE (i.e., the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and it's accompanying bull$hit Indictments) was created by the "PSU OGBOT"??? Only an imbecile, low-life, piece of garbage such as yourself could make the claim that this clearly intentionally FRAUDULENT NARRATIVE (and invented for corrupt purposes) in regards to McQueary ever saying he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" the anal-rape of a 10 year old the night of 2/9/2001 was the creation of "PSU's OGBOT", when it is beyond obviously clear where this INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT NARRATIVE for the purpose of Maliciously Prosecuting a University to the tune of billions of dollars of damage (while protecting the TRUE CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE ENABLERS & ABETTORS of Sandusky and his sick supposedly CHARITABLE SCHEMES to access children) came from! It is quite obvious that the INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT NARRATIVE was born in the grossly corrupt hallways of the Pennsylvania Government and Judiciary with the prime-mover scumbag being Tom Corbutt and his Porn Brigade Criminal Prosecutors and Investigators!!! But don't let FACTS get in the way of your continued bull$hit spin, "Defender and Champion of the Corrupt" rhetoric and propaganda @sshole!

You're all kinds of unhinged. It's to the point where your posts are essentially just repeating the same phrase "INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT" over and over loosely tied to together with some insults directed at a myriad of different people and entities.

You need to get your dosage adjusted before you blow a fuse.

 

[no1lion99]

Too funny, multiple portions of your post demonstrate your extreme hypocrisy relative to other PROVABLE INCONSISTENCIES of supposed Victims that the OAG did not quibble with - they only quibbled with what V2 had to say because they didn't like it and it didn't fit their fraudulent narrative (and he wouldn't change it for them more to their liking!). Here is a perfect example - your insinuation in #2 above is that V2 had never been in the Lasch Locker-room as proven by his sketch......yet we KNOW FOR CERTAIN that V2 absolutely had been in the locker room in question COUNTLESS TIMES with Sandusky as a participant of TSM!!! As to the rest of you points, it makes perfect sense to you that McQueary said he was working before he went to Lasch in his original statement and "remembered it to be the last Friday before Spring Break"....almost postive it was 3/2/2002 (i.e., a last "Friday before Spring Break)....etc...., but then it turns out it was not a "Friday before Spring Break" at all - not even close! Wrong year, wrong month, wrong supposed event that he tied to the incident in his original statement! (but of course, he then changed the event that triggered his memory to watching Rudy @home the actual night, 2/9/2001 via a concocted story in conjunction with Sassano! But this doesn't bother you in the least LMFAO!) But somehow, according to you and the corrupt OAG who morphed McQueary's testimony (which was EXCULPATORY in its vacillation contrary to the corrupt OAG's claims) and all these "inconsistencies" didn't prove Mike was "a liar" or any of the other victims were "liars" (nor do they prove C/S/S's innocence on "perjury" when it isn't even clear which of McQueary's limitless version of events they are even being charged to have made a "Perjurious" statement about!?!?), they only magically prove V2 is "a liar" according to you and the corrupt OAG - funny how that works, LMFAO!!!

It might help you if you stopped and took a breath.

There is no hypocrisy in my statements or view. I do not disagree that victims, along with any other human, made statements that are false. This does not, as I previously stated, render their claim of abuse false. That is simple logic. The vast majority of victims tell a consistent story of being both groomed and abused by a PCSO. Parts of these stories can at times be verified by witnesses, or can be corroborated by evidence like travel records, receipts, etc. Sometimes even by Jerry's own admissions.

I would love to know how you know with certainty that the alleged V2 was definitely in the lasch showers and locker rooms with Jerry? I am not aware of any corroborating evidence beyond Jerry and his words.

Regarding Mike, the same thing is true. What was Mike doing immediately prior to showing up at the Lasch showers? Frankly, I could care less because the general events (Mike witnessed a naked Jerry and a naked boy in the showers) of that evening are corroborated by Dranov, McQueary Sr, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Jerry along with being contemporaneously documented by Schultz at minimum. The only thing in dispute is what kind of words Mike used specifically to describe what he saw to all of the folks involved. I have already stated that Mikes testimony around the actual date was qualified with some doubt, so I won't even further address that.

