Re-read what I posted and start a new thread if you want to address. Reading comprehension would have helped with either.
OT: Jack Raykovitz question
- Thread starter PSU0622
- Start date
Re-read what I posted and start a new thread if you want to address. Reading comprehension would have helped with either.
I have a counter proposal. How about I buy you a dictionary? I'd offer to help you with the reading comprehension, but alas, I think you are beyond help. Have you considered a hooked on phonics class? It's probably a good starting point for you.
I haven't read this whole thread, but I will come back to it because I also can't understand why no one is interested in Raykovitz's role. He practices as a child psychologist today. How can anyone be okay with that?
I'm not a psychologist but I have worked professionally with at-risk children (not in Centre County). You are trained to know signs of child abuse (all types) when you work with this population and certainly when you are a psychologist leading an organization! Forget what he was told, what about his overarching responsibility to the ethics of his profession? I mean, I'm pretty sure that he is someone who had a suspicion at some point because he would have had the knowledge required to know the difference between a little bit off or strange Jerry and grooming behavior. Anyone who reads Chambers report should recognize the difference with how a psychologist will view these shower incidents and how your average Joe would see them.
And he's barely asked any questions let alone investigated. That's part of real tragedy of this whole thing. In my opinion, he should have had the scrutiny that Joe got and instead everyone accepts him as blameless even though the entire 2001 report ended with him.
I'm not a psychologist but I have worked professionally with at-risk children (not in Centre County). You are trained to know signs of child abuse (all types) when you work with this population and certainly when you are a psychologist leading an organization! Forget what he was told, what about his overarching responsibility to the ethics of his profession? I mean, I'm pretty sure that he is someone who had a suspicion at some point because he would have had the knowledge required to know the difference between a little bit off or strange Jerry and grooming behavior. Anyone who reads Chambers report should recognize the difference with how a psychologist will view these shower incidents and how your average Joe would see them.
And he's barely asked any questions let alone investigated. That's part of real tragedy of this whole thing. In my opinion, he should have had the scrutiny that Joe got and instead everyone accepts him as blameless even though the entire 2001 report ended with him.
Also, when you are a real mandated reporter and not the pretend nonsense that PSU has put into place, you are very thoroughly trained in what that means and you take that quite seriously. I'm not convinced that in his line of work, Raykovitz didn't have many more reports that should have clued him in besides the incidents involving PSU. He was the one truly working beside JS when JS was working with kids.
So you're saying if Raykovitz was in fact notified, he would have put his TSM gravy train ahead of any duty he had to the TSM kids? Hmmmm.
I'm saying that a third grader would know that CSS should never have assumed that reporting only to Raykovitz would result in it getting to the state police or CYS. As not completely credulous people with responsibilities to the child and the organization, they should have prepared for the likelihood that Raykovitz would just bury it. This may be, in fact, why they only reported to Raykovitz and then told everybody else they had done all they could.
This is inherently clear to anybody who's not being disingenuous. You don't have to KNOW Raykovitz won't report; you just have to be a grown-up and realize there's a strong incentive for him not to do so, and then take your responsibilities seriously.
If they wanted to cover their butts, they would have thrown Jerry under the bus. Spanier's email reply to Curley acknowledges as much. Instead, they tried to do the right thing.
Exactly. If CSS were told about certain child abuse and IF they were only telling JR as a form of CYA, what assurances did CSS have from JR that he wouldn't follow the law and TSM policy and forward their report to CC CYS?? If they intentionally watered down the report when talking to JR then why tell him anything at all since it would raise too many questions from JR end and possibly blow their entire "cover up"?
Also, if this was the case (MM reported certain child abuse in 2001) then why didn't MM EVER ask Schultz why no one from UPPD came to get his written statement for their investigation or why didn't MM EVER give a written statement to UPPD/Schultz himself? Surely he had to know that UPPD would eventually need the one and only witness to give a written statement for their report. Why did BOTH JM and MM express no dissatisfaction, never said more needed to be done, and never said the police needed to be called when C/S followed up with them??? That's a pretty big hole in the current narrative that I have yet to see an explanation for....
Now, if MM only reported a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable to CS and they reported the same to Spanier/JR, then EVERYONE's actions make perfect sense. JR should have still done his own due diligence and looked into the incident report (find the kid, talk to JS, etc.) and involved CC CYS if need be, but we know that never happened (just wear swim trunks....ugh....). But that's a whole separate argument.
maybe the purpose of reporting it to Raykovitz was simply to reinforce the message that PSU didn't want JS to bring kids into the facilities
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're smarter than a 3rd grader, but that is patently ridiculous.
