No, part of me isn't. But if good men can make bad decisions, perhaps the reverse is true. I'm not going to publicly look askance at the source of something the school deserved to have decades ago.
Last edited:
OT: Jack Raykovitz question
- Thread starter PSU0622
- Start date
No, part of me isn't. But if good men can make bad decisions, perhaps the reverse is true. I'm not going to publicly look askance at the source of something the school deserved to have decades ago.
What you (and Mike) described as Jerry's positioning with the boy doesn't make it a sexual act at all. Very weird and innapproriate? You bet. Illegal? Probably not - much like the bear hug in the shower in 1998.
In fact it's 100 times as likely Jerry was bear hugging the boy as they were goofing around - no pain, no screaming, no distress from the boy. At at least one or all of those things would be a given in that situation, which is most likely why Sandusky was found innocent of those severest charges.
What's amazing is that Mike's testimony was the only reason Sandusky was found guilty of EVERY OTHER serious charge against him, but he was not found guilty of the most serious charge in that specific incident. How does that make sense? Without Mike's testimony who knows if this gets to trial or if anyone believes those kids - no other eyewitnesses and sure as heck no physical evidence of any kind.
This is a kid potentially getting rear ended not a car getting rear ended. You analogy is completely inappropriate. The fact that you equate the two to defend Penn State handling of the situation is pathetic. Police investigate reports all the time and often find victims. Yes it would have been logical for them to interview McQueary and even Sandusky. It might have found a victim or it might not have gone anywhere. However at the very least you covered your own liability. At best they find a victim and Sandusky is stopped sooner.
In a bear hug from behind (especially where the child is lifted) genital contact is unavoidable. Perhaps you don't understand that bare genital contact against another (a child), unless inadvertent, is a crime. In Jerry's case, it would seem pretty willful. At the least, it was pattern grooming, pure and simple, and still a crime.
Pain and screaming? I suggest you look up the word "frottage."
Jerry was not found guilty of the most serious charges (requiring insertion) because insertion wasn't seen and couldn't be proved.
Igor said: "In 2001, Mike thought he was seeing sodomy. After 2010 and 48 counts of CSA, he was certain what he saw was sodomy. Not certain at the time (2001), but certain now. Can't figure out why that's so hard to grasp."
MM didn't say he was certain about the sodomy after the JS verdicts came in, he said he was certain way back in 2010 when he gave his written statement to LE! What you just described is textbook revisionist history-hindsight bias. If what you described above was the case, in 2010 when he gave his written statement to LE MM shouldn't have said that he reported he was certain JS was sodomizing a kid in 2001 bc that is straight up false. He wasn't certain about anything in 2001 (except that the shower was inappropriate, over the line, and made him uncomfortable) and that's what he should have described to LE in 2010, you know, the actual truth NOT revisionist history. By doing otherwise he threw CSSP under the bus bc his 2010 version made it seem like he told all those people about certain child abuse (and they then didn't no enough) when in fact he was certain of no such thing at the time.
Igor said: "You need to stop using this phrase "certain child abuse." You cannot report certain child abuse. You can only report suspected child abuse. It is not certain child abuse until a court of law makes that determination."
I didn't use the word "certain" -- MM did in his 2010 statement to police, MM said "I am certain the young boy being sodomized was occurring" and reported it as such to PSU admins. I think that statement is 100% b.s. revisionist history...so take your beef up with MM. The inflammatory and FALSE GJP about MM supposedly eye witnessing the anal rape of a boy and reporting said rape to C/S/P was based solely on MM's statement and GJ testimony saying that he was certain sodomy was occurring.
Here's the actual text from MM's hand written statement to OAG in 2010 that I am referring to above:
"While placing items in my locker I looked into the mirror at a 45 [degree] angle; in the reflection I could see a young boy approx. 10/11 yrs old facing a wall with Jerry Sandusky directly behind him. I did not see actual insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring"
Igor said: "Well, Joe used the word sexual and JM and JD and GS all understood it to be sexual, and Wendell Courtney wrote "suspected child abuse". Mike certainly wasn't describing towel-snapping."
That's incredibly inaccurate. Joe also said "I don't know what you'd call it" and a bunch of other qualifiers. His testimony also may have even been misread into the record by Fina's mole--the same guy who Kane just fired a few weeks ago. So I wouldn't put too much stock in Joe's 10 year, non cross examined recollection of what MM told him that day. Does Joe consider two people standing naked and close to each other (one with his arms around another) something sexual in nature? We don't know b/c he wasn't cross examined. However, Joe did make a statement to the media after the GJP was leaked making it clear the only thing he knew for sure about MM's 2001 report was that the GA reported an inappropriate shower that was upsetting and made the GA uncomfortable.