Now take a breath and have a drink before you respond.

 

[mn78psu83]

You're all kinds of unhinged. It's to the point where your posts are essentially just repeating the same phrase "INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT" over and over loosely tied to together with some insults directed at a myriad of different people and entities.

You need to get your dosage adjusted before you blow a fuse.

SWIJG is kind of a cool acronym. Don't you think? I'm digging it - even though the 33rd one was INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Nobody reads your sh!t. Just an FYI Kim Jung Un. BW week...cheer up and enjoy it. It should be a great recruiting week for PSU.

This is for pure entertainment with BODE...I mean Get Real, aka BODE, aka BeatofDaEast, aka Bushwood, and FranklinsTowerRingsaBell is so much fun to play with. It's like having a laser pointer and a cat...good stuff.

I don't read your lying rants. Stop making things up and act like an adult...maybe then cray, cray!!

You have claimed that you only come here to taunt Bushwood (creepy in it's own right) yet, you also claim you "don't read his lying rants" and "Nobody reads (his) $hit". As of this time, you have made (approximately) 38 posts on this board today. 29 of which have been in this thread. Many of them directed at folks other than Bushwood. Some of whom you refer to as "The Free Jerry Crowd." This is about much more than Bushwood for you.

I am thinking you are the one who is unhinged. No, I am certain of it!

 

[Chris92]

It might help you if you stopped and took a breath.

There is no hypocrisy in my statements or view. I do not disagree that victims, along with any other human, made statements that are false. This does not, as I previously stated, render their claim of abuse false. That is simple logic. The vast majority of victims tell a consistent story of being both groomed and abused by a PCSO. Parts of these stories can at times be verified by witnesses, or can be corroborated by evidence like travel records, receipts, etc. Sometimes even by Jerry's own admissions.

I would love to know how you know with certainty that the alleged V2 was definitely in the lasch showers and locker rooms with Jerry? I am not aware of any corroborating evidence beyond Jerry and his words.

Regarding Mike, the same thing is true. What was Mike doing immediately prior to showing up at the Lasch showers? Frankly, I could care less because the general events (Mike witnessed a naked Jerry and a naked boy in the showers) of that evening are corroborated by Dranov, McQueary Sr, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Jerry along with being contemporaneously documented by Schultz at minimum. The only thing in dispute is what kind of words Mike used specifically to describe what he saw to all of the folks involved. I have already stated that Mikes testimony around the actual date was qualified with some doubt, so I won't even further address that.

Now take a breath and have a drink before you respond.

No one has been able explain away the WOODEN locker being slammed in AM's statement. He made that claim before MM's emails saying he slammed his locker. The wooden locker slam wasn't public knowledge at that point. Some suggest Jerry gave him that info. That certainly makes sense. But, why would JS give AM that detail but not the exact date?

How did the janitor that worked in Lasch for TWO YEARS do describing the support staff locker room in his trial testimony?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You have claimed that you only come here to taunt Bushwood (creepy in it's own right) yet, you also claim you "don't read his lying rants" and "Nobody reads (his) $hit". As of this time, you have made (approximately) 38 posts on this board today. 29 of which have been in this thread. Many of them directed at folks other than Bushwood. Some of whom you refer to as "The Free Jerry Crowd." This is about much more than Bushwood for you.

I am thinking you are the one who is unhinged. No, I am certain of it!

Of course you do. That is fine, I get it. You have no issues with him at all and his behavior. He says what you want so it's excused. Thanks for your honest and objective post.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You're all kinds of unhinged. It's to the point where your posts are essentially just repeating the same phrase "INTENTIONALLY FRAUDULENT" over and over loosely tied to together with some insults directed at a myriad of different people and entities.

You need to get your dosage adjusted before you blow a fuse.

