Interesting ?
They "knew" in 98 but somehow the state, law enforcement and TSM did nothing about it ?
That's quite an interesting scenario
Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
Interesting ?
They "knew" in 98 but somehow the state, law enforcement and TSM did nothing about it ?
That's quite an interesting scenario
Yes, but according to MM's very own mouth under oath at both the SWIGJ and Sandusky trials, he absolutely was NOT the "eyewitness" that "the State" (i.e., OAG) claimed and could not provide "eyewitness testimony" (i.e., "Direct Evidence") in support of any of the State's claims. Relative to the State's claims, MM could only provide conjecture and worthless "circumstantial evidence". The State intentionally lied in calling MM an "eyewitness" who "saw" and would testify to seeing "anal rape" - how do we know they're intentionally bald-faced lying in an attempt to fabricate the only piece of non-circumstantial "direct evidence" they had? Because none other than Mike McQueary, their supposed "star eyewitness", says they are liars and has unequivocally impeached their supposed "direct evidence" in a court of law and under oath.
Welcome to jack@ss' "imaginary kingdom"....he's also brilliant in his little magic kingdom - go figure!
Occam's Razor says his "back-fitted" bull$hit makes zero sense and is impossible, but this @sswipe is to moronic to even understand the principle of Occam's Razor let alone the implications of the facts you raised....
But you think my new avatar pic is even hotter, don't you, sugar daddy?Two juries, one with a number of Penn State alumni, disagree with you.
They did not need McQueary for Victim 6.
BTW: Use this photo of Donna Summer. She looks much hotter.
So far as we know, TSM was never informed of 1998 until 2011. Courtney was not.
We can see a similar scenario in the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. Employees of the Cambria County DA's Office worked out an "arrangement," with the local bishop not to prosecute. One of the then ADA's that did it, Patrick Kiniry, is now a sitting judge in the same county. The DA in charge was Gerald Long, now a senior judge. The Bishop at the time, James Hogan
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/r...McCort-Board-of-Trustees/stories/201603070130
It was not illegal, as prosecutors do have discretion, it was not something publicized. When it comes out, of course, it creates a scandal.
I strongly suspect that something similar happened in Centre County in 1998. It becomes a question of who knew at Penn State in 1998. It could also provide a motive for covering up in 2001. I strongly suspect that the OAG was able top piece this together by the early fall of 2012.
We may get some idea from the witness list.
No, but I am waiting for you to explain all these "relationships" I supposedly have.
I see you still have not found DPA's "Judicial Authority." Maybe is with the 2001 police report?
Not only possible, but known to have happened two counties to the west. Now, we can look at what we knew happened with the 1998 investigation and what happened 2012 until now.
Last edited:
Really? Now The Second Mile's direct State Licensor didn't investigate TSM in regards to 1998 despite both Alycia Chambers (the Mandatory Reporter under CPSL who made Childline Report) and the mother both unequivocally stating that the child was participating in a TSM Program offered under the auspice of TSM in the 1998 event??? It keeps getting better all the time with you dip$hit Mr. "I Suspect"....LMFAO, what a laughable clown you are.
And, how is that person connected to the Board, DPW, Corbett, or whomever the conspiracy theorists think is the current villain? And, in your case, I use the word "think" advisedly.
Last edited:
Not according to either Lauro or anyone from TSM. Just because you think it should have happened didn't mean it did.
You are claiming that TSM knew in 1998, because you say that they knew. Courtney was out of the loop regarding 1998. Do you have any evidence that exists outside your brain?
Wrong jack@ss, it isn't a matter of opinion, thinking or guessing whether Chambers reported that the child was participating in a TSM Program at the time of the 1998 Incident and that DPW's Centre County CYS Office was conflicted in regards to TSM due to an "Agency Relationship" under CPSL - it is a known, unequivocal FACT that Chambers reported these items to DPW in her Childline Report before it was assigned to Lauro. You're full of more $hit than a cesspool and twice as rank, LMFAO!
Last edited:
According to Lauro. He never saw the Cambers Report.
