some here don't acknowledge conditionals like "might have", "impression", "I don't know what you would call it", etc . . .
No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
some here don't acknowledge conditionals like "might have", "impression", "I don't know what you would call it", etc . . .
Or....
- WITHOUT BEING CLEAR
- WITHOUT HIM TELLING ME -- but -- you know....
- I HAD THE FEELING THAT
- PERHAPS
- MAYBE
- MIGHT HAVE
- SOMETHING OF THAT SORT
- KIND OF THE IMPRESSION I had.
But this is courtroom proof of Perjury and acknowledgement by Schultz that MM explicitly told him that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" the anal-rape sexual assault of a 10 year old child when Schultz spoke with MM in mid-February 2001 according to the looney-tune trolls???
Last edited:
The non-critical thinkers like to cherry pick this testimony from Schultz and act like it's Schultz admitting he was told about genital grabbing, a "sexual" shower, etc....it's an absurd contention if you actually read the full Q&A without bias.
Funny thing is someone in his position wasn't sure who to call even when advised who to call. Honestly I know they were duped by Jerry, but there is a certain level of stupidity in what they did.
That's bull$hit to if you actually read what Wendell Courtney testified to.... WC said he WOULD HAVE told them to go to DPW if anyone had reported explicit sexual assault or anything remotely close to it, BUT WC also said that nobody reported such a thing to him! IOW, WC NEVER SAID he recommended that DPW be called, he only said he WOULD HAVE had anyone reported to him that somebody witnessed explicit sexual assault of any kind, let alone anal-rape!
"Hey fellas, let's get legal advice and then totally ignore it! Screw safeguarding the University!! The heck with that kid!!!! This is humane..."
A grown man in a shower with a kid touching his privates really isn't sexual...it's just Jer Bear doing his thing. We'll tell him and Jack....nothing wrong with that. Not really our problem.
Last edited:
"This happened for years in YMCAs across the country! Lets just ask Jerry if anything bad happened. Likely a non-issue!!"
Let me know how that works out for you since I'm not the one with 40 handles and using profanity constantly like BODE and pnny's 40 handles. Having an opinion that CSS missed the mark isn't against board rules either. Sorry to burst that bubble for you.
Last edited:
Nah, you just support lies, false accusations, malicious prosecution and the general "throwing under the bus" of PSU, PSU Football, JVP, the PSU Community, etc... for the purpose of defending corrupt, self-interested, scumbag cowards who used PSU, PSU Football, JVP, the PSU Community, etc... as a scapegoat, foil and fall-guy to hide their own disgraceful corruption, greed, averice and wrongdoing. You should be so proud of yourself and that is clearly not troll activity....LMFAO!
I never throw Joe under the bus...but then again it would require some level of thought to see that. Just because you cannot handle the truth that CSS did in fact mess up...TC and Schultz in particular...that isn't my problem. Blaming everyone else doesn't mean they made the correct decisions. In fact you should be fuming at them for putting Jerry first instead of the school in their positions. They in particular brought Joe down as well as the school with one simple bad decision.
I was on here long before you and having an opinion you don't like doesn't make one a troll. Hell you can't talk rationally to anyone that disagrees with you on any topic. How many times have you been in timeout or been banned? Think of that the next time you call anyone a troll. Funny thing is watching the same guys who had to go through handle after handle because they can't control themselves call other people trolls. I would try to explain the irony of you calling anyone a troll, but it's like talking to a piece of wet wood.
You continue to bold things and pick out the qualifiers while also talking about only the perjury charge. I am not talking about perjury. I am talking about the line put forward that they never had any clue it was sexual because mike never conveyed such a notion. Schultz's testimony directly contradicts that point. When he heard Mikes story, regardless of the words used, he took it to mean Jerry could have been touching a young naked child he was showering with in the genitals. By any reasonable legal standard that is suspected CSA. Not proof, but suspected, which is the term that 18 PA 4304 uses. Gary's job is not to further investigate. Even if he was allegedly acting as head of the police, then that would be handled by an official police investigation. One with written reports and other documented evidence. That didn't happen. You may argue that he isn't a mandated reporter which is fine, and an argument that holds water, though a thorough reading of the statutes doesn't make it clear Raykovitz was in his situation either. The problem is that you aren't making that argument, or at least not consistently. You and others keep saying there was NO REASON for Gary to ever suspect something sexual, when in fact Gary tells you right there, in his own words, that he in fact did think such a thing.