He'll get banned again and come back with a new crusade.

 

[mn78psu83]

He'll get banned again and come back with a new crusade.

He is on a roll now. Implosion looming.

 

[indynittany]

You take denial to a whole new level Indy. I get he is your buddy, but the "subject" or however they referenced the victim was clear as day. Then again you're still looking for clarity with regards to JS.

They never referenced the boy at all. Curley used "the person involved" when he was talking about JS.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Of course you do. That is fine, I get it. You have no issues with him at all and his behavior. He says what you want so it's excused. Thanks for your honest and objective post.

Please break down the dishonest portion and then, maybe, we'll dive down the "objective" rabbit hole. My first 4 sentences are merely a rehash of your posting history. Please cite the dishonesty.

 

[indynittany]

....Did they tell Jack this is your problem and investigate it? I missed those emails, but maybe they exist. Did they say you're the mandatory reporter so we are off the hook? Did they try and present that as a defense...EVER?....

They didn't need to try that defense. Nothing that demanded reporting was told to them or anyone else.

But in Schultz's notes, he confirms the argument I've been making with point #1. First, rather than stating that Jerry Sandusky, the sick bastard, should never, under any circumstances set foot in his facilities, he uses the word "avoid". Who does that? But more importantly, he says "alone"! Not only is he amenable to Sandusky continuing to use the facilities, his real concern is that Sandusky not be alone with them when he does.

3) Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile
2) Report to Dept. of Welfare
1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d
* Who is chair??

As I've said before, the Boy Scouts have the same policy. It's not because every father on a camping trip is a potential pedophile and the children need to be protected. It's to protect both the dads and the BSA because a he said/he said scenario is checkmate! PSU, because of its deep pockets, would be "vulnerable".

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

They didn't need to try that defense. Nothing that demanded reporting was told to them or anyone else.

But in Schultz's notes, he confirms the argument I've been making with point #1. First, rather than stating that Jerry Sandusky, the sick bastard, should never, under any circumstances set foot in his facilities, he uses the word "avoid". Who does that? But more importantly, he says "alone"! Not only is he amenable to Sandusky continuing to use the facilities, his real concern is that Sandusky not be alone with them when he does.

3) Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile
2) Report to Dept. of Welfare
1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d
* Who is chair??

As I've said before, the Boy Scouts have the same policy. It's not because every father on a camping trip is a potential pedophile and the children need to be protected. It's to protect both the dads and the BSA because a he said/he said scenario is checkmate! PSU, because of its deep pockets, would be "vulnerable".

There you go again stating the same simple facts over and over again...red@ss monkey-boy has already said that if he refuses to read and comprehend plain English it is equivalent to never having stated the simple facts 15 quadrillion times over...what's you're problem - are you not listening to the great and mighty red@ss monkey-boy?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You have claimed that you only come here to taunt Bushwood (creepy in it's own right) yet, you also claim you "don't read his lying rants" and "Nobody reads (his) $hit". As of this time, you have made (approximately) 38 posts on this board today. 29 of which have been in this thread. Many of them directed at folks other than Bushwood. Some of whom you refer to as "The Free Jerry Crowd." This is about much more than Bushwood for you.

I am thinking you are the one who is unhinged. No, I am certain of it!

No, he's really winning and the "voice of sanity" with his Bernie McCue-esque ramblings and screeds - no seriously, he really is, just ask him. ROTGLMFAO

 

[L.T. Young]

He'll get banned again and come back with a new crusade.

It seems like he just wants to yell at people. I'm almost certain he reads it aloud once before hitting "post reply".

 

[LaJolla Lion]

They didn't need to try that defense. Nothing that demanded reporting was told to them or anyone else.

But in Schultz's notes, he confirms the argument I've been making with point #1. First, rather than stating that Jerry Sandusky, the sick bastard, should never, under any circumstances set foot in his facilities, he uses the word "avoid". Who does that? But more importantly, he says "alone"! Not only is he amenable to Sandusky continuing to use the facilities, his real concern is that Sandusky not be alone with them when he does.

3) Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile
2) Report to Dept. of Welfare
1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d
* Who is chair??

As I've said before, the Boy Scouts have the same policy. It's not because every father on a camping trip is a potential pedophile and the children need to be protected. It's to protect both the dads and the BSA because a he said/he said scenario is checkmate! PSU, because of its deep pockets, would be "vulnerable".

Schultz's own notes in 98 talk about "other children" and "opening Pandora's box". Not my notes, his notes. Yet people here try and say they knew nothing about 98 at all and did not suspect a thing. He then also says "AT BEST inappropriate @ WORST SEXUAL IMPROPRIETIES". Then Harmon talks about how they won't log it due to lack of evidence. We can try and pretend these men were utterly clueless about 98, but their notes state otherwise. Then the cops after Jerry admitted he did this with a ton of kids told him him to stop and he was right back to it a few years later. It was in the back of their heads already as Schultz said he reviewed his notes on 98 and that is why they look bad for not acting in 2001. You don't talk or give the suspected abuser the benefit of the doubt the second time around and have a chat with him first. That was an idiotic decision by them...let's talk to Jerry and see if he admits he has a problem...come on...really?

They had personal ties there and it clearly clouded their judgement IMO which is human nature. Again, not malicious or trying to cover anything up, but a really bad decision. They did have at least some suspicions and the notes hint at that. That doesn't mean they knew how bad Jerry was, but they clearly and I mean very clearly raised an eyebrow to him once already. That is why they basically had to take the plea.....their own words, notes, and emails were going to sink them in front of any jury around. Do I think these were criminals conspiring about this...nope. These were decent men in a tough spot that made a bad decision and gave the benefit of doubt to a long time acquaintance. You disagree apparently and will never see it that way.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Please break down the dishonest portion and then, maybe, we'll dive down the "objective" rabbit hole. My first 4 sentences are merely a rehash of your posting history. Please cite the dishonesty.

Should i just quote and put some of your past replies to me...that is what I meant by "objective"? I'm pretty sure you understood that though...even though reading through some of these past replies...I'm on ignore. Again..appreciate your honest and objective concern for me. Thanks for looking out.

 

[getmyjive11]

Schultz's own notes in 98 talk about "other children" and "opening Pandora's box". Not my notes, his notes. Yet people here try and say they knew nothing about 98 at all and did not suspect a thing. He then also says "AT BEST inappropriate @ WORST SEXUAL IMPROPRIETIES". Then Harmon talks about how they won't log it due to lack of evidence. We can try and pretend these men were utterly clueless about 98, but their notes state otherwise. Then the cops after Jerry admitted he did this with a ton of kids told him him to stop and he was right back to it a few years later. It was in the back of their heads already as Schultz said he reviewed his notes on 98 and that is why they look bad for not acting in 2001. You don't talk or give the suspected abuser the benefit of the doubt the second time around and have a chat with him first. That was an idiotic decision by them...let's talk to Jerry and see if he admits he has a problem...come on...really?

They had personal ties there and it clearly clouded their judgement IMO which is human nature. Again, not malicious or trying to cover anything up, but a really bad decision. They did have at least some suspicions and the notes hint at that. That doesn't mean they knew how bad Jerry was, but they clearly and I mean very clearly raised an eyebrow to him once already. That is why they basically had to take the plea.....their own words, notes, and emails were going to sink them in front of any jury around. Do I think these were criminals conspiring about this...nope. These were decent men in a tough spot that made a bad decision and gave the benefit of doubt to a long time acquaintance. You disagree apparently and will never see it that way.

You would need to have rocks for brains to believe that Schultz didn't suspect JS was a pedo after reading his notes and the emails.

 

[2turgisgrimm]

Did Jack Cough Raykovitz suspect Jer was a pedo?