The "Chambers Report" is not the report to Childline. In the report Chambers notes that she reported to Childline on May 4, 1998. She further writes about talking to the mother of Victim 6 on May 5 and May 7, 1998.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Chambers_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
According to police report, Lauro called on May 5, 1998, about the case which was forwarded from CYS.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf
Now, there are several possibilities:
1. Chambers is a time traveler, wrote the report on May 7, and went back to May 4 to file it.
2. May 1998 had dates in a different order than every other may in history and May 7 happened before May 4.
3. Chambers phoned in the standard report, which was just who it involved.
(I will note that it is possible that you don't understand how a calendar works and that is causing your confusion. From your popst I would believe it.)
Lauro claimed to have never seen the Chambers Report.
Now, that would not indicate that Lauro did a good job and that he should have called the person who reported it, or contacted TSM. There is no indication he did either.
Last edited:
Why wasn't TSM ever informed of the '98 investigation? If he had simply been indicated in '98, none of this happens.
As for 2001, you're trying to turn the discreet treatment of Jerry's lack of boundaries as some kind of crime. Curley took it to Jack Raykovitz. If anybody's ass should be on the line, it is his.
According to Curley, he reported it to Raykovitz as "horseplay." Raykovitz was not told about the1998 incident, nor ever saw the Chambers Report.
And yes, that "discrete treatment" was a crime. In 1998, the incident was reported to DPW and the DA's Office. That didn't happen in 2001, unless Schultz's "memory" gets better. DPW gets to make the determination if Sandusky should have been placed on the state registry, or not. The DA would determine if Sandusky should be charged with a crime or not.
CSS took it on themselves to make that decision in 2001. That is where their crime occurred.
Ah yes, "horseplay"
Let's go back and look at the initial night
MM - "Hi dad, it's me, I see Jerry Sandusky raping a boy, what do I do?"
JM - "It's no big deal, don't call police, we'll just tell Joe tomorrow"
-or-
MM - "Hi dad, it's me, I see Jerry Sandusky horseplaying around with a boy in the shower, what do I do?"
JM - "It's no big deal, don't call police, we'll just tell Joe tomorrow"
Which of those two contexts seems more likely?
Let's go back and look at the initial night
MM - "Hi dad, it's me, I see Jerry Sandusky raping a boy, what do I do?"
JM - "It's no big deal, don't call police, we'll just tell Joe tomorrow"
-or-
MM - "Hi dad, it's me, I see Jerry Sandusky horseplaying around with a boy in the shower, what do I do?"
JM - "It's no big deal, don't call police, we'll just tell Joe tomorrow"
Which of those two contexts seems more likely?
Neither one makes sense. If it was no big deal why would call your family friend Doctor D for advice? Why would Joe bother to call TC? To this day we have no real way of knowing exactly what was said and how it was actually presented. People have opinions on it based off of decade old memories which is in itself not very strong.
It was reported to JR as horseplay because that's what was reported to them. Raykovitz was the only mandatory reporter here.
They need it to act as keys to the "Bank of PSU". The "Sandusky Criminality" and the "Penn State Football Criminal Culture" was constructed by Harrisburg to allow privileged elites to gain the "Keys to the Bank of PSU". As with all crimes...IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
The need for Mike in this matter - they needed a "lynch pin" on which to focus public outrage against Penn State through a media-fed hatred of Paterno. The "Big Story" aspect of PSU and Paterno involvement was the perfect cover for the TSM "victims farm" and therefore Mike was the perfect fit to an absurd "Story" of ennoblement 9 years after a 2001 non-event. Mike was personally easy to manipulate and totally helpless to avoid involvement.
The OAG could give a WHIT about "the Kids"...they- the OAG as they now operate - exist only to permit privileged elites and political hacks to pay for play with kids - not protect them. SAD BUT HONEST FACT!!
If you doubt me, check the number of child crimes the state has permitted and the number of child crimes the State legal system has used to generate income for corrupt judges. The Hersey Trust, "Kids for Cash".- just a couple examples...... PA is unique in the number AND CONSISTENCY of these kinds of crimes. Have you seen any effective improvement (or reasonable action taken to correct identified issues) when any one of these come into the public's attention???
ANSWER IS...NO!! What you do see is a money grab by politically connected individuals who get "consultant's fees", excessive lawyer fees which generate political "contributions", penalty pools (and the like) as payback for prior (or future) collisions in corruption.
