OT: Jack Raykovitz question
- Thread starter PSU0622
- Start date
I was going to mention the EXACT same thing! How could TSM just bring a shredding TRUCK up to the front of the building and blatantly shred every single document and no one lifts a finger to stop and/or report this before it is completed? No, that isn't suspicious at all!you forgot the unfettered document shredding
Where is Jack Raykovitz now? Has he been deposed by anyone? The State? Paternos? Spanier? Freeh?
This is truly malpractice.
This is truly malpractice.
Jack is right where he's always been, out and about in State College, still in active practice as a child psychologist.
To my knowledge nobody has ever asked him anything about anything. It's like there's a force field around the guy.
No, I'm a grown-up who understands how the world works. Raykovitz, had he reported Sandusky to the authorities in 2001, would be eliminating his entire organization. If you claim that CSS didn't know that this would make Raykovitz reporting it substantially less likely, you are either a naive fool or a liar.
Reporting what? Horseplay? JR's response to Curley's directive was to counter with a proposal that JS should simply wear swim trunks when showering with TSM kids.
Prevention! Prevention! Prevention! Read the notes and emails objectively and you'll realize that prevention was the entire focus of the PSU admins. Why? Because no CSA abuse occurred in the shower that night, nor was any reported to them.
Yeah. I'm not willing to go as far as "Frank Sheeran" would like us to ... but COME ON MAN! No red flags there. Someone had to be implicated in something in the shredded documents. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that at the very least it gives the very strong suspicion that someone had to be implicated.
Last edited:
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but you just inadvertantly argued that Raykovitz had a HUGE incentive to cover-up Sandusky's activities for decades. Which is likely exactly what he did - which is why it is so baffling why TSM escapes all scrutiny.
What exactly was there for Univeristy Police to investigate?
In 1998, there was a complaint...from a victim. They had a name.
In 2001, McQueary witnesses something...and did nothing. What were the UP supposed to do? Interview McQueary and Sandusky? What does that accomplish? There was no victim identified...no complaint lodged against Sandusky...so the only way to find THAT out was to go to The Second Mile.
Its kinda like telling the police you witnessed a hit-and-run. You saw the driver, but you fled the scene before getting any details. Police investigate, find no victim at the scene, nobody checked into a hospital, no damage to the car...so now its a game of he-said, he-said. Can the police file charges without any evidence besides the eye-witness' claim that he saw a hit-and-run and the driver but that's it? What are the cops going to do with nothing more than the testimony of a single person and no other evidence?
So what happened to TSM after the 1998 incident was reported to UPPD, DA, CYS, and DPW?
To your first paragraph: If "horseplay" was all that was reported to TSM, then there was no allegation of any sexual impropriety, letting TSM off the CSA investigation hook. Correct?
To your second paragraph, it is my understanding that Joe stated in a police report and in GJ testimony that he understood that what Mike communicated was something sexual. Further, Joe has testified that he related exactly what was communicated to him to C&S. Likewise, Mike has testified four times that he communicated to them was what he had communicated to Joe, that it was sexual. Schultz has testified he understood that it could have been sexual, and that understanding prompted his 2001 call to an attorney, who created a file labeled "suspected child abuse."
Nobody seems to be arguing that "prevention" wasn't foremost in everybody's mind. But to suggest that C&S had no inkling that Jerry had already indulged in the things they were trying to prevent seems fundamentally naive, especially in the context of the notes and letters found in Shultz's 1998 file.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Too much weighting is put on Joe's statements and testimony. Also, there were no charges in 1998 and Schultz (and possibly others) was told nothing criminal occurred. Highly likely that influenced how they viewed the 2001 incident.
Still interested to learn about Harmon's involvement in 2001....
Indeed. Harmon and Courtney are key. That is why I wanted to know from CDW how he knew that Courtney was working for the prosecution. His explanation was not satisfying on that point.
None the less, the PSU admins behaved as though no CSA had occurred, but that Sandusky's behavior could leave them vulnerable down the road should it be allowed to continue unabated.
CR66 said "You're just plain wrong. The Cleary Act was signed into law in 1990 making PSU a mandated reporter if PSU's own investigation determined an on campus crime had been committed. Clearly MM's account of the incident is more than sufficient to have triggered an investigation by PSU law enforcement and there is no evidence that the University Police investigated the incident. And please don't hand me the line that Shultz was the police because he wasn't)"
I'm talking about the criminal charges against CSS (FTR, EWOC) not Cleary Act violations. It is still yet to be determined whether MM reported a crime in 2001 aka certain child abuse -- ironically, at the 12/16/11 prelim JM was cross examined about this exact topic of a "crime" being reported to him by MM and he said NO:
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Harmon was most certainly notified of the 2001 incident (unless he just randomly felt like writing an email to Schultz on Mon 2/12/01 saying that yes he found the 1998 file for no reason whatsoever 3 YEARS after the case was closed). There's a reason why Harmon is a state's witness, they found dirt on him and got him to sandbag CSS by claiming he didn't remember anything about a 2001 JS incident. I'm guessing the reason Harmon didn't start a report of the 2001 incident is b/c the one and only witness didn't even feel strong enough about what he saw to make a written statement to UPPD. Thus CSS passed the report onto the child care experts who had DIRECT control over JS's access to kids.