 

[Michlion]

For football and recruiting...247 and the DEN here on this site. Ryan is awesome for this site and Fitz is incredible at 247. The sites are moderated for real and the nonsense here doesn't go on there...it's fooball/sports 90% of the time.This is for pure entertainment with BODE...I mean Get Real, aka BODE, aka BeatofDaEast, aka Bushwood, and FranklinsTowerRingsaBell is so much fun to play with. It's like having a laser pointer and a cat...good stuff.

I'd hope you can provide more? I'm sure Ryan and Fitz are good, but I was interested in your sites that you indicated provide a more "credible" discussion on Sandusky and the PSU3 cases (it sounded like there might be 10 or 12 since this one is the exception). I'd like to check them all out. Thanks

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Did Jack Cough Raykovitz suspect Jer was a pedo?

He may have....but Nobody read his notes as he shredded and bailed. At this point in time, it's pretty clear most would have like to see why or how TSM escaped, but it didn't happen. If you keep yelling Jack long enough, it will distract people like a dog seeing a squirrel, but not much more than that.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I'd hope you can provide more? I'm sure Ryan and Fitz are good, but I was interested in your sites that you indicated provide a more "credible" discussion on Sandusky and the PSU3 cases (it sounded like there might be 10 or 12 since this one is the exception). I'd like to check them all out. Thanks

Ohhh, that is too bad. They don't discuss that stuff unless something really relevant comes up...sorry if that is what you were looking for. I believe if you hit some of these guys on twitter, you may get your info?

 

[no1lion99]

No one has been able explain away the WOODEN locker being slammed in AM's statement. He made that claim before MM's emails saying he slammed his locker. The wooden locker slam wasn't public knowledge at that point. Some suggest Jerry gave him that info. That certainly makes sense. But, why would JS give AM that detail but not the exact date?

How did the janitor that worked in Lasch for TWO YEARS do describing the support staff locker room in his trial testimony?

Why would Jerry not give the exact date? Several plausible explanations come to mind. He didn't know it, he was worried that this alleged V2 would know he wasn't that child if he had the right date, or Jerry is just trying to muddy the waters. This alleged V2 isn't the one who claimed he was 2001 victim, but rather went along with what his mother said.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Schultz's own notes in 98 talk about "other children" and "opening Pandora's box". Not my notes, his notes. Yet people here try and say they knew nothing about 98 at all and did not suspect a thing. He then also says "AT BEST inappropriate @ WORST SEXUAL IMPROPRIETIES". Then Harmon talks about how they won't log it due to lack of evidence. We can try and pretend these men were utterly clueless about 98, but their notes state otherwise. Then the cops after Jerry admitted he did this with a ton of kids told him him to stop and he was right back to it a few years later. It was in the back of their heads already as Schultz said he reviewed his notes on 98 and that is why they look bad for not acting in 2001. You don't talk or give the suspected abuser the benefit of the doubt the second time around and have a chat with him first. That was an idiotic decision by them...let's talk to Jerry and see if he admits he has a problem...come on...really?

They had personal ties there and it clearly clouded their judgement IMO which is human nature. Again, not malicious or trying to cover anything up, but a really bad decision. They did have at least some suspicions and the notes hint at that. That doesn't mean they knew how bad Jerry was, but they clearly and I mean very clearly raised an eyebrow to him once already. That is why the basically had to take the plea.....their own words, notes, and emails were going to sink them in front of any jury around. Do I think these were criminals conspiring about this...nope. These were decent men in a tough spot that made a bad decision and gave the benefit of doubt to a long time acquaintance. You disagree apparently and will never see it that way.

Awesome, you take these 1998 Schultz notes completely out of context and then fail to point out any of the subsequent communication on the topic. The notes were from the start of the 1998 Investigation which was handled by DPW via a Report to their Child Hotline by a Mandatory Reporter, Alycia Chambers - the Child's Therapist (who identified herself as a Mandatory Reporter and why she was a Mandatory Reporter. Chambers also told DPW in the Report that Centre County CYS had a COI as the child was participating in a TSM Program at the time of incident and TSM was a direct Agent of CC CYS.).

