that is honestly the most idiotic interpretation of Spanier's words I have ever read.
OT: Jack Raykovitz question
- Thread starter PSU0622
- Start date
that is honestly the most idiotic interpretation of Spanier's words I have ever read.
I fail to understand how you're vulnerable for a second murder when dead men tell no tales. This wasn't a murder. McQueary was a current employee. If the victim had reported being abused by JS and mentioned the red headed AC witnessing his abuse, PSU is in double trouble.
Look, here is what Spanier said:
"This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
1) He takes full responsibility and exercises his authority in the first sentence. This should have been Freeh's smoking gun.
2) He acknowledges that Curley would need to add an additional step to what they had agreed upon the day before. Curley didn't propose excluding anyone. He simply proposed including Sandusky. This completely blows up the Freeh narrative. Spanier than tells Curley he admires his willingness to have such an awkward conversation with JS.
3) "The only downside for us..." means that there was but one scenario that could come back and bite them.
4) That singular downside was predicated upon some subsequent incident should their message to JS not be received. It is an if/then scenario. IOW, Spanier saw no downside relative to what JS had done by itself, but he did recognize how they might look bad for not reporting this incident should another one occur. Since the "downside" associated with the boy or his family reaching out to authorities was an ever present risk, and I would argue the elephant in the room, how is it possible for Spanier and the others to have completely overlooked it? I say it's impossible!
5) He says that can be assessed down the road, meaning that reporting to DPW never left the table and could easily be revisited. Remember, Curley had yet to speak with either Sandusky or Raykovitz.
6) Finally, he characterizes Tim's proposal to include Sandusky as "humane and a reasonable way to proceed. Hardly the language one would use when contemplating the concealment of CSA.
I'm sorry. I can't follow that at all. All it says to me is, "We know we should report this, but we've elected to fix it ourselves. But there's one downside; that being that we might just fail to get it fixed, and more children get abused. People are going to point recriminating fingers at us for not letting the proper authorities handle it in the first place."
That's okay, sport. You wouldn't be pleased with my evaluations of your runes readings either.
Ah, so we have no argument as to the reason for the call: "suspected child abuse." Thank you. I had grown weary of the hearing the word "horseplay," so it's refreshing to get an accurate understanding of what MM told Joe (and Joe told C&S) out of the way.
We agree: "Suspected child abuse."
What does one's sense of moral probity suggest a major corporate administrator do in such a situation? What did the Clery act suggest he should do? Contact an attorney? Contact an investigative agency? Ignore it?
Are you suggesting that was Wendell's advice to Gary? Ignore it? Or do you think, perhaps, there was something more subtle going on here? You referred to WC as University Counsel, which implies he was on staff. But he wasn't. Can you tell us why Schultz didn't contact a PSU staff attorney if he wasn't sure of reporting requirements, instead of going outside the school?
Machiavelli might be smiling at the answer.
Harmon/Schultz both testified that it wasn't common for Schultz to ask for UPPD reports/files. So you actually believe that when Schultz randomly contacted Harmon out of the blue 3 years after the 1998 case was closed and asked to see the 1998 file that Schultz didn't tell him why he was asking for it (we have another JS showering incident-repeat of 1998, etc.) and Harmon never asked any questions?? Really?? Was it randomly ask to see the file of a closed case 3 years later day or something? Anyone who believes that Harmon was never told about 2001 is a complete idiot or someone with an agenda IMO.
Well since nobody at PSU told MM to keep quiet about ANYTHING there was nothing stopping MM from doing just that at any point in time....going directly to UPPD and making a written statement, just for the record if anything. There was also nothing stopping MM from making an anonymous call to ChildLine if he felt C/S were sandbagging his report and he was afraid for his job, and that also NEVER happened.
If MM was certain a kid was getting abused in 2001 he did NOT do everything he was required to do, as the one and ONLY witness he didn't even do the most basic/fundamental part of reporting a suspected crime -- making a written statement to an actual LE officer. All he did was talk to a football coach then some college admins and shrug his shoulders and say "oh well" when nothing came from his report, he didn't even express dissatisfaction or say more needed to be done to the people he thought was handling his report for crying out loud!!! Yet you blame the lack of JS getting arrested on C/S for some inexplicable reason instead of the one and only witness.
