I don't know his actual involvement in 2001. But his testimony was a little iffy. Also note that Freeh referenced an email in 2001 from Schultz to Harmon asking about the 1998 report. Freeh did not include the email in the report. Freeh did include a separate email from Harmon to Schultz stating that they had the 1998. But curious as to why Freeh omitted the other email between Schultz and Harmon.
OT: Jack Raykovitz question
- Thread starter PSU0622
- Start date
My opinions are bullshit and spew? Because they conflict with your own? You continue to defend against "cover-ups," when I've told you I don't believe there were cover-ups. You're a child not worth debating. I'll save my discourse for grown-ups.
Last edited:
My guess would be that the email from Schultz to Harmon that freeh just so happened to leave out of his appendix was omitted by freeh b/c it would prove that Harmon was told about the 2001 "incident" and that the incident was an inappropriate shower/horsing around by JS that made a GA uncomfortable.
IOW it would completely destroy the false narrative the PA OAG and freeh were trying to perpetuate.
How would the email from Schultz to Harmon about 1998 "prove" that Harmon was told about 2001? This is just crazy. Explain.
Yes, b/c I back my opinions up with actual testimony and you back yours up with absolutely nothing. Actually, you didn't say it was your opinion, you said that it was a "fact" that MM was asked no questions. Go ahead and quote the testimony where MM says that he was asked no questions...I'm all ears.
Now you're claiming that you don't believe there was a cover up? You've got to be kidding me, you're in the deflect and spin phase now. Here's exactly what you said earlier in the thread "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."
If that's not talking about CS covering up MM's report, then I don't know what else to call it. Please explain/clarify.
You're a big boy, I'm sure you can figure it out (hint, in the 2001 email Schultz says there was another incident similar to 1998 one).
FWIW, the Freeh report contained an email from Courtney to Schultz in 2011 giving him a "heads up" that Baldwin inquired about the JS incident they spoke about circa eight years ago. Courtney knew who Schultz contacted him about in 2001.
In regards to the 9-10 day quiet period, was McQueary interviewed for the vacant WR or secondary coaching job during that time? If he was, at what point did they tell him he wasn't getting either job and who told him? I just need to understand this containment plan you speak of.
Agree, that I think there is more to Harmon here. But, even if what you say is true, this is all before Schultz talked to Mike.
With regard to paragraph one: Over the course of ten years, Courtney might very well have figured out with a GJ investigation going on that the incident they spoke of in 2001 involved Sandusky. What other conclusion could he have come to?
Paragraph two: I can't answer the first two questions. With regard to containment, it's not a sinister concept. If you have what is potentially a sensational event in your world that could do you great harm if it went public, you could choose a course wherein it didn't go public. If you choose to actively investigate, it goes public. If you passively choose to do nothing, it doesn't go public. The latter is called containment.
If it goes public and you deny involvement, then subsequently hide evidence of involvement, only then do you have a cover-up. I hardly think cover-up was the plan.
Last edited:
You're out because youve been getting owned. Good riddance
We are forced to speculate on the schultz email to harmon bc freeh/psu has refused to release it. Big surprise. Believe me, I would love to see the email so we could finally know for sure.
However i dont need to speculate on your claim that its a fact no one asked MM any questions bc there is testimony from MM himself saying otherwise. You were wrong and have yet to post any testimony/evidence to support your "fact"
I've been "owned?" This is all a childish game to you, isn't it?
Been awhile since I read testimony, but I recall MM said C&S didn't ask any questions. Subsequently, he added they could have, but he didn't remember. Yessir, they must have really grilled him, right?
Last edited:
Well, we know Dranov was asking him a lot of questions an hour after the incident, and McQueary told a story 180 degrees from what he told a decade later after being confronted with the selfi.
Well you recalled wrong. You dont need to look it up, earlier in the thread i already posted the testimony from MM were he said he couldnt remember. He did NOT say that they didnt ask him any questions.
Nope. I'm an adult, and I am neither a liar nor a credulous fool. If I were in Curley's shoes, I would know that I could not trust Raykovitz (or anybody at TSM, for that matter) to go to the cops.
It doesn't require magical knowledge from 2011. It requires the slightest bit of critical thinking skills - understanding that organizations tend not to commit suicide when they have the choice.
This is not Austin. Please confine your useless, self-centered ranting to things you actually know about. And, by the way, it is quite obvious that there is a painful issue in your past and you are projecting. Whatever it is, nobody should have had to endure that. However, it does not give you the right to napalm the issue with regards to TSM. That is as harmful as anything else. What you are doing is resolving them of the responsibility because it is easier for you to find comfort from trashing innocent men. Get ahold of yourself.
Nope. Nothing like this in my past. I'm pissed I can't be as proud of Penn State for doing things the right way as I used to be (and as proud as I used to be for not having idiots in our fanbase who will excuse anything as long as it makes us look better).