Here's the bitch:
After 6 years of immeasurable consternation, conjecture, and circle-jerk - - - any chance of EVER ("ever", as in from now until the Earth is turned into a crusty piece of toast) getting to anything even remotely resembling the "truth" in this fiasco died the day that Curley and Schultz took their plea deals.
With the one caveat being Sandusky being granted a new trial - - - but I put that in the "ain't gonna' happen" category (though I wish that were not the case..... and would love to be shocked)
After 6 years of immeasurable consternation, conjecture, and circle-jerk - - - any chance of EVER ("ever", as in from now until the Earth is turned into a crusty piece of toast) getting to anything even remotely resembling the "truth" in this fiasco died the day that Curley and Schultz took their plea deals.
With the one caveat being Sandusky being granted a new trial - - - but I put that in the "ain't gonna' happen" category (though I wish that were not the case..... and would love to be shocked)
Please provide the list of posters who claim "they never had any clue it was sexual" or that there was NO REASON for Gary to "ever" suspect something sexual.
I'm sure it's a very lengthy list, so feel free to split it among multiple posts.
As much as one might want to respond to such folks (whomever prompted Mix's response - must be someone I have on "ignore") with a :
"Of course they thought it could be "something"....... for Christ's sake - they banned JS from bringing kids around, and went to the child welfare agency's HMFIC and told him the story. WTF?"
One might want to respond like that - and maybe one would - but it just doesn't matter anymore. :-(
Barring a Sandusky re-trial, the Bad Guys won. End of story.
What we don't know - for sure - is just exactly how many Bad Guys there were (though there is a LONG list of folks we KNOW are Bad Guys......most of whom have never been called upon to pay the price for their sins). And we never will know.
Alas.
Last edited:
Complete BULL$HIT MISREPRESENTATION as per usual of the conjecture that Schultz made at the request of the OAG questioner. Here is what the OAG SWIGJ questioner asked:
Here is the most operative portion of Schultz's answer to the question which was loaded with qualifiers itself, but his answer was loaded with qualifiers before and after this segment that made it clear that he was completely guessing on the topic and it isn't anything that MM said to him....and the only thing MM said to him was that he felt the situation was "inappropriate behavior":
This directly conflicts with your statement, "when in fact Gary tells you right there, in his own words, that he in fact did think such a thing". Since when does answering an obtuse question requesting your most likely guess as to the type of behavior that was going on with "some kind of wrestling-around activity" that you qualified as a complete guess, but your best guess as the "impression you had" qualify as a FACTUAL statement that you thought some kind of "sexual assault" was taking place???
You really are too much with your absurd bull$hit and spin trying to claim that clearly described pure wild@ss conjecture is a - Factual statement thinking a sexual assault was taking place???? Not only does he make it clear that it's a wild@ss guess on his part, but he says he thought MM had likely witnessed "some kind of wrestling-around activity" not a "sexual assault"! You troll spinners are really pathetic.
That's not true. Read the transcript from Spanier's trial. From the Daily Collegian's reporting that day:
Courtney testified he imagined what he thought was kids sliding in the showers from what he was told by Schultz, who mentioned no allegations of sexual abuse when he called Courtney. He further testified about Sandusky's reputation in State College.
"He goofed around with kids all the time," Courtney said. "He appeared as an affection fatherly figure for the kids in The Second Mile."
Courtney said he still reviewed the law about reporting suspected child abuse, in case what happened in the showers "wasn't innocent."
Courtney advised Schultz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare after reviewing the law regarding the incident.
"It was the smart, prudent and intelligent thing to do," Courtney said.
Bet she was away at MSU lending her expertise to Dr. Simmons and railing at those who turned the other way and allowed at least 90 girls to be abused by Dr. Nasser.....despite multiple complaints and investigations over 2 decades. NOT
Did roxine shut down the msu football program yet?
As much as one might want to respond to such folks (whomever prompted Mix's response - must be someone I have on "ignore") with a :
"Of course they thought it could be "something"....... for Christ's sake - they banned JS from. Bringing kids around, and went to the child welfare agency's HMFIC and told him the story. WTF?"
One might want to respond like that - and maybe one would - but it just doesn't matter anymore. :-(
Barring a Sandusky re-trial, the Bad Guys won. End of story.
What we don't know - for sure - is just exactly how many Bad Guys there were (though there is a LONG list of folks we KNOW are Bad Guys......most of whom have never been called upon to pay the price for their sins). And we never will know.
Alas.
I should actually take your advice. I'm getting closer. If brains were dynamite, a few of these clowns would not have enough collectively to blow one of their noses.
The willful ignorance is astounding from you deniers.
This is undoubtedly true, if the objective is to cover one's own ass. However, it's irrelevant to the issue of endangering the welfare of a child in this case.