Last edited:
If I recall, Dranov wasn't called for advice. He happened to be at the house that night.
Even so why would it be discussed with him and he too didn't say to drop it or call the police. People can debate this until the end of time and apparently some want to, but we won't know what MM said exactly.
Spot on. It was convenient that Dranov was already at the house to peer check their decision. But once they all decided that no abuse had taken place, they turned it in to an administrative issue and went into CYA mode. JVP did exactly what a supervisor in a large organization is supposed to do by passing the report up the chain. Even the NCAA's current guideline models Joe's actions.
There were 2 chances to act that night, at the scene of the alleged crime, and about an hour later when MM got home. Whether there was a crime or not, their inaction that night effected all those who heard about it starting the next day.
There is one thing you are quite reliable for - the amount of bull$hit and made-up facts you spout. Too funny that all of the conflicting and self-serving bull$hit that Lauro has spouted is now to be taken as indisputable gospel truth...LMFAO! BTW moron, Chambers was the child's personal therapist - your notion that the mother only first spoke with Chambers on 5/5/1998 is so insanely contradictory to what both the mother and Chambers have testified to it isn't even funny! As is your notion that Chambers did not file the DPW Childline Report until 5/7/1998 - both of your BULL$HIT anti-factual contentions is absolutely refuted by Alycia Chambers' own accounting of events (the mother took the child to speak with Chambers prior to speaking with Schreffler via phone) - Chambers also reported the incident identifying herself as a Mandatory Reporter (and why she was a Mandatory Reporter) BEFORE the mother called Schreffler! Not only that but Chambers has testified that she NOTIFIED DPW of the Agency Relationship and therefore COI that existed between the DPW's Centre County CYS Office and TSM and why she was calling the incident in to DPW-Harrisburg (i.e., State-Level) rather than conflicted local DPW CYS Office - namely that the child was participating in a TSM-Sanctioned & Licensed Program under the supervision of a paid TSM employee/counsellor at the time of the incident!
You making up bull$hit counter-factual nonsense does not obviate or change REALITY and the ACTUAL FACTS you f'ing obfuscating moron!
Given your propensity to make up self-serving bull$hit in defense of DPW/CYS and Lauro, I think you might be Lauro himself!
Last edited:
My conjecture is more grounded in reality than yours . McQueary will testify , again to what he said , and other evidence will be presented on what they were told and did following MM's report.
And it's reasonable to ask whether 1998 was Gricar's first rodeo with Jerry or not?
Well, let's just be clear that Raykovitz was out of the loop, if Curley's testimony was accurate in that regard.
Still didn't find DPW's supposed "Judicial Authority" I see.
Chambers never testified to the bet of my knowledge. I know on no public testimony of her. If you have a link pleas post it. Or like your "Judicial Authority" claim, is just more of your "Bull$hit."
My "notion" is that Chambers call Childline on May 4 (not May 5), because that is when the Chambers Report said she did. It is very clear because that is when she said she did. It is also clear that the Chambers Report not the Childline Report. The Chambers Report includes entries written after May 4, i.e. May 5 ad May 7. It is here and people can read it for themselves: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Chambers_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
Tradition, you seem to post a lot of things that only exist in your brain.
I have never heard of an earlier one, but it is possible.
Last edited:
My notion is that Chambers call Chuldline
Please site the statute that supports either claim.
In fact, there is no requirement that Penn State has to work for a violation of law, or a finding from DPW, to fire anyone.
Please site the statute that supports either claim.
In fact, there is no requirement that Penn State has to work for a violation of law, or a finding from DPW, to fire anyone.
You're the one with all the free time. Google it.
I don't have to. If the claim is made, it will be up to the person claiming it to provide that proof.
I could very easily find a Paterno reference that said he was the mastermind of a coverup, but that would not be proof that he was.
Are you this pompously presumptuous when you visit other forums, or is that behavior reserved for this one?
First off, you should watch OJ made in America. The complexity of DNA evidence had nothing to do with it.
Second, MM isn't changing his story now. No way is he risking his judgement which is under appeal.
Third, it's not complicated. A defendant claiming he was only told of horseplay once referred to sexual contact between an adult and a child under 12 as "play". The argument can be made that even if he was told it was something sexual there's a chance he would define it as horseplay.
