Yes, that's why I'm going to leave it to ChiTown...
..I stopped caring about the media's opinions a long time ago.
NotPSU: "Freeh source materials" confirm the Curley File
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
..I stopped caring about the media's opinions a long time ago.
I came to this thread through the general Yahoo news page. Direct link. The truth is out there...
Actually, I think he has sued PSU - there was a statutory limitation on when to file, and he was coming up against it, if memory serves.
Not sure what you mean by "hopeful", but here is a link to the lawsuit that I was speaking of....http://espn.go.com/college-football...es-penn-state-nittany-lions-sandusky-backlash
Great work Ray!
Have you managed to find out anything more regarding the 1998 incident? Were you able to speak to Lauro's supervisor to find out who overruled the psych evaluation? Anything more regarding John Seasock, John Miller, or Lew Fulare (CYS caseworkers)?
Also, I was curious if you know who at CYS was in charge of adoptions back then? The Moulton report mentions him (her?) but redacts the name.
Have you managed to find out anything more regarding the 1998 incident? Were you able to speak to Lauro's supervisor to find out who overruled the psych evaluation? Anything more regarding John Seasock, John Miller, or Lew Fulare (CYS caseworkers)?
Also, I was curious if you know who at CYS was in charge of adoptions back then? The Moulton report mentions him (her?) but redacts the name.
I saw him at the waffle shop about 2 months ago, so this is new.
If he stops in again I'll mention this.
thx.
IIRC, the first evaluation was Seasock. The second evaluation was the gal that stated that Sandusky's actions were textbook "grooming." Regardless, "Grooming" is not illegal. There is no charge for "grooming". The kid in 1998 claimed nothing happened (changed his story during the investigation in, what, 2010?). So the cops had nothing to charge him with (no physical evidence of a crime, no eyewitness since the kid claimed nothing happened). The cops set up two sting operations but nothing was incriminating in terms of a chargeable crime. So, in some ways, in 2001, 1998 was just considered "creepy behavior" after months of investigation. So in 2001, again with no victim and MM's shaky story (inconsistencies in what he told everyone), its understandable that 2001 was also considered "creepy but not illegal) in 2001. What convicted JS wasn't what he did in 1998 or 2001, but decades of circumstantial evidence from a series of incidents AND kids that finally decided to accuse JS who wouldn't talk before.
I thought Alycia Chambers was first, then they brought in the unqualified "counselor" Seasock. Just my memory.
You may be right, I was going from memory as well...regardless, a phd's opinion isn't something that rises to the level of a chargeable crime....nor is "grooming" a crime.
Just a thought here about memory over several years....
Dem is a sharp, practicing attorney who is trying to recall details about the Sandusky case that came to his attention 4+ years ago, and has some qualification to his answer.
YET, Joe Paterno at age 80 testifying before the Grand Jury was expected to remember in GREAT detail the conversations he had with Mike McQ 10 years prior, and his comment about "something of a sexual nature" is regarded as proof positive of a coverup??
Totally, and I know I repeat myself on this, but a team of INVESTIGATORS over MORE THAN A YEAR had the year wrong (including through a Grand Jury hearing and Mike McQueary). What does that tell you?
There was enough to indicate the 1998 incident. Indicating the incident is a protective measure for the child and prevents the perpetrator from accessing children. Don't confuse the role of DPW with the role of the police and DA. That is one of the biggest problems with getting people to understand this case.
The Sandusky PCRA filing includes most of the original transcript of V6's 1998 interview. There was enough there and the caseworker (Miller) appeared to go to great lengths to find a reason not to indicate abuse. Lauro more or less didn't do anything, except have Miller arrange for Seasock to clear Jerry.
Next, V6 didn't change his story in 2010. Based on the transcripts, he provided LESS information at the trial than he did originally. However, to say he claimed "nothing happened" is rather ridiculous when you read the transcripts. It was very clear that Jerry's entire motivation to workout with Victim 6 was to get him into the shower. And Miller should have recognized that was Jerry's intent and took protective steps.
Agree that JS was convicted on CONSISTENT, circumstantial evidence from victims who came forward to speak about past incidents. That is typically how these cases get into courtrooms and given the time lag from the incident to the court case, physical evidence in these cases are very rare.
Catch you later. Got a lot to do today!
Exactly correct, and that takes you back to TSM and whatever governmental oversight on these kinds of instituions was going on (back to Corbett?). You probably couldn't charge JS but you can clamp down. Why wasn't a better process put into place??? Records of interactions with TSM kids, make sure another adult is present, notes on interactions afterwards, receipts, etc.? Seems to be the only reasonable and logical thing to do. Why wasn't it done, or if it was, why were the records destroyed?
Agree and disagree. First you mean Indict and not indicate, I assume. Second, getting a kid to go into a shower isn't a crime. Third, JS wasn't a normal guy. He was the DC and a local hero. With no evidence of a crime, a charge would have done massive damage to TSM and PSU. You just HAVE to have more evidence than a mother of a kid questioning the motive of a football coach to get a kid to take a shower at a gym.
Where I DO agree is that there should have been better controls put in place...and that is another area where state government goofed up.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Amazing how quiet CR666 has been since more and more dirt is being uncovered off the grave. He has always said how he would be here to tell us what fools we all were for chasing unicorns but alas he seems to be deep in his bunker awaiting the new company line to spew at us all... unless he is black elmo as some have speculated on here.
Thanks...learned something new today.
However, we don't know if he was "indicated" do we? if he was, even if unofficially, the records were destroyed.
Yes we do, in 1998 after learning that JS was giving naked bear hugs from behind in the shower with at least two different kids, CYS/DPW determined it to be unfounded. The only reason there is record of the incident is because UPPD was involved and they documented as the investigation went on in their police report.
