No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
After 98 it was clearly more than just boundary issues.
IMO you don't go through all that and come out thinking it's acceptable behavior. More importantly I don't believe Schultz thought it was simply boundary issues.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I respectfully disagree with you. I do appreciate the civil response as things have gotten heated ITT.
Here's where I disagree. First of all, it was never characterized by anybody as acceptable behavior. But, if it was more than boundary issues, CYS would have indicated Sandusky. Forget the political reality that Gricar wasn't going to take him on in court for being creepy. If that incident was the red flag in 2001 as some people's self righteous, 20/20 hindsight think it is today, Jerry would have been indicated and his guest privileges would have been a moot point. That no restrictions were placed on Sandusky's access to children following the '98 investigation was more of a seal of approval than a red flag.
I think Schultz, more than the others, was concerned with the lawsuit waiting to happen aspect of this. The guy wrote "Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch". I know I keep making this point, but it is not reasonable to conclude that Schultz was willing to allow Jerry access to the facilities at all if he thought molestation was involved. His main concern was the risk inherent in a he said/he said situation. It was the "alone" part of this that had them worried.
I respectfully disagree.
As long as Sandusky wasn't left alone with a kid there was no risk. Jerry wasn't going to sexually abuse a kid with a witness present.
IMO that's why it was Schultz focus. To be clear I'm not arguing that Schultz believed Sandusky was abusing kids. I'm arguing he knew Sandusky couldn't, even if he wanted to, as long as there were others present.
Unrelated to the discussion we're having about C/S/S:
It's a sad reality of CSA. It's an avoidable issue for people that are in a compromised position. You can safely have contact even though you'd much rather not.
Say if you're the mother of V6 for example. As long as her son isn't alone with Sandusky he's safe and involved in something positive, TSM.
Of course Ziegler and Sandusky want to pretend like she was just out to get whatever she could from him. The idea that the child feeling genuinely uncomfortable wouldn't prevent him from wanting to be a part of all the things Jerry was offering is ignored. The pressure that would put on his mother, ignored. After all, Jerry really didn't do anything wrong....
This is reality. Sandusky was prevented from going beyond grooming with V6 because a parent was paying attention. She allowed her child to remain involved with him because she had limited options and knew where the risk was: leaving your child alone with Jerry Sandusky.
Again, this has zero to do with C/S/S, Joe, or PSU other than highlighting how Sandusky hid from them in plain sight.
I'm not sure the part about V6 is accurate. In 2011, that boy was a man. And that man texted Jerry Sandusky on Father's Day and told him how blessed he was to have him in his life.
Look, Jerry, TSM and PSU would be toast if a kid accused Sandusky of something and they're alone at the time. It doesn't have to be actual abuse for PSU to be vulnerable in a civil suit. The accusation is all that would matter. Settling out of court would be a slam dunk.
You're arguing that Schultz's concern about one on one situations was based on the possibility that Jerry might abuse a child. I'm arguing that Schultz's concern was based on the possibility that a child might accuse Jerry with nobody there to back Jerry up.
to this day, I am still mystified why the focus is on college admins, who witnessed nothing, and made decisions that appear more like they are discussing potential future liabilities than a current molestation . . . but the restricted access SHOULD HAVE come from the organization handing these kids to Sandusky.
And the reason these organizations have set guidelines about one on one contact is to prevent either abuse by an elder or false allegations by a youth, like you stated.
Bottom line, there was a state licensed agency that was permitting this improper access. and it wasn't Penn State. the obfuscation from trolls like La Jolla and gmj and coveydidn'tlearntothink is telling.
Thought we were on ignore? Nobody here has ever said don't look at TSM. You're just a baby and can't handle people saying people at PSU did in fact make some mistakes. They at least had an idea something was wrong with Jerry and then failed to follow through properly in 2001. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying woe is me hasn't changed that yet. Keep thinking it will though.
It's not even true. Read any one of several statements in testimony by Curley and Schultz, they had no effective manner of enforcing any such "ban". So it was just window dressing. It never had any ability to stop JS, and all parties knew it. It was their "look we did something" excuse.
Other things in writing:
1. Schultz saying he thought Jerry might be touching kids genitals
2. Schultz and Curley saying they are guilty.
How many times do I need to say that JR should have been indicted before you stop believing that I am somehow running a misdirection campaign for him? It seems that you only want to read what you believe.
Last edited:
This is an amusing line of thought by Tener. What has he done to try and make Dr Jack pay? Did he meet with anyone at the OAGs office? File a complaint against Jack's license? Try to work with victims of Jack's nefarious activity to have him held accountable?
Well their "window dressing" was all they could do from their end short of involving legal over altering JS' retirement agreement. Good luck with that since JS was never convicted of anything yet (and the only witness never even so much as filed a written statement with UPPD)!