Raykovitz was the right person to report this incident to. Second Mile was legally responsible for the welfare of the child, and Sandusky's employer, and mandated to follow up under the state laws that governed a charity dealing with children.
If anything, C/S/S were not trained in dealing with these types of incidents, and none of them were state licensed therapists trained in recognizing signs of CSA. The worst case scenario anyone can really make for C/S/S is that they believed Sandusky had done something reckless but not criminal. They didn't want to bury it and they didn't want to involve the police in case it was a replay of 1998. So they handed it off to someone both professionally qualified and LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE to follow up.
You just have to be a grown up and realize they wanted someone more capable, better trained, and legally responsible to deal with Sandusky.
The problem with your assessment is that (a) MM had no idea who the child was and (b) C&S had no idea who the child was (it might have been Jerry's nephew). To automatically assume that it was a child from TSM works now, in hindsight, but not then.
Back then, it was just a child who possibly suffered duress, and the people responsible for investigating the circumstances of that duress (with a simple phone call) did nothing except wait nine days to interview the witness, and another three weeks to talk to Raykovitz.
If that's your idea of responding responsibly, no further discussion is necessary.
geez now you're just making stuff up out of whole cloth
show me where MM ever testified he told anyone he saw the child under duress.
in fact, it was safe to assume in 2001 that this was a child from TSM since Sandusky's "cover" (grooming of the community) was to be seen in these locker rooms and showers with TSM kids, IIRC it was their "friends in fitness" program.
THAT would have been the most logical assumption back in 2001. and that what MM had witnessed was some post workout horseplay that made him feel uncomfortable. and that Sandusky's employer would be the best person to inform, the most likely avenue to get the identity of the child (other than Sandusky's allegation he offered to give the child's name and phone number to Curley)
You really don't know the details of this incident, do ya?
Ah, now I understand. A compliant child can't possibly suffer the duress of CSA. I mean, he's enjoying it, right?
Nothing to discuss with you. Have a nice day.
I said the following: "Back then, it was just a child who possibly suffered duress...." Are you even able to read at all?
Love between a man and a child is a beautiful thing, and you're beautiful man.
Don't ever change. Jerry wouldn't want you to.
Last edited:
Well, if the witness felt that his report wasn't getting treated with the appropriate urgency, then guess what....he should have said something! Gee, what a novel idea huh?
Or did you forget that MM testified in the 12/16/11 prelim that when TC called MM a week or two after his initial report to follow up, MM NEVER expressed any dissatisfaction with TC's action plan, MM NEVER said that more needed to be done, and MM NEVER said that he felt the police needed to be called.
So, with that in mind, do you still think that MM reported certain CSA? If so, how do you reconcile that with his 12/16/11 testimony? If MM was certain in 2001 JS was abusing a kid, wouldn't he express dissatisfaction or at least say he felt more needed to be done (UPPD taking his written statement for example)??
As far as C/S were concerned, the consulted counsel, they talked to the witness, developed an action plan, followed up with the witness to relate their action plan (witness expressed no dissatisfaction and never said more needed to be done), and then executed their action plan. As far as C/S knew the witness was satisfied with how they handled his report and they all went on with their lives until the crap hit the fan.
Yup, that's what I always do when I report a dire set of circumstances to my bosses. When they don't demonstrate urgency (or even any interest at all), I either go around them or over their heads, in order to bring the greatest amount of embarrassment to everybody, and ensure my job security.
So now you're using the MM was afraid for his job excuse....that MM was more worried about losing his job/embarrassing his bosses than making sure his report of certain child abuse was handled correctly?? That makes MM out to be a pretty terrible person if true. If that was the case why didn't he just make an anonymous call to Childline (an option Dranov/JM would have known about)??
We're not talking about some trivial work issue here that would cause embarrassment for MM's bosses if he went around them. MM was supposedly certain a child was getting abused (a CRIMINAL MATTER), and all he did was talk to a football coach the next morning and then some college admins a week later. And when the college admins followed up with MM a few weeks later to tell him their action plan, he NEVER expressed any dissatisfaction. How can you blame the college admins supposedly not doing enough vs. the actual witness??? C/S weren't mind readers.