I don't even have to ask ........ though it's obviously someone on "ignore"
"ROXANNE...... you don't have to wear that dress tonight........"
Hobson sat at Dr. Spanier's trial. Is there any hope that a national publication would start to ask questions of the true intent of former occupants at the Office of Attorney General?
Here's a quick interview he did on Michigan radio on Nassar & MSU - he brought up Dr. Simon's hypocrisy.
Here's a quick interview he did on Michigan radio on Nassar & MSU - he brought up Dr. Simon's hypocrisy.
It's crystal clear they needed to make the correct call. It was discussed, they were advised to do so, and they chose not to for some reason. Blaming the state agencies, OAG, TSM, MM, and Jack doesn't change they could have made the right decision. They did not. It's not getting walked back and I totally think they are upset Joe took the hit too which is understandable. Had these guys called DPW and made a real report...at the very least the whole cover up card could not have been played even though that was bogus too. They left that door open and were "vulnerable" in the end.
Remember the statute refers to "suspected child abuse"
From Google:
sus·pect
verb
səˈspekt/
- have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof.
"if you suspect a gas leak, do not turn on an electric light"
synonyms: have a suspicion, HAVE A FEELING, FEEL, (be inclined to) think, fancy, reckon, guess, surmise, conjecture, conclude, have a hunch; More
You can keep trying to say this isn't what gary was saying, but it is. In his head, he did indeed consider potential child abuse. We know because he said so and because he asked his lawyer if he had to report it. You don't ask your lawyer about reporting something that you think a reasonable person would never consider sexual abuse. He "had a feeling" (i.e. suspected) that Jerry may have grabbed a kids genitals. The statute does not require absolute knowledge, nor proof of such activity, just the suspicion. Hey may not be legally required to report such behavior, but he did indeed suspect it. You can argue if he prevented a report from being made, by telling Mike that they would handle it and only telling Jack, but he did suspect it. It's right there in his testimony. I am truly amazed your expert legal analysis hasn't figured this out yet.
The only thing they were vulnerable to was a corrupt OAG.
You don't get a pass on a mistake just because someone else is a screw up...well maybe that is how you were raised? They had enough information to make the report and they did not. Like it or not they allowed a corrupt OAG to act because they failed to make the call. Who was responsible to protect PSU...the OAG or the administration? 6 years later and you're still denying they knew anything which is clearly false. Calling TSM was never a formal report and only people here even try to play that card.
Last edited:
You keep repeating this nonsense - what is "crystal clear" from a LEGAL STANDPOINT you jack@ss, is that a report to DPW's Child Hotline under the prevailing PA Code, CPSL, was made by PSU (and PSU was not a "Mandatory Reporter" under the CPSL Code at the time, was not required to file the Report, but still made the Report to the "subject matter expert authorities") AND, most importantly to this discussion, C/S/S broke NO LAW under the prevailing code, CPSL, regarding the Reporting of the incident (while TSM and DPW/CYS broke countless portions of the applicable code in regards to BOTH 2001 and 1998, but the corrupt PA OAG at the time, Corbutt, didn't lift a finger to investigate any of them DESPITE the direct State-Agency Licensor and Regulator of TSM handing him a DPW "Indicated" Report of Child Sex Abuse with a request to prosecute TSM/Sandusky specifically for Sandusky fraudulently using the Charity to access V1 for multiple counts of aggravated CSA and the SUSPICION that many other victims had been accessed through this same means! The AG needs no SWIGJ Application or SWIGJ Powers regarding a Charity ALREADY UNDER THE AG's PURVIEW being accused of being founded and run by its Founder, and most powerful "Control Person" on regulatory filings, for a CRIMINAL FRAUDULENT PURPOSE, let alone the criminal fraudulent purpose of raping children!). But keep claiming an AG who ignores the raping of children for 19 months and the parties most responsible for creating the monster doing it BY INTENTIONALLY NOT INVESTIGATING THEM and SHIELDING THEM FROM PROSECUTION is somehow comparable to three people who broke no PA Law under CPSL, were provably given no specific report of Criminal Behavior or sexual assault and still made an Administrative Report regarding the Incident to DPW via their DIRECT AGENT, which under the law REQUIRES them to investigate the matter....is even remotely comparable. LMFAO, you are such a trolling twit, it isn't even funny!
Again....you blame everyone but them. I didn't say that at all, you just did. You lie about what they know because it doesn't make them look good. MM should have done more, but I'm not sure MM was aware of 98 and I don't think he was. Tim and Schultz certainly were though. Was MM a high level administrator responsible for protecting the school? Answer there is No. MM certainly could have handled things better....that isn't even up for debate. You using him as a deflection for you boy is cute and all, but that ship has sailed.