Nevertheless MM testified that after 2001 he never once saw JS around the program again with kids. So apparently their directive to JS was viewed as more than just "window dressing" by JS/TSM.
Now, that didnt stop him from accessing kids but we can thank "swim trunks" Raykovitz for that.
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that JS would have sued if his "retirement agreement" was unilaterally altered to stop access to facilities? Meaning that 1998 & 2001 would become public knowledge & litigated? Come on?!? That's just silly.
If, as you insist, Curley and Schultz knew there was something hinky about JS, then who else knew? Jackass Rayko, Heim, other admins at TSM, some BoT members, Ric Struthers? Why did MBNA (Struthers) throw a retirement party for JS in '02, iirc? Why did MBNA and others keep funding TSM if 'they' thought JS might be hinky? Corbett, Noonan and their motives? These and others are the WTF questions I'd like answered. Maybe you do as well.
JS has been out of focus for me for a long time. I want to know who really let all this happen and why, regardless of the expense to lives and careers. F 'em all. Suicides are welcome as long as they come with a written or recorded confession.
Last edited:
Funny thing is watching some of the freaks who stalked people outside of this site call people names. Same ones that had to be put in timeout or were banned.
If more deserve to go down, I'm all for it. It still doesn't mean TC and Schultz didn't screw up. Who is saying don't look at TSM on this site?
Shhhh. If they can't say that we are shilling for TSM/JR, they quickly run out of explainations for our "trolling."
Ummm I seem to recall a poster who repeatedly ridicules other posters who attempt to "blame" McQueary, Raykovitz, TSM, OAG, etc. The poster's handle escapes me right now. This poster, as I recall, seems obsessed with CSS culpability (even though they all have already paid a steep price), but doesn't really seem to care about the rest.
Maybe someone can think of who this poster is?
Especially amusing is their, Schultz said he was touching his genitals....bull$hit. Not even remotely in the same zipcode of what Schultz told the SWIGJ! Schultz testified that in regards to what MM said he saw specifically, MM really didn't say anything beyond that he saw JS and the child in the shower and MM expressed that he thought JS's behavior was "inappropriate".
Then the OAG questioner asked if Schultz could speculate as to what he was thinking when MM said JS was behaving "inappropriately" and he was off-put by JS's behavior in general. Schultz responded that he really had no idea because MM didn't give any specifics, but if he had to guess, he thought they were probably "wrestling-around" - a situation where JS could easily make contact with his genitals (i.e, why MM would find the horsing around so off-putting). Schultz qualified the scenario a thousand ways from Sunday, specifically stated that MM did not tell him this (i.e., a complete shot-in-the-dark guess) and made it clear that it could be any kind of horsing-around like this....but he really wasn't sure as Mike didn't say or give any specifics.
But according to the trolls, this very clear testimony that MM did not tell him anything he saw in the shower beyond thinking it was inappropriate and off-putting, equates to MM telling Schultz he saw a "Criminal Sexual Assault"? Huh? Schultz said the opposite about what MM told him he "saw" (i.e., nothing beyond "inappropriate"), but according to the trolls (and just like the fraudulent "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and its accompanying Indictments) this is clearly MM trying to make a "Crime Report" of witnessing "anal-rape sexual assault"? Go figure!
Last edited:
BTW, you're full of $hit as per usual that 1998 could have been cited by PSU in 2001 without PSU being sued (and guaranteed losing) as the 1998 DPW Investigation found the matter to be "UNFOUNDED" in their formal investigation AND PA CPS Law requires that all RECORDS on the matter be sealed for 18 months and then destroyed.
Exactly. It confuses them that you can think folks inside and outside of PSU messed up. In their heads, it's one or the other.
Yep. Because to them, everyone has to pick a side. If you think the PSU admin screwed up, then you hate everything about PSU and Joe Paterno!!!!
Ok? I never said it did. While we're on that subject what exactly was stopping MM from placing an anonymous call to childline/DPW or filing an actual formal police report with UPPD? The non child care expert admins telling him they "looked into it and nothing could be done"?? Please.
All I said was that if they wanted to alter JS's legally binding retirement agreement they would have to, you know, contact someone in legal to do that.
I'm assuming the person in legal would ask what grounds they were being asked to void that part of the agreement on, then the admins would respond with....a vague verbal report a week after the event of an inappropriate shower with an unknown boy where the witness never even felt compelled enough to file a formal police report.
Legal could try and work with that but I doubt they'd be able to do much short of JS getting arrested, convicted, etc. or someone at least going on the record with their allegations.
Not me. I think people inside and outside Penn State made mistakes and have said so on multiple occasions. In hindsight that is obvious. The problem is that only people inside PSU were singled out for these mistakes, innocent mistakes or not. They have paid an enormous price. Problem not solved.