CSS at a bare minimum were negligent in their oversight of the athletic department and the university in a way which later contributed to the sexual abuse of children. We know that much already. I suspect they exercised active (willful) negligence as well, because that theory requires the fewest logical leaps. We'll see; but I have nothing but contempt for those who want to excuse CSS just because they notified TSM (which in and of itself does not at all discharge their moral obligations to help protect children, and also help protect our university).
Why so willing to hang people and a University, when clearly we don't have all the information and have only heard one side of this? And the information that we do have makes that one side of the story very questionable.
You are trying to hang innocent men. You need to get over your lynch mob mentality. It solves nothing, especially when serving as cover the unassailed folks at TSM. It is ridiculous. You are taking the cowards way out because, for whatever reason, you have a hardon for innocent men.
Are you claiming C/S/S are innocent? Or just pointing out innocent until proven guilty?
I have enough information to conclude they were at a minimum negligent enough to be fired and shamed. Executives know that their job is not to let something like this just happen and then blame somebody else. The criminal responsibility will be determined if and when they stop delaying the trials. They have somebody else paying their legal bills, so this may be indefinite, which is frustrating. But the first part we already know enough about - they were responsible to do the right thing, and they failed.
Culrey met with Joe (twice), Mike, Jerry and Jack and came away convinced that no CSA had occurred. Heck, even the so called victim said that no CSA occurred.
He went over the issue with Schultz and Spanier. Schultz also contacted an attorney. He didn't have to trust Jack to do anything other than help enforce the directive to restrict Jerry's access to the facilities with TSM kids.
Again, the hard evidence from 2001 proves this was all about prevention, nothing more.
So you can't acknowledge that the information you have is only one side to this? C/S/S haven't blamed anyone else. Personally, I want to know the other side of this not just the prosecution (Freeh included) side.
Well, then you're JUST the kind of person who would fall frequently into the trap of cherry-picked data. Just a head's up - if you play poker a lot with your friends, and you find yourself losing more often than not, I can help explain that.
People like you fall for the cherry picking trap all the time. There are Exhibits 1 through 100, and you get to see Exhibits 1 through 5, never even having a clue about Exhibits 6 through 100 - either because you're lazy, gullible or have on earmuffs. THEN you claim you "have enough" information to make your decision.
Its statements like yours that helped me pick my handle picture.
You don't have enough information to know jack-sh!t man! That I can tell you without a doubt.
One other thing I would like to point out for everyone. Please keep in mind that the "Admins" or "Executives" or whoever people refer to may or may not be guilty, negligent, etc. Also, however, those folks are SEPARATE from the football coach and should remain that way.
The ONLY thing we can be 100% sure of at this time with the evidence that is out there is that the football coach did exactly what he should have and is NOT guilty in any way, shape or form of anything legally, morally or otherwise.
That is correct, but we don't know if C/S met with Courtney at any other time (including after they met with Mike)
You "concluded" that Rashard Casey was guilty, too.
You joined the pitchfork brigade there, too.
How'd that work out, sport?
Lemme see. You were completely, 100% wrong when you sided with the lynchmob.
Um, yes. The lawyer who apparently told CS they didn't need to report anything never heard what the witness actually had to say. Pretty huge.
Rashard Casey was guilty of being in a bar while his friend beat the crap out of a cop and did nothing to stop, and didn't leave. Yes, he was guilty - of that.
You're a lying sack of crap otherwise.
So what you're really trying to say is Rashard Casey was completely innocent.
Casey was guilty of being innocent. you have to learn how cognitive dissonance works to understand guys like Dahmus
Telling of what? That nothing happened worthy of reporting? That there was no reason for Courtney to speak with Mike? That their actions subsequent to Mike's report were focused on prevention? Telling indeed!
Of criminal actions? Yes! Completely innocent! That's not what this anonymous jackass aoshiro is referring to. I said he should have been held out of games more because he was guilty of bad behavior that Paterno used to punish more severely. A lot more subjective, of course. Start a new thread and we can go into it. Otherwise, STFU.
bad behavior that led him to sue the Hoboken Police Department and win a 6-figure settlement
LINK
here is Joe's quote:
"I have spoken with Rashard Casey and his attorney regarding the incident in Hoboken, N.J., early Sunday morning and there is another side to the story.
"Rashard has not been a discipline problem during his time at Penn State and the conduct alleged in the charges is inconsistent with the personality he's demonstrated to me and the members of the coaching staff.
"Rashard is a good young person who gets along well with his teammates of all races.
"I trust Rashard will be able to proceed with his academic work in summer school with a minimum of distractions.
"I hope and expect he will be exonerated when all of the facts are examined."
yeah I often get accused of that because I understand how words work