The sooner you come to realize that MM did NOT report certain child abuse (he did report a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable aka exact repeat of 1998) in 2001 the sooner everyone's actions/emails in 2001 will make sense. You keep trying to apply MM's 2010 version of events to people's actions/email from 2001 and they aren't congruent.
Yes, because MM was the one and only witness. You can't possibly be this dense. C/S/anyone else at PSU couldn't make a written statement to UPPD for MM. That responsibility fell on him. MM even testified that he/JM contemplated calling the police that very night but decided against it. MM also said that if he saw a burglary he would call police but he wouldn't call the police based on what he saw that night. That should say a lot to you right there. Since when does certain child rape NOT warrant an immediate call to police??
Also, I never said MM should go directly to Harmon to make his written statement, only that MM should have contacted UPPD and made a written statement to ANY uniformed police officer (he may have already been friends/familiar with certain officers that he would be more comfortable with). Or simply ask Schultz to have UPPD send someone over so MM could make a statement, etc when C/S followed up with JM/MM....but as we all know none of that ever happened which makes absolutely no sense if MM was certain in 2001 that a kid was getting sodomized.
or more simply, Schultz asked what he was required to report to CYS/DPW/UPPD and what would not be required to report.
funny how you're like the people who focus on Paterno's "sexual nature" words without including the three conditional uncertainties he used around those words.
more simply, you need to find a dictionary and look up the word "suspected"
"suspected child abuse" was the qualifier WC used on the file. We have no idea what was said between Schultz and Courtney, but we do know as the University is waiving ACP all it can in other areas, it has locked down on this file.
uhm Schultz did not contact a PSU staff attorney because at the time there was none. All PSU legal issues were being handled with outside counsel on a contractual basis.
your lack of knowledge on the subject is almost as astounding as your deliberate misrepresentations
Exactly. If Schultz came to Courtney and told him that a GA saw JS and a kid inappropriately showering/horsing around in lasch and it made the GA uncomfortable, I'd say Courtney putting "reporting of suspected child abuse" on the file makes perfect sense. Schultz wanted to know if an inappropriate shower between JS and the boy was something they needed to tell CYS, etc. about. If he looked the statutes up correctly Courtney would have told him that reporting of suspected child abuse is to be done with a verbal report to Childline ASAP and a written report to local CYS within 48 hours (note, telling DPW 2 weeks later is NOT what the statute says, regardless of how badly freeh wanted to make the admin's emails contemplating bringing in DPW as them contemplating not reporting the incident -- the ONLY reason they contemplated bringing in DPW was if JS didn't agree with their new directive that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop so that DPW could drive home that message since they are an "independent child welfare agency").
Good point on mentioning that PSU has STILL refused to waive ACP with Courtney so we can all finally see exactly what Schultz told him and exactly what he told Schultz. I think we can all agree that if that convo supported the current narrative ACP would have been waived a looooong time ago and freeh would have delightfully included that info in his report.
Fix what? Why wasn't Spanier worried about the downside had V2 gone to the authorities? Why was a subsequent incident necessary to trigger their vulnerability?
Your problem, and you're not alone, is that you refuse to read the emails and notes from 2001 from the perspective that Curley and Schultz testified truthfully about what was reported to them. This was all about prevention.
Showering alone with TSM kids was a lawsuit waiting to happen regardless of the incidence of CSA. Simply the accusation made in a he said/he said situation would leave JS, TSM and PSU vulnerable to a civil suit, which would have been settled to avoid the bad press. They dodged a bullet in '98 and saw the '01 incident as a wake up call.
Look at Schultz's notes from 2/25/01:
1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d
"to avoid", are you kidding me? Does that sound like a reasonable response to a report of CSA in his facilities? Of course not.
Furthermore, and to my above point, he said "alone". IOW, he wasn't even suggesting that Jerry never bring kids to the facilities. Just that he avoid doing so, especially when he'd be alone with them.
They treated this as though Jerry had boundary issues. Again, I refer to Schultz's notes taken after he and Tim first met with Joe on 2/12:
"-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare"
For "problem" to mean CSA, you have to believe that Schultz thought involving DPW was the right thing to do if Jerry denied sexually abusing a child, but not necessary if he admitted to abusing a child. In what reality does that make any sense? Now try reading that statement with 'boundary issues' substituted for 'a problem'. They already knew he had boundary issues because of what happened in '98. If he admitted it was a problem, they could work with him. If not, they would have to involve DPW. It all fits together perfectly. Consider Curley's email: If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities.