Schultz's comments were from the initiation of Investigation. Ultimately DPW sent an Investigator from Harrisburg and published a complete report on the matter about a month later as the named Judiciary Subject Matter Expert & Authority on the matter under the APPLICABLE CODE, the PA CPS Law.

In the Official Report of the "experts" named under the applicable code, the Subject Matter Experts not only stated that the behavior of the TSM Counselor in question, Sandusky, was perfectly NORMAL given the circumstances, but literally stated IN THE FINAL REPORT that Sandusky was "completely innocent" of any misbehavior of any kind. Schultz was equally aware of this report, and its contents, at the CONCLUSION of the Subject Matter Expert & Authority's, under the applicable law, Investigation - given these immutable facts, do tell what impact these FINAL REPORT FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE CPS EXPERTS, JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, STATE LICENSOR & STATE REGULATOR would have on Schultz's "beliefs" regarding the behavior in 1998 and 2001 for that matter???

Your claim that the Final and OFFICIAL STATE INVESTIGATION of TSM, and their Program Counselor, in 1998 would have left Schultz with the beliefs and suspicions you claim is the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of the impact it would have had on him given that the Report was made by TSM's State-Licensor and -Regulator....and the named Subject Matter Expert and Authority under the code! But don't let little things like facts get in the way of your continued agenda-based storylines Dr. Spin.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You would need to have rocks for brains to believe that Schultz didn't suspect JS was a pedo after reading his notes and the emails.

Not sure he thought he was a serial pedophile at all...but at the very least some low level suspicions were there of something not being right. People can try and spin that away, but it was his notes. He may have had a change of heart later on, but when 2001 came back up and he reviewed them...it probably triggered some thought. I mean an idiot like Bushwood would think Schultz forgot about a nationally known DC being investigated, retiring, and then having it happen a 3 years later. His memory was wiped clean...sure.

 

[coveydidnt]

Awesome, you take these 1998 Schultz notes completely out of context and then fail to point out any of the subsequent communication on the topic. The notes were from the start of the 1998 Investigation which was handled by DPW via a Report to their Child Hotline by a Mandatory Reporter, Alycia Chambers - the Child's Therapist (who identified herself as a Mandatory Reporter and why she was a Mandatory Reporter. Chambers also told DPW in the Report that Centre County CYS had a COI as the child was participating in a TSM Program at the time of incident and TSM was a direct Agent of CC CYS.).

Schultz's comments were from the initiation of Investigation. Ultimately DPW sent an Investigator from Harrisburg and published a complete report on the matter about a month later as the named Judiciary Subject Matter Expert & Authority on the matter under the APPLICABLE CODE, the PA CPS Law.

In the Official Report of the "experts" named under the applicable code, the Subject Matter Experts not only stated that the behavior of the TSM Counselor in question, Sandusky, was perfectly NORMAL given the circumstances, but literally stated IN THE FINAL REPORT that Sandusky was "completely innocent" of any misbehavior of any kind. Schultz was equally aware of this report, and its contents, at the CONCLUSION of the Subject Matter Expert & Authority's, under the applicable law, Investigation - given these immutable facts, do tell what impact these FINAL REPORT FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE CPS EXPERTS, JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, STATE LICENSOR & STATE REGULATOR would have on Schultz's "beliefs" regarding the behavior in 1998 and 2001 for that matter???

Your claim that the Final and OFFICIAL STATE INVESTIGATION of TSM, and their Program Counselor, in 1998 would have left Schultz with the beliefs and suspicions you claim is the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of the impact it would have had on him given that the Report was made by TSM's State-Licensor and -Regulator....and the named Subject Matter Expert and Authority under the code! But don't let little things like facts get in the way of your continued agenda-based storylines Dr. Spin.

great points!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Not sure he thought he was a serial pedophile at all...but at the very least some low level suspicions were there of something not being right. People can try and spin that away, but it was his notes.