If MM felt the college admins weren't taking his report seriously enough, he should have either told them so or went directly to: UPPD, CC CYS, anonymous call childline, etc, etc....how is that "going over your bosses head"??
At NO point did MM ever bring his report/concerns to an actual uniformed police officer so that he could make a written statement. That should tell you a lot right there.
Correct. And neither did one of the highest ranking officials in the PSU hierarchy, who actually had an entire investigatory body of "uniformed police officers" reporting to him. MM and GS both had their reasons, and the latter had something more:job definition responsibility. Ignoring it cost him his job.
you mean the job from which he retired, then got rehired before all hell broke loose?
Haah! Yeah, Igor doesn't know what he's talking about. Schultz retired, was replaced by Al Horvath then Horvath left PSU to work at the Smithsonian or some such place and PSU begged Schultz to come back out of retirement to fill the void. Then shortly after that Schultz was subpoenaed to testify in front of the GJ. What a nice welcome back gift!! After the crap hit the fan in 11/11 Schult re-retired. He didnt get fired.
Yes, and neither Schultz or any of his uniformed police officers witnessed anything, so the only person who could make a written statement about what happened that night was MM, and he NEVER made ANY written statement about that night, not one to Schultz, not one to UPPD, and not even for his own records/CYA. Which would seem odd if he actually did fear for his job, one would think he'd cover his ass or make anonymous call to CYS.
I noticed you avoided my question. If MM feared for his job (hence the reason he never expressed dissatisfaction to C/S), and really was certain a kid was abused that night, why didn't he at least make an anonymous call to Childline or UPPD?? Dranov was aware of this protocol b/c he was trained as a mandatory reporter. Dranov was specifically called by JM that night to help advise MM. Let's see if you avoid the question yet again....
Last edited:
I believe MM made a report when he was finally contacted by police a decade later. Are you seriously suggesting he wouldn't have made the same report to Harmon's UPPD if contacted a decade earlier?
Of course he would.
He would have been the first person Harmon would have contacted, had Schultz simply related what he was told, and what he thought was important enough to call Courtney within minutes of hearing about it. But Schultz, it seems, went out of his way not to tell Harmon. Way out of his way.
Clearly, you're correct. This whole saga is all MM's fault. When the head of the UPPD refuses to have the matter investigated, Mike should have embarrassed him, and Curley, and Joe by going around them to the UPPD and launching the investigation himself. His employers would have been so proud of him
And yet at the time, Graham Spanier, a smarter man than you and a victim of child abuse himself, determined their course of action to be "humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
Yep, that's the one. "Please come back, Gary; we need you." And irreplaceable Gary came back because there was no one to fill his shoes. And then he heard the whistle of that heavy freight just around the bend. Gary determined there were suddenly dozens of people to fill those shoes, which he quickly divested himself of, with the words, "Feets, don't fail me now." Poor Curley just froze on the tracks.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I'm saying. I believe MM played revisionist history when he FINALLY did make a written statement to police after they had to come track him down.
The lengths that you go through to try and justify MM's lack of making a written statement to UPPD in 2001 if he was certain a child was abused are astounding and it's quite evident you have a very weak, non logical argument.
You just can't bring yourself to admit that the only way to make sense of everyone's actions in 2001 and MM/JM's 12/16/11 testimony stating they never expressed dissatisfaction and never said more needed to be done is b/c in 2001 MM was NOT certain a kid was getting abused but only reported a late night inappropriate shower that he felt was over the line and made him uncomfortable.
I see you avoided my question about why MM never placed an anonymous call to Childline again....big surprise....
Since you're making some wild assumptions (with ZERO evidence) about Schultz deciding to purposely not inform Harmon about 2001, how about you provide one motive, any motive that would explain why Schultz would do such a thing?
Oh and just some food for thought...when someone is certain they saw a horrific crime happen and they want something to be done about it, they don't sit around and wait for 10 years for the police to randomly come to them, they go to the police and give a statement. If that magical anonymous email tip was never sent to Stacey Parks Miller (one day after Corbett was elected Gov. mind you) MM would still be sitting around waiting for the police to come to him. To me that suggests he was NOT certain about any abuse in 2001.
Of course they did. Jerry was a wonderful guy and they knew it would have killed Dottie to see him splashed all over the front page. I believe Spanier also said about this "reasonable way to proceed" words to the effect that "we can always evaluate things down the road" because we become "vulnerable" for not having reported him
I agree with you; Spanier is much smarter than me. And way more prophetic, too, but maybe not such a hot evaluator.