You still haven't explained how Mike reported suspected CRIMINAL Child Abuse when:
- Mike himself says, and has testified multiple times under oath AT-TRIAL, that the PA OAG lied about what he actually testified to the "30th SWIGJ" and that he DID NOT witness what the corrupt PA OAG claimed NOR did he make a report to ANYONE that he SAW such things!
- Both John McQueary and Dr. Dranov who both spoke to Mike WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS STILL IN-PROGRESS (his father twice, both from the scene via phone and that at his home after Mike went directly there), have testified that Mike's report gave them no suspicion of CRIMINAL ABUSE, let alone child-rape, AND IF IT HAD, they would have sent police to the scene of the IN-PROGRESS CHILD-RAPE immediately! But, they testified (contrary to The State's claims in the Indictments), this IS NOT what Mike reported to them OR what they told the SWIGJ they testified to what Mike reported to them (gee, what a coinky-dink, MM, JM and Dr. D all say The State is LYING in regards to how they testified to the SWIGJ and MISREPRESENTING what MM "saw" and "eyewitnessed" AND what he reported to both JM and Dr. D as to what he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" - go figure!?!?). Finally, they reported that based on the BENIGN REPORT that Mike gave them, they recommended an AFTER THE FACT administrative report of the matter (not a "criminal report" which they testified they eschewed based on Mike's benign report of what he actually SAW, which amounted to Jerry and the child in the shower together) via Mike's employer via his Direct HR Supervisor.
You keep claiming that Mike McQueary made reports of SEEING and EYEWITNESSING "criminal CSA", specifically child rape, as contained in The State's Indictments and "particulars" (with the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" specifically cited as the "Probable Cause" and "particulars" docs), but Mike McQueary himself AT-TRIAL multiple times has stated with his own mouth that these State CHARGES brought by the corrupt PA OAG are FALSE as submitted INCLUDING ever telling anyone that he SAW or EYEWITNESSED what The State Claims in their 2001-related INDICTMENTS (i.e., "charges", "counts", "criminal accusations", claim that a "criminal report of CSA was made", etc., etc., etc.....)
The FACTUAL RECORD says you are utterly full of $hit as per usual that any report was ever made by one Mike McQueary that ALLEGED that he had seen CRIMINAL SEXUAL ASSAULT or CSA that night! According to all of the people MM spoke with after the incident, including the two people he spoke with while the incident was still IN-PROGRESS and police could have been sent to the scene, state unequivocally that Mike reported seeing Sandusky and the Child in the shower in a near-identical circumstance to 1998 (which PSU knew to be adjudged "perfectly innocent" by DPW - TSM's/Sandusky's direct State Licensor and Regulator, and not just for charity, but Adoption and Foster-Parenting as well!!!) AND Mike had some concern about the appropriateness of the situation, and what might have been going on, DUE TO NOISES he heard upon entering the building (noises are not "seeing" or "eyewitnessig" ANYTHING -- nor is CONJECTURING about it when you state at the same time you didn't actually SEE and EYEWITNESS what you are CONJECTURING about).
Again, aware of what? That Jerry was investigated and no evidence of sexual intent was uncovered? That no restrictions were placed on Jerry's access to children?
I'm not blaming anyone. That's the point. I don't believe Jerry ever sexually abused Alan Myers. And I don't believe C/S/S were told that he had. Regardless of whether Jerry would later be seen as a child predator, in this instance, he was just Jerry being Jerry. If Mike was sure it was more than that, he should have pressed the issue.
If they were told of CSA:
1) Courtney would have insisted that the matter be reported to CYS. He even said he would have done so himself. That he left it as an optional, CYA move should be all you need to know.
2) The notes and emails would have reflected their concerns. They would have been focused on the boy rather than Jerry's "appropriate future use of the University facility". The risk that he might go to the authorities would have been the elephant in the room, not some nebulous concern that a future incident might leave them "vulnerable".
3) JR would not have responded so flippantly to the restrictions Curley placed on Jerry's access to the facilities.
4) Bruce Heim would not have offered up the Hilton Garden Inn so Jerry could continue his abusive behavior.
5) Schultz would not have written, "-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare". It absolutely makes no sense to involve DPW if Jerry denies having a problem, but not to call in DPW if he "confesses" to having a problem if that problem is the sexual abuse of a child. OTOH, if that problem is 'boundary issues', it makes perfect sense.