Please show me the testimony where JM/JD/GS all understood the shower to be "sexual". NONE of them testified to being told from MM that he the shower was sexual or he suspected a child was getting raped/molested, if so their advise to MM that night in 2001 makes ZERO sense. They all testified to being told what MM actually saw, and what MM actually saw was an inappropriate late night shower where JS had his arms around a kid and that made MM uncomfortable.
The only person's testimony that comes close to MM's 2010 version of his story is JM and he said the following at the 12/16/11 prelim:
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.
MM didn't say he was certain about the sodomy after the JS verdicts came in, he said he was certain way back in 2010 when he gave his written statement to LE! What you just described is textbook revisionist history-hindsight bias. If what you described above was the case, in 2010 when he gave his written statement to LE MM shouldn't have said that he reported he was certain JS was sodomizing a kid in 2001 bc that is straight up false. He wasn't certain about anything in 2001 (except that the shower was inappropriate, over the line, and made him uncomfortable) and that's what he should have described to LE in 2010, you know, the actual truth NOT revisionist history. By doing otherwise he threw CSSP under the bus bc his 2010 version made it seem like he told all those people about certain child abuse (and they then didn't no enough) when in fact he was certain of no such thing at the time.
Igor said: "You need to stop using this phrase "certain child abuse." You cannot report certain child abuse. You can only report suspected child abuse. It is not certain child abuse until a court of law makes that determination."
I didn't use the word "certain" -- MM did in his 2010 statement to police, MM said "I am certain the young boy being sodomized was occurring" and reported it as such to PSU admins. I think that statement is 100% b.s. revisionist history...so take your beef up with MM. The inflammatory and FALSE GJP about MM supposedly eye witnessing the anal rape of a boy and reporting said rape to C/S/P was based solely on MM's statement and GJ testimony saying that he was certain sodomy was occurring.
Here's the actual text from MM's hand written statement to OAG in 2010 that I am referring to above:
"While placing items in my locker I looked into the mirror at a 45 [degree] angle; in the reflection I could see a young boy approx. 10/11 yrs old facing a wall with Jerry Sandusky directly behind him. I did not see actual insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring"
Igor said: "Well, Joe used the word sexual and JM and JD and GS all understood it to be sexual, and Wendell Courtney wrote "suspected child abuse". Mike certainly wasn't describing towel-snapping."
That's incredibly inaccurate. Joe also said "I don't know what you'd call it" and a bunch of other qualifiers. His testimony also may have even been misread into the record by Fina's mole--the same guy who Kane just fired a few weeks ago. So I wouldn't put too much stock in Joe's 10 year, non cross examined recollection of what MM told him that day. Does Joe consider two people standing naked and close to each other (one with his arms around another) something sexual in nature? We don't know b/c he wasn't cross examined. However, Joe did make a statement to the media after the GJP was leaked making it clear the only thing he knew for sure about MM's 2001 report was that the GA reported an inappropriate shower that was upsetting and made the GA uncomfortable.
Please show me the testimony where JM/JD/GS all understood the shower to be "sexual". NONE of them testified to being told from MM that he the shower was sexual or he suspected a child was getting raped/molested, if so their advise to MM that night in 2001 makes ZERO sense. They all testified to being told what MM actually saw, and what MM actually saw was an inappropriate late night shower where JS had his arms around a kid and that made MM uncomfortable.
The only person's testimony that comes close to MM's 2010 version of his story is JM and he said the following at the 12/16/11 prelim:
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.
I know it sounds crazy to most people, but JS showering with/bear hugging a kid isn't a crime unless it can be proven that he was doing it for sexual gratification/grooming purposes. That's the exact reason why in 1998 no charges were filed b/c the DA couldn't prove that. The only reason why JS was convicted of those crimes re: V6 and V2 in 2012 was b/c the state had other victims with similar stories of JS using showers to groom them as proof that JS was showering for gratification/grooming purposes.
How does one prove whether "genital contact" was on purpose or inadvertent? That seems like a really hard thing to prove IMO.
I know littlelionman/Prince Idiot doesn't want to go back and read Mike's testimony during the Sandusky trial, but people who argue his point incessantly really should. ignore everything else, this is what MM said AT TRIAL UNDER OATH. not a hearing, not during an interview.
it bears repeating: the prosecution was leading the witness so obscenely, the defense was refusing to object, so the judge (who seemed to rule consistently in the prosecution's favor) intervened to put a stop to it.