Lovely, now Schultz's "initial notes" from the matter are more telling in regards to what people would have come away with than the DPW's "notes" on the matter published a month later that officially closed the matter - DPW's "notes" being the Formal Investigative Report on the matter including their Findings and Conclusions (which included explicit statements not only exonerating Sandusky, but literally stating that the behavior in question, showering with a TSM Participant in an athletic facility's communal shower facility after a TSM Sponsored Athletic Event, was perfectly NORMAL behavior by the TSM coach/counselor given the circumstances!). But now according to you, Schultz's initial notes on the matter are more telling, and more insightful as to Schultz's mindset regarding the matter, than the PUBLISHED FINAL REPORT of the named Subject Matter Expert & Authority (as well as TSM's Licensor & Regulator as to daily operations and Policies & Procedures) under the applicable code, the PA Child Protective Services Law??? Another interesting clearly "objective" take on the matter from "I don't have an agenda"....."I'm doing this because I love PSU".....Bozo-brains. You really are quite the contortionist with your pretzel-logic spin....

 

[getmyjive11]

Lovely, now Schultz's "initial notes" from the matter are more telling in regards to what people would have come away with than the DPW's "notes" on the matter published a month later that officially closed the matter - DPW's "notes" being the Formal Investigative Report on the matter including their Findings and Conclusions (which included explicit statements not only exonerating Sandusky, but literally stating that the behavior in question, showering with a TSM Participant in an athletic facility's communal shower facility after a TSM Sponsored Athletic Event, was perfectly NORMAL behavior by the TSM coach/counselor given the circumstances!). But now according to you, Schultz's initial notes on the matter are more telling, and more insightful as to Schultz's mindset regarding the matter, than the PUBLISHED FINAL REPORT of the named Subject Matter Expert & Authority (as well as TSM's Licensor & Regulator as to daily operations and Policies & Procedures) under the applicable code, the PA Child Protective Services Law??? Another interesting clearly "objective" take on the matter from "I don't have an agenda"....."I'm doing this because I love PSU".....Bozo-brains. You really are quite the contortionist with your pretzel-logic spin....

Schultz clearly had suspicions that JS was up to no good in 98 and was worried that there were other kids involved. After getting a report of him showering with a boy again (after almost getting charged in 98), do you think he went back to his notes and said "oh right... Jerry is just being weird. Nothing to worry about here!"

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Schultz clearly had suspicions that JS was up to no good in 98 and was worried that there were other kids involved. After getting a report of him showering with a boy again (after almost getting charged in 98), do you think he went back to his notes and said "oh right... Jerry is just being weird. Nothing to worry about here!"

Such brilliance....Schultz would have relied on his initial note rather than the Formal Findings & Conclusions and Official Published Investigative Report by the named Subject Matter Expert and Authority under the applicable PA Code, PA Child Protective Services Law (and oh yea, the State-Licensor and -Regulator of the "Primary Care & Custody Entity", TSM, whose program the Child was participating under at the time of the incident). Yea, sure, whatever you say....everybody is going to rely on their own initial notes before they know anything about the formal investigation conducted on the matter than they would the Final and Published Investigative Report by the State named "experts and authroity" on the issue in terms of both the applicable law and State-Regulation of Children's Charities that closed the matter officially. Mmmmhhhhmmmm, yea, that's it, that's the ticket! LMFAO! Pathetic.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Schultz clearly had suspicions that JS was up to no good in 98 and was worried that there were other kids involved. After getting a report of him showering with a boy again (after almost getting charged in 98), do you think he went back to his notes and said "oh right... Jerry is just being weird. Nothing to worry about here!"

Nah...he forgot about the whole thing once Jerry was cleared in 98. I can't believe he even remembers he had notes or even remembered who Jerry was 3 whole years later. Hmmm, Jerry, Jerry who? I vaguely remember a guy working here by that name a while back...what did he do again? That's odd...first I heard of such actions.

If someone here was in sales...they would be starving.