So who are these people who think no mistakes were made inside Penn State? I guess it's too long of a list to provide.
We're confused as to who was LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for these kids under PA CPS Law? Who was the PRIMARY CARE & CUSTODY ENTITY for these kids under the law? Who was the Direct State Agency Licensor and Regulator (i.e., DPW and their County-Level CYS Offices) as to daily operations of TSM, Sandusky's Adoption Activities, Sandusky's Foster-Parenting Activities, Sandusky's Group Home Activities, etc.....? What Direct State Agency, whose direct auspice Charities & NPOs fall under, was responsible for prosecuting CRIMINAL FRAUD, let alone the charitable fraud of setting up a Children's Charity for the purpose of accessing and raping children, when handed a FORMAL "INDICATED" COMPLAINT for prosecution by the charity's direct State-Agency Regulator fully detailing how the perpetrator's own personal charity (where the perpetrator was the founder and still most-powerful regulatory-listed "Control Person") was used for the fraudulent purpose of accessing and raping children???
I'm afraid you are the party who is "confused" jack@ss, because neither PSU or ANY OF ITS ADMINISTRATORS had any legal responsibility for these children, reporting the incident in 2001 OR aiding & abetting Sandusky (including via gross negligence) his sick and twisted perversion IN VIOLATION of PA CPS Law. All of the parties you constantly defend, including the PA OAG, have violated PA Law in countless ways (including "Abuse of Public Powers & Authorities" to PROTECT and SHIELD from prosecution the GREATEST ENABLERS of Sandusky) despite the fact that not one thing has been done to PROSECUTE those most responsible for failing to PROTECT THE CHILDREN under their clear LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO DO SO thereby leaving the kids in every bit as much danger as before 2011. Your logic that throwing a University, its Football Program and its legendary Coach under the bus as a self-serving "foil", fall-guy and scapegoat (all while causing literally billions of $$$ of completely unnecessary damage to this community) is somehow "protecting the kids" is typically laughable, par-for-the-course bull$hit demagoguery from you - go figure!?!?
There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE in making a "mistake in judgement" that is readily apparent ONLY in hindsight.....AND doing things that VIOLATE THE LAW either via intentional violation of the law, gross negligence OR dereliction of Legal Obligations under the law including, State-Mandated Obligations, fiduciary obligations, etc... The PSU Administrators violated no element of the applicable law here, the PA Child Protective Services Law, while many multiple individuals BROKE CPSL either via gross negligence, or dereliction of duty (including State Employees failing their State Mandates and Obligations), at DPW/CYS, TSM and the OAG!!! This guy has no problem that NONE of the ACTUAL LAWBREAKERS, and parties most responsible for ENABLING JS, were prosecuted for their malfeasance - nor has the "BROKEN SYSTEM" been investigated or fixed in any manner - but this tool is a okay because PSU, PSU Football and the entire PSU Community were maliciously prosecuted and scapegoated by the corrupt PA AG-turned-Governor and his merry band of scumbags, the "Porn Brigade"???
Far points.
I was using V6 as an example of how complex CSA can be more than anything. I believe him, but I understand skepticism.
You're absolutely right Schultz motivation is a matter of opinion. If this were a court of law my argument shouldn't hold weight on it's own.
In this case, the reason I don't think it does is because each time the option of contacting DPW was mentioned, it was in the context of an if/then scenario. It was always contingent upon what Sandusky would do.
Plus, there's just no other way to explain Schultz's note where he said he'd feel compelled to involve DPW if JS would not admit to having a problem. By definition, that means he wouldn't feel the need to report the matter if he confessed. How can that mean anything other than that by problem he meant boundary issues? The kind of boundary issues that just might motivate an irate mother, saddled with guilt and knee deep in financial difficulties, to contact an attorney.
Would that be the same guy who spent a year with two others helping you write and edit your "blog posts"? Why yes, yes it would.
I don't believe I will be saying anything. 10 years is cutting it close for me, the Actuarial Life Tables give me 11.5 years. Anyone know the % error?
Whose blog are you talking about, Nellie? I must have the poster you're responding to on ignore. Thanks.Would that be the same guy who spent a year with two others helping you write and edit your "blog posts"? Why yes, yes it would.
No1Lion99. Called Tener an "Alien moron head". LOL! I think there's a reason 3 people stopped helping with the blog about the TSM/Arrow Ministries situation. Some Lion head started claiming they "did more" because they "met with people", but they were never here in TX with us sounding the alert with the AG's office, child advocate groups and the Houston media, helping stop the TSM to Arrow Transfer, now were they? No, I don't recall seeing them here.
"Nos sunt maxime corrumpere asinorum pabulum, ignorando rem fiducialem officiorum nostrorum, qui semper fore speramus ut in una Board."
It's Google translate, but it sounds hoity-toity enough for me.