Either Mike lied to investigators, which is what V2 claimed in his statement to the defense team or, he failed to communicate to anyone in 2001 that he witnessed sexual abuse, which would at the very least explain the actions of each and every one of them back in 2001. It has to be one or the other. They're the only scenarios that make sense.
LOL. It's always the other guy's fault.
(1) IIRC, Schultz asked if Harmon still had the file; he didn't ask to see it. A little strange, no? Of course he still had it; PDs keep files 30-50 years.
(2) You're assuming the latest incident was the reason for the question. I don't believe it was.
(3) Yes, we had another incident. More than strange Gary didn't bring it up. I think I know why. Do you?
(4) It wasn't Harmon's job to ask why, but maybe he did. Maybe Schultz just put him off: "tell you later when I know more."
(5) Interesting. Harmon testifies he was never told. The principals all testify they didn't tell. But you decide, with absolutely zero proof, that two days after the shower, Harmon must have known, and furthermore, that anyone who doesn't agree with your wild speculation is an idiot or has an agenda.
But you, of course, don't have an agenda.
There was never anything stopping anyone from doing the right thing. But when the day is done, the fist of justice comes down hardest on those who have not just the professional responsibility, but the legal responsibility, to do the right thing. They did nothing.
Did Schultz tell Harmon, "MM saw repeat of 98; go get a written statement? NO.
Did Schultz tell MM, "You should go give the UPPD a written statement? NO.
All Schultz did is tell MM, "We'll handle it." And from that point on, it all became MM's fault for believing his boss would handle it.
That's your take. My take is that they saw great liability in Sandusky possibly abusing kids on PSU property and tried to prevent further episodes.
My take is that they saw zero liability in trying to prevent Sandusky from abusing kids elsewhere, and to that end never reported to authorities said abuse might be happening, period.
Under PA law no one at Penn State had any legal responsibility to do anything at all with the 2001 report.
They weren't legally required to do anything and stop saying they did nothing. That's 100% false and you know it. C/S talked to counsel, talked to MM and came up with an action plan that included telling JS his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop (would bring in DPW if JS did not agree with this directive), they took away JS's guest privileges, and they told JS they were going to inform JR at TSM (who was REQUIRED to look into any and all incident reports involving one of HIS employees and kids) about the incident and their new directives with or without his cooperation.
The only person in the reporting chain in 2001 that was LEGALLY required to look into MM's report was JR at TSM, and guess what, he didn't and you want to place that failure onto some college admins for some bizarre reason.
A simple explanation for all of the above is that in 2001 MM didn't report certain child abuse, only a late night inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable
LOL! So now MM, a grown ass man at the time, needed Schultz to tell him that he needed to give a written statement to police if he was certain he saw a child getting raped? You just keep getting worse and worse with your arguments.
The only logical reason for MM not giving a written statement to police in 2001 and not asking Schultz (if he viewed Schultz as "the police") why no one from UPPD came to get his written statement was because he couldn't say for sure what JS and the kid were doing but knew it was inappropriate, over the line, and made him uncomfortable. IOW, MM did not have a suspected crime to report, he reported an inappropriate shower (thus he reported the incident to admins vs. LE), that is all.
And yet 2001 more than replicated the events of 1998, which warranted a full investigation, as Schultz well knew.
But that wasn't the reason he didn't bring it up..
Because, at the time, PSU had no in-house general counsel or other in-house counsel. That is why. At the time, PSU used McQuaide Blasko, and more specifically Wendell Courtney, as its general counsel / legal department.
False, 1998 was WAY worse--naked bear hugs from behind with the actual child's ID being known. In 1998 you had a mom calling UPPD complaining about JS showering with her son. If any PSU officials were even aware of these details, they were told by non other than the states own DPW/CYS that JS's naked bear hug from behind showering behavior was A-OK in their books. They didn't even indicate JS after 1998. So please do tell me how C/S were supposed to view 2001 with that in mind? They were told by LE/CYS that the naked bear hug from behind behavior wasn't criminal and didn't even warrant the state placing restrictions on JS's access to kids.