MM and his dad are the only people saying that certain child abuse was reported in 2001 and everyone else (CSS, Dr. D, JR, etc.) is saying a late night inappropriate shower which made a PSU GA uncomfortable was reported. If it's the latter then THERE IS NO CLEARY ACT violation there is no FTR and there is no EWOC (at least on PSU's part, TSM is a whole different story) b/c a "crime" was never reported to PSU.
CR66 said "Telling the incident to TSM was an ill conceived and ill fated attempt to kick the can to an outside private party hoping to make it someone else's problem when in fact it was PSU's problem to deal with"
Says the guy who, for some odd reason, is dead-set against anyone asking questions about TSM or pointing out TSM's HUUUUGE failures over the years to monitor JS. TSM was FAR FROM an "outside private party", they were the employers of JS and the folks who had DIRECT CONTROL OVER JS'S ACCESS TO KIDS and were legally responsible for TSM kids that JS was with. That's a pretty significant thing that you keep breezing right past....
I'm talking about the criminal charges against CSS (FTR, EWOC) not Cleary Act violations. It is still yet to be determined whether MM reported a crime in 2001 aka certain child abuse -- ironically, at the 12/16/11 prelim JM was cross examined about this exact topic of a "crime" being reported to him by MM and he said NO:
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?
A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.
Harmon was most certainly notified of the 2001 incident (unless he just randomly felt like writing an email to Schultz on Mon 2/12/01 saying that yes he found the 1998 file for no reason whatsoever 3 YEARS after the case was closed). There's a reason why Harmon is a state's witness, they found dirt on him and got him to sandbag CSS by claiming he didn't remember anything about a 2001 JS incident. I'm guessing the reason Harmon didn't start a report of the 2001 incident is b/c the one and only witness didn't even feel strong enough about what he saw to make a written statement to UPPD. Thus CSS passed the report onto the child care experts who had DIRECT control over JS's access to kids.
MM and his dad are the only people saying that certain child abuse was reported in 2001 and everyone else (CSS, Dr. D, JR, etc.) is saying a late night inappropriate shower which made a PSU GA uncomfortable was reported. If it's the latter then THERE IS NO CLEARY ACT violation there is no FTR and there is no EWOC (at least on PSU's part, TSM is a whole different story) b/c a "crime" was never reported to PSU.
CR66 said "Telling the incident to TSM was an ill conceived and ill fated attempt to kick the can to an outside private party hoping to make it someone else's problem when in fact it was PSU's problem to deal with"
Says the guy who, for some odd reason, is dead-set against anyone asking questions about TSM or pointing out TSM's HUUUUGE failures over the years to monitor JS. TSM was FAR FROM an "outside private party", they were the employers of JS and the folks who had DIRECT CONTROL OVER JS'S ACCESS TO KIDS and were legally responsible for TSM kids that JS was with. That's a pretty significant thing that you keep breezing right past....
Last edited:
I agree! TSM is probably as dirty as hell! Prosecute them too. But:
This does not at all excuse CSS from reporting only to them. It makes it even worse! CSS, as educated adults, knew what I know - that reporting only to TSM was tantamount to not reporting at all. And the "somebody else is more to blame" defense doesn't go far in the court of law. CSS's case stands on what they did and didn't do, not what TSM did or didn't do.
Look guys...there's only one person to blame for there not being a 2001 UPPD report/investigation...and that person is MM. HE WAS THE ONE AND ONLY WITNESS. MM never even felt the need to make a written statement to UPPD, just in case (this speaks volumes IMO). In fact he never made a written statement until 2010 when police had to COME TO HIM (this also speaks volumes IMO).
When Curley followed up with MM via phone a few weeks after their initial meeting and told him their action plan (a plan with did NOT involve MM making a written statement to UPPD or filing a police report mind you) MM voiced no dissatisfaction, never said more needed to be done, and never said that the police needed to be involved. So, from CSS's view, what exactly were they supposed to think? The one and only witness was satisfied with how the handled his report and they all went on with their lives.....