But there is no definitive criminal language in Mike's testimony. In fact, when he is cross examined, he is asked directly about seeming contradictions in what he said during the prelim and GJ hearings, and Mike's response is a verbal evasion worthy of David Mamet: "well I would have said that if that was what I said"
It seems pretty obvious Mike expected to see 2 coeds, male and female, getting it on. Instead he saw Sandusky and a naked young man in a shower. it freaked him out, that I understand. his response is understandable; he wanted someone to tell him he saw Sandusky molesting a kid based on what he expected to see, and no one did because he didn't see that. and so until someone told him in 2010 that Sandusky was molesting kids, he goes back to what he expected to see and thought he saw but wasn't certain.
and again, that goes back to Jack raykovitz.
if Mike had told anyone (Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier) that he definitively saw molestation, I have no doubt they would have walked him down to UPPD to start an investigation. Since none of these guys were trained in warning signs of CSA, since none of them heard Mike claim a criminal act, then they are left with something that made Mike uncomfortable. a claim against someone they had known for decades and never suspected to be a sexual predator.
it seems they were uncertain due to a lack of training and lack of information. Again, the punt to Raykovitz makes sense. If ANYONE could have opened a criminal investigation based on Mike's initial testimony, it would have been JR. Trained, legally responsible, better educated, worked far more with kids, and working with a state licensed charity probably had a more comprehensive protocol and more professional relationship with CYS/DPW than some admin at PSU.
it is fascinating how much Prince idiot wants to let Raykovitz off the hook.
if Mike had told anyone (Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier) that he definitively saw molestation, I have no doubt they would have walked him down to UPPD to start an investigation. Since none of these guys were trained in warning signs of CSA, since none of them heard Mike claim a criminal act, then they are left with something that made Mike uncomfortable. a claim against someone they had known for decades and never suspected to be a sexual predator.
it seems they were uncertain due to a lack of training and lack of information. Again, the punt to Raykovitz makes sense. If ANYONE could have opened a criminal investigation based on Mike's initial testimony, it would have been JR. Trained, legally responsible, better educated, worked far more with kids, and working with a state licensed charity probably had a more comprehensive protocol and more professional relationship with CYS/DPW than some admin at PSU.
it is fascinating how much Prince idiot wants to let Raykovitz off the hook.
Who would you want investigating that possible crime? An athletic director, school president and a school president or individuals who are trained to investigate that? Unfortunately because Penn State administrators failed to act it was never investigated back then.
They did not "fail to act."
1) They informed Jack Raykovitz, who was LEGALLY OBLIGATED to follow up on the report.
2) Three years later, we still have no definitive answer about whether it was reported to either CYS or DPW. We only have the prosecution's allegation that it was not reported. Allegation is not fact.
Umm...an individual who was "trained to investigate" was JR, who Curely directly informed about the incident (and also PSU's new directive that JS couldn't bring TSM kids onto PSU campus anymore). Not only was JR trained to investigate, he was legally required to look into any and all incident reports involving one of HIS employees. With that in mind I'd say JR was the perfect person for Curley to forward the report to.
In fact, it could be argued that since JR was a PhD in Psychology, he was even more qualified to recognize signs of grooming, abuse, etc. than even the CC CYS workers themselves!! I'd be surprised if any of them had a higher education than JR. CC CYS actually valued JR's expertise so much that they paid him to do clinical work for them. C/S and even CC CYS probably viewed JR as the utmost authority in CC regarding child welfare/child psychology for all we know.
Does this scenario make sense:
1. MM went to see his father and Dr Dranov (a mandatory reporter).
2. MM told them that he heard sexual sounds.
3. MM told them the boy wasn't startled or frightened.
4. Dranov asked MM 3 times if he saw any thing sexual and MM said no.
5. MM testified that he didn't use specific language with Paterno.
But we're supposed to believe that provided clear details to Curley & Shultz?
No. It has never made sense. The only thing that makes sense is that Mike was uncomfortable with Jerry hanging around with a kid in the showers, but he didn't see anything that was disturbing enough that he thought it would be necessary to call the police.
don't forget, we have only heard the corrupt prosecution's/Freeh's side of things, as filtered through a compliant media.
Curley and Schultz have not told their side of the story yet, and I am willing to bet they have a lot more than 7 frikkin emails.
Curley and Schultz have not told their side of the story yet, and I am willing to bet they have a lot more than 7 frikkin emails.