Last edited:
Whoa. They "had to come and track him down?" After all that stuff he told C&S and Joe, and working the sidelines on Saurdays, they had to come and track track him down? After all the stuff he'd been telling friends in bars and on the web for a decade? Seriously?
Do you not think some of those people will be witnesses to the fact that what Mike told them and what he told police amount to the very same thing?
I didn't know he was required to. Not any more that you think Schultz wasn't required to notify Harmon.
Right, but there had to be a subsequent incident to trigger their vulnerability. It was used in the context of an if/then scenario and Spanier said that was the only downside. How is it possible for him and the others to totally discount the possibility that V2 and his family would go to the authorities? Think about it. Now Mike was involved too! He was a current employee and could be accused of abandoning the boy while he was being abused. And yet, they didn't even bother to learn who the boy was, when by your way of thinking, they should have ensured his silence as part of their plan.
Yes, by golly, there is going to be a parade of people testifying that McQueary told them that he saw Sandusky raping a child and not one of them cared enough to do anything about it.
well Mike was waiting for that anonymous email to hit SPM's inbox the day after Corbett got elected Governor.
then he just waited at his front door in a bathrobe and smoking jacket and pipe, and he said to the police as they approached, "by Jove old boys, you've cracked this case!"
Yes the police had to come to MM. He never went to them. And even when he first spoke to law enforcement in 2010 he immediately lawyered up then waited a few WEEKS before telling them his actual story/making a written statement . Ya, he was soooo eager to give his written statement to law enforcement...
You're the person who laughably suggested that the reason MM never went to UPPD directly or told C/S he was dissatisfied was bc he feared for his job and didnt want to embarrass anyone (apparently not embarrassing anyone is more important to MM than making sure the guy he was certain was raping a kid got arrested, or at least formally questioned by police).
I refuted that by pointing out Dr. D was called that night feb 9 2001 specifically to advise MM and since he was trained in child abuse reporting protocol and avenues he would be aware that MM could make an anonymous call to childline if he feared for his job. However that call never happened. A written report to UPPD also never happened. If MM was certain of abuse in 2001 how do you explain that? Dont forget, MM testified no one at PSU told him to keep quiet. So MM was free to do as he pleased.
One more time: Schultz got the story and made a call immediately to his attorney. Not his police chief. His attorney. Two days later, he called his police chief (you know, the guy who fed him every tidbit of info about Jerry in 1998?). Curiously, the call was about 1998, but Schultz specifically avoided mentioning this latest Jerry episode, as any rational person would expect him to do.
It is as plain as the nose on your face (if you have one), that Schultz DID NOT want Harmon to know ANYTHING. Probably, because a written report from Mike the first thing Harmon would have taken, thereby launching another investigation, one that this time would surely make newsprint.
Just as Joe did everything he was required to do, MM did everything he was required to do. He was assured by everyone he talked to, over and over, that responsible School officials would handle the matter. Shultz even assured his father that they were handling the matter. That means having the matter investigated. Remarkably, they never did. No phone call to Harmon. Nothing. Even more remarkable, and you don't have a problem with that.
You want to lift the onus of this whole disaster off school officials and place it on the shoulders of MM. Because he believed what he was told by these officials? Because he refused to go around his bosses' backs and approach Harmon himself, when Harmon's own boss had already demonstrated the futility of such action?
Obviously, Mike knows how to read defenses way better than you do.
Rape? Mike never used the word. Parade? Just one or two people, to corroborate what Mike testified to, over and over. To prove that Mike has been consistent in what he saw, and what he believed it to be.
I fail to understand how you're interpreting Spanier's words
If I see what appears to be a murder, I'm not vulnerable if I don't report it. But if a second murder happens, I'm terribly vulnerable; my reporting the first murder might have prevented the second. Morally, I knew from the get-go that the murders might continue. That's all Spanier's saying. We can report Jerry and let the authorities fix his problems (with all the attendant bad publicity), or we can take a more humane approach and try to help fix Jerry's issues privately, quietly. But we're in deep doo-doo if we fail, Jerry kills again, and it's discovered we took no official action.
you mean he contacted University counsel Wendell Courtney to get an understanding of the reporting requirements of "suspected child abuse"? you know, like most responsible corporate VPs do when it deals with a legal issue that affects the corporation for whom they work.