In 2001 MM reported a late night inappropriate shower, with an unknown boy. That is all. Nevertheless C/S still reported the showering behavior to the employer of JS and person who was legally required to look into any and all incident reports. JR being the employer of JS, a mandatory reporter, and PhD in psychology was INFINITELY more qualified to look into the incident and take appropriate action than some college admins.
then bring it up with the OAG, which has conceded they did not violate the law in 2001.
"Prince Igor" sounds like a useless troll from Pennlive, who doesn't know the facts, and constantly changes his argument when proven wrong
What MM saw was a naked bear hug from behind, and more. He said he was sure JS was having some kind of intercourse with the child, and graphically described a positioning that would lead any adult to a similar conclusion. You choose to call him a liar. You insist he merely saw something inappropriate that made him uncomfortable.
This was a pivotal moment in JerBear's career which, if investigated immediately, would have prevented the entire catastrophe. Just one sentence to Harmon while Schultz had him on the phone. We're light years apart and really have nothing to discuss.
I think JS is guilty but you are making $hit up now to fuel your argument. MM didn't say the things you claim he said.
makes you wonder why he joined this board in March 2015 and has done nothing but obfuscate the facts
MM said everything I claim he said, and a good deal more. It's all there in the testimony, which he gave four times, and which you clearly haven't read.
I've changed no arguments and haven't been proven wrong about anything. Give me an example.
Anybody else suspicious about a guy who suddenly shows up, with all of 66 total posts, with damn near 80% of them in this thread alone, pushing the same tired false narrative, consistently getting his facts wrong and deliberately twisting the ones he barely gets right?
Where have we seen this pattern before?
Yep, I don't recall seeing Igor on this board or TOS until just a few weeks ago. And on both he keeps spewing the same nonsensical bullshit.
His posts/arguments sound almost exactly the same as TOS posters LittleLionMan and Nittany9er who vanished from that site months ago. Hmmmmmm
Did MM really say that he was sure JS was having intercourse? I don't recall that. I do recall him saying he didn't see penetration and that the boy didn't appear to be in stress.
Can you prove that MM reported certain child abuse in 2001? No, b/c all we have to go on is MM's word vs. other people's word.
C/S/S/P/JR/Dr. D all testified to being told about a GA that saw JS taking an inappropriate shower with a kid that made the GA uncomfortable. Since MM never made a written statement to police in 2001 we're left to rely on people's testimony from 2010 about what MM reported that night. MM is the only person who testified in 2010 that certain child abuse was reported. MM said that he never saw penetration, but due to the slapping sounds and positioning he saw in a few glances into a mirror, that he was certain JS was sodomizing a boy.
JM is the only person whose testimony is even close to MM's 2010 version and it's more suggestive that MM reported an inappropriate shower and we know this from the following...(I believe the below testimony is the reason why JM claimed no knowledge of ever making it during the JS trial--it shows the state's narrative is complete BS--Judge Cleland so no problem with JM's sudden case of dementia, go figure)
JM questioned in 12/16/11 prelim:
Page 151:
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.
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
Q: You never used the phase anal sex with Mr. Schultz?
A: Absolutely not
Q: Or the word rape?
A: Not at all
Q: Or the word sodomy?
A: No, not at all
Q: Or the phrase sexual assault?
A: No, not at all
Q: How about the word fondling?
A: I don’t think I would have used it because I didn’t see it. I would be saying what I was told, but I don’t think I would have used fondling.
Q: I apologize for this, but in the discussion with Mr. Schultz did you describe to Mr. Schultz the action of Mr. Sandusky thrusting his groin into a young boy’s rear end?
A: No
Q: Did Mike tell you that?
A: And Mike never said that
Q: Mike never said that to you at any time?
A: Specifically your question about thrusting?
Q: Yes
A: I never heard the word thrust
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pg. 155: JM goes on to say that Mike never used the word thrusting but only implied it was happening based on the sounds he heard. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that thrusting was going on, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when is certain sodomy something that's "at least a very inappropriate action" and possibly sexual in nature and not considered a crime??? There's no best case worst case scenario when certain child rape is reported, it's 100% criminal and wrong. There's no grey area there.....would love to hear your explanation on the above
Last edited:
well here's a link to Mike's testimony at JS trial . . .
I do not think it says what littlelionman claims it says
I do not think it says what littlelionman claims it says