How can anyone explain the above if MM was certain in 2001 that a kid was being abused/molested??? The only explanation I can think of is if MM did not report certain child rape but a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable (which is almost EXACTLY what CSSP, Dr. D, and JR testified to being told). Then everyone's actions make perfect sense.
JR and TSM should have then followed the law and internal policy and inform CC CYS and suspended JS's access to kids while they looked into the late night inappropriate shower that made a GA uncomfortable which also caused PSU to revoke JS's ability to bring TSM kids onto PSU campus (hello red flag!!!).
When Curley followed up with MM via phone a few weeks after their initial meeting and told him their action plan (a plan with did NOT involve MM making a written statement to UPPD or filing a police report mind you) MM voiced no dissatisfaction, never said more needed to be done, and never said that the police needed to be involved. So, from CSS's view, what exactly were they supposed to think? The one and only witness was satisfied with how the handled his report and they all went on with their lives.....
How can anyone explain the above if MM was certain in 2001 that a kid was being abused/molested??? The only explanation I can think of is if MM did not report certain child rape but a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable (which is almost EXACTLY what CSSP, Dr. D, and JR testified to being told). Then everyone's actions make perfect sense.
JR and TSM should have then followed the law and internal policy and inform CC CYS and suspended JS's access to kids while they looked into the late night inappropriate shower that made a GA uncomfortable which also caused PSU to revoke JS's ability to bring TSM kids onto PSU campus (hello red flag!!!).
You're half right. They knew they were vulnerable down the road should it be allowed to continue. What everyone seems to be arguing here is the nature of the it. Nobody's sure they knew how serious the it was. But what comes screaming out of the whole mess is, they didn't want to know, and took no steps that could lead them to find out. Whatever happened, the lid was still on Pandora's Box, and nothing good could come from opening it.
You are a nasty, spiteful, cynical person who thinks the worst of people who have never done a damn thing to you. It is our misfortune that Curley does not have a similar temperament, but it certainly doesn't mean that Curley knew that Raykovitz wouldn't take the report seriously and do his freaking job.
WTF are you even talking about? If they didn't want to know what "it" was or how serious it was why would they even bother contacting PSU counsel and why would C/S meet DIRECTLY with the one and only witness, then develop an action plan based on what the witness told them and the advice of counsel?? None of their actions in 2001 line up with the nonsense you posted above.
CS knew exactly what "it" was, it was a late night inappropriate shower that made a GA uncomfortable aka boundary issues. CSS still confronted JS and told him his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop, revoked JS's ability to bring TSM kids on campus, and then informed JS's boss/mandatory reporter (and the person with DIRECT control over JS's access to kids) of the incident and their new directives so that he could do his own due diligence.
So you're saying, WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT - knowing what we know about the TSM NOW, from 2011-2015, that Curley should have used that knowledge back in 2001 when he was informing JR and TSM?
I agree. Tim Curley should have taken into account the information that everybody knew about TSM and JS in 2011 and used that to help him make his decision about the 2001 incident.
Assuming Tim Curley is Barry Allen...
No need for anger or insults.
To your first paragraph: (1) It is quite common in the corporate world that when you're in the public spotlight and/or a well-known member of your management team seems headed for scandal, you approach counsel for advice discretely. Surely you know this. You describe events in the hypothetical and you don't name names. You paint several scenarios and counsel replies to each, but both sides share an understanding that downstream events might require clean conscience or clean hands. It is this subtle contract that allows the likes of Wendell Courtney to announce to the press three times, "If it had ever been reported to me that Jerry Sandusky had possibly abused a child, I would have reported it to the proper authorities immediately." What makes this statement true is if Gary Schultz never mentioned Sandusky by name, and only described "what-if" scenarios regarding an anonymous employee. (2) I have no doubt whatsoever that the "action plan" (as you call it) resulted in the infamous nine-day delay before meeting with MM. One of Courtney's suggestions was probably to just wait. It might not have been criminal, or if it was, it might not have been reported... and might not ever get reported.
First off you never answered my question. IF CSS didn't want to know what "it" was, why did they meet directly with the one and only witness??
Secondly....talk about mental gymnastics....now you're saying they went to Courtney just to give him hypotheticals and not use names, etc....and you claim this based on what evidence exactly?? There's a good reason why PSU never waived ACP with Courtney so we could all see once and for all EXACTLY what Schultz told him and EXACTLY what his advise was to Schultz. My guess is that if they did, it wouldn't support the current narrative. PSU couldn't waive ACP fast enough for Baldwin to sandbag CSS but they never allowed anyone to see the CRITICAL info in Courtney's discussions with Schutlz...hmm...nothing to see here I guess!!