Chambers actually placed a call with childline to report suspected abuse in 1998. Of course Lauro claims to have never recieved Chambers opinion even though she called childline and also attached her opinion to Schreffers report on 5/8/98.
I can't believe that no one in the MSM - PA or National for that matter - hasn't picked up on this story line... where's Kimberly Jones, Bob Costas or even Sara Ganim? This is huge... and I'm sick of explaining that I'm not wearing a tin foil hat on believing this stuff...
I agree with you about Miller. I would like to hear more from him. He and other CYS employees have been very quiet.
He got "burned" on a post he made and then tried to deny the meaning behind it. He slunk away and haven't seen him since.
Agreed....so here's what I've done:
- Explain that the most serious charges were dropped, the rest will follow
- MM told several different stories about that night, causing PSU to do what they did
- MM emboldened his story, at the request of the detectives. He was the guy that could put JS behind bars with without him (at the time of the Grand Jury) there wasn't enough).
- Once done, detectives had to undermine Curley & Schultz to keep them from testifying
- They charge C & S have no idea that it is going to blow up as it did (in the press and NCAA) so that has caused everyone to be entrenched. (can't back down now after the damage was done)
No, he's busy trying to raise funds for an on campus statue of Bill O'Brien and is organizing a campaign for his induction into the College Football Hall of Fame. Bill is, after all, going to go down as the greatest and most revered coach in Penn State's rich and storied college football tradition.
Would be nice to see the entire 1998 police report, not just the portions leaked to NBC.
You've proved my point.
I meant INDICATE. That is the term for what happens when child welfare determines there is child abuse or neglect. It has NOTHING to do with CRIMINAL charges.
There were TWO investigations going on in 1998, not one.
1. A non-criminal child abuse investigation conducted by DPW and CYS.
2. A criminal CSA investigation conducted by the police.
Showering with a child is NOT a crime, however, given what took place in the shower and the activities that preceded the shower, it was should have been INDICATED at the time as a protective measure. That's what a child abuse investigation is supposed to do -- make sure kids are protected. An INDICATED report means Sandusky (temporarily) won't have access to kids. That's ALL it means. It doesn't mean there are criminal charges.
THIS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS with the false narrative. In 1998, Sandusky wasn't charged because DPW and CYS did not INDICATE abuse.
PSU police detective Schreffler stated HE FELT THERE WAS enough to charge Sandusky for lesser crimes, but he couldn't recommend that to DA Ray Gricar because the child welfare workers said there was no abuse.
But instead of the media reporting that the STATE AGENCIES BLEW the 1998 case, the University Park Police & DA Ray Gricar got blamed for letting Sandusky off.
Recall that the University Park police were DERIDED as not real police because of the MEDIA getting this story wrong by not knowing the respective roles of the agencies.
In 2009, Clinton County CYS made an INDICATION of abuse based on Sandusky being in a similarly compromising situation with a just one boy. That report did not become a FOUNDED report until June 2012 when Sandusky was convicted. More clearly, for your benefit, Sandusky's Grand Jury INDICTMENT didn't change the status of the indicated child abuse report.
I hope this clears things up.
They can't talk. They were all put under a gag order by Feudale.
Got it..first, I stand corrected on "indication". Second, I get your points and was simply looking for clarification.
Thanks.
I agree that, in retrospect, the 1998 case was screwed up...but I understand why he wasn't charged. You and I agree that based on 1998, further process should have been put in place....you call it Indication, which was a notation that I was not familiarity with. But regardless of "indication", we agree that the clamps should have been put down on JS after 1998. And that has nothing to do with PSU but the authorities and TSM, who have really escaped the media's attention.
BOB...."The lawsuits are not helping." Now, where are the exits?"
all excellent points, Ray.
not sure how equivalent PA CYS/DPW is to TX CPS, but there are 3 classifications for any investigation/allegation:
1) Reason to believe
2) Unable to determine
3) Ruled Out
Police then follow up on any RTB with filed, suspended, unfounded, or open an active investigation
having spoken with many people who work within the system, or have been investigated by the system, the overwhelming feedback is that CPS will almost always file a report as "reason to believe". Why? has a lot to do with protecting their state funding. they are very reluctant to issue a different classification, even if it is obvious the allegation is false, or there is no direct evidence to support the allegation.
I also have a relative who worked for the NY Child Welfare services who quit after 2 years because she was distraught over this practice. and how willing they were to investigate (and essentially disrupt) families over cases that should have been dismissed outright.
I share this to opine: it is rare for child welfare NOT to investigate an allegation, even more baffling NOT to indicate when it involves an adult making naked contact with a child. That is what baffles me about 1998. Not saying I believe Sandusky is guilty of all crimes for which he was charged/found guilty. Not saying he is innocent. but just narrowing down that 1998 incident, it seems the investigation was done rather quickly, and with the express intent of breaking from protocol to clear Sandusky.
thoughts?
This is a terrific summary of what went wrong in 1998 and the parties responsible (despite Mark Emmert putting it on PSU). 1998 is a bit of a microcosm of the broken system that allowed a predator like Jerry to operate in plain sight for years (rather than JoePa protecting a pedo). Anyone concerned about the welfare of children needs to commit Ray's post to memory. These are the problems that NCAA santions and "PSU shaming" will never, ever fix.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Hey Ray! I'm still waiting for the "imminent" indictment and arrest of Rod Erickson that you predicted a couple of years ago. Is it still imminent?
It will happen at the same time as the "imminent" transparency guaranteed by the BoT.
"And where's David Jones? I need to give him an exclusive..."