Also, the action plan I was referring to is the plan they came up with AFTER speaking to MM 10 days later. We still don't know what the reason was for the 10 day delay. Maybe that was the first time all 3 of their schedules lined up? Who the hell knows....You're just wildly speculating and making assumptions.
Even if everything you wrote above (which is ALL speculation based on ZERO facts btw) is true, it still doesn't account for the one and only witness (and his Dad) not being in on the "cover up". MM even said no one at PSU told him to keep quiet. So, as far as CSS knew, the one and only witness could blow the top off their cover up at ANY point in time. The victim/his family also could have come forward at ANY POINT in time and completely blown their cover up....those are two HUUUGE loose ends hanging around out there that were never accounted for and would need to be accounted for if there was a real cover up by CSS.
Because, after 9-10 days of quiet, in which nothing was reported by parents or the witness, they knew how they were going to proceed. They met with Mike because they were obligated to, but it's clear from the fact they asked no questions, their course of action was already pre-determined. The goal became containment. Which you can't have if you're going to investigate who the child was, and what really happened.
On all your other speculation, I don't want to argue. We'll agree that we have the right to interpret the data differently. Just don't be surprised when it finally emerges that Schultz never mentioned Sandusky to Courtney by name. Courtney's precise, almost stilted wording, three times, tipped me off that he never heard the name Sandusky from Schultz.
There is no evidence supporting any of your speculation. None.
Good old Jack is not gonna escape justice. He has it coming to him
This is BS and you know it. No one was legally obligated to report anything nor were they legally required to obtain the names of the "alleged victims" or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays.
Lundy - if you had to speculate what involvement do you think Harmon had in the 2001 shower incident? I was of the impression that Harmon has indicated he was never told about it - that he was only asked about the police report from 1998 by Schultz (I can't remember the context of Schultz's inquiry. Do you think there is something more going on here with Harmon that he is not divulging? Thanks
To my recollection, Harmon never said he wasn't told about 2001, he said he didn't remember anything from 2001, he didn't remember Schultz telling him about a 2001 incident involving JS and a shower and he didn't remember Schultz asking for the 1998 report, he didn't remember whether or not he gave Schultz the 1998 police report.
Harmon is basically playing the "I don't remember card" for all pertinent info re: 2001.
Yet...there's that email from 2/12/01 where Harmon wrote back to Schultz saying they still have the 1998 report on the image archives. I guess it was just a random email that Harmon sent for no reason whatsoever 3 YEARS after the 1998 case closed??.......according to the State/Harmon it was....what a joke.
Why do I think Harmon was the one Schultz told to tell Cpw or 'same agency' as the last time. I not sure he made that report being JS buddy and all. Even if he made the report I can still see him hiding that's fact
Last edited:
So what assurances did they have after 11+days that MM or the victim wouldn't blow the lid completely off their "cover up"?? 9-10 days of quiet doesn't mean crap as far a a witness wanting to make a written statement to police or a victim to come forward and allege abuse.
You say their goal became containment, yet one of the steps in their action plan was to inform JR at TSM (who was legally obligated to look into any and all incident reports) with or without JS's cooperation..um..please explain how that makes ANY sense!! If the goal was containment, they would have contained and made sure to not tell people OUTSIDE of their cover up.
Also as far as your claim that CS didn't ask any questions, there is NOTHING to support that. In the 12/16/11 prelim (pages 81-82) MM said he didn't remember whether or not TC asked him any questions. There's also this from @JmmyW:
Why does PA OAG lead us to believe C&S asked no questions when its not supported by testimony of anyone at the mtg?
FYI here is a screen shot of the 2012 Fed. subpoena to PSU for JS/PSU and TSM records/info:
Your posts are way too long and way too convoluted to deal with rationally. I feel like I'm listening to my mother-in-law.
Last edited:
Haah! In other words, my posts keep calling you out on all the bullshit you keep trying to spew and you don't have a response.
I live in the logical/rational universe. A universe where if you're trying to cover up/contain something, you don't go and start telling people OUTSIDE of your control/organization and you sure as hell secure the silence of the only witness and victim.
Wow you love red herrings don't you...of course no parent slow walks an abuse investigation of their kid....perhaps the kid never tells their parents about what happened until a month later...a year later...etc...that's why your arbitrary time frame of 9-10 days means nothing.
You simply don't have a rational explanation as to why, if CSS really were trying to cover up for JS, they would not secure the silence of the one and only witness and also the victim/victim's family.
What happened to your claim that CS didn't ask MM any questions, therefore they went into that meeting with preconceived notions??? I called you out on you're bullshit, providing testimony to back me up and you just happen to leave that part out of your response. How convenient...or are you still standing by that claim??