Fourth, and most importantly, given the emails and Schultz testimony it's hard to believe MM told them it was horseplay. They may have decided it was horseplay going by MM's limited LOS (line of sight), 98, and what Sandusky told them. That's not the same thing as MM saying it was horseplay.
You guys forget they had a plan to contact DPW and changed it. That's going to be a problem in a court of law.
I read everything and can find a lot of "Joe knew" comments insisting that he covered everything up. I don't agree with them.
You seem to that that because someone posted on this site, it must be true.
You're avoiding the question yet again. This seems to be a recurring issue with you.
I don't agree with you characterization, but I do treat the poster here with the respect he or she deserves.
When someone says something and can back it up, I respect the post and the poster, even if I disagree with it. We have two examples of posters that expect to be believed only because they posted it here, and get offended when called on it.
I'm still waiting for these supposed "relationships" I have that you have alluded to, but that don't exist. That would come under the heading of you, "avoiding the question again."
Last edited:
It clearly offended you to be called out for intentionally misrepresenting the facts last Friday. So as you are 1) now a documented liar, and 2) clearly defensive about that fact being discussed, I will likewise keep my own counsel on how you should be treated.
But one place that you will absolutely not do well is on a witness stand under cross examination.
With which individuals did I claim you have relationships? I'm ever so bad at names.
It clearly offended you to be called out for intentionally misrepresenting the facts last Friday. So as you are 1) now a documented liar, and 2) clearly defensive about that fact being discussed, I will likewise keep my own counsel on how you should be treated.
But one place that you will absolutely not do well is on a witness stand under cross examination.
You didn't like how I characterized a point of Schultz's testimony, so I posted it, with a link.
Perhaps it is not your memory, but your honesty.
You mentioned two names, Lauro and Houston.
I know who Jerry Lauro is, but I had to Google Houston. The only reference I found, as related to this topic that a Richard Houston was Lauro's supervisor in 1998.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/05/did-missing-documents-from-schultz-file.html
(You will note that this is from Blehar's blog; The other reference was Arrow Ministries, in Houston, Texas.)
So far as I know, I've never had any relationship with either person (if that is the Houston to whom you refer). I couldn't rule out that you as being either one of those individuals, for example. I did check to see if there was a Richard Houston that attended Penn State; there were none listed.
I stated that I know a lot of people. I don't know either Jerry Lauro or a Richard Houston and had not heard of the former until his name came out in regard to Sandusky.
So, since you claimed "relationships" please explain them. So far you have a conspiracy theory with no conspirators.
It's not rocket science. All 3 of you worked for the PA Department of Public Welfare in 1998 (the year in which you "retired").
I don't think that's correct, at least according to MM's testimony. In the 12/16/11 prelim MM said:
Pg. 67: MM said he and his dad decided right away that Joe needed to know what happened before Dr. D even came over. They considered calling the police but didn't even though MM was “perfectly confident he saw a serious or severe sexual act”.
**Huhhh??? How in the world does that make ANY sense??** Joe definitely needs to know but the police don't need to be informed about a suspected severe sexual act with a kid?? This is why MM's non sequitur testimony will get destroyed on the stand.
There's also this contradictory exchange between MM and Roberto:
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?
A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.
Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
============
In short, MM thought there was intercourse and or fondling but couldn't verify either since he couldn't see anything (and its his word against C/S as to what was reported to C/S). It all goes back to the sounds/positions for Mm. This is the state's lynch pin to pull in PSU. It's relying on MM pure unverified speculation about the sex acts that were supposedly occurring and MM's uncorrobroated claims that he told the admins about suspected abuse (vs a shower that made him feel uncomfortable). I'd say that since MM couldn't verify any of his suspicions re: JS, taking MM's vague report to the state licensed phd expert at TSM who had direct control over JS' access to kids was the next best thing they could do since MM apparently didnt feel strongly enough to file a police report.
Apparently the state is throwing the book at college admins for not recognizing the groomong red flags (inappropriate showers, etc) of a pillar of the community offender while leaving the actual child care experts running the victim farm state licensed charity, who received multiple complaints about JS over the years (see Kitty Genovese quote about having to tell JS to "back off" certain kids in the past), go completely free without a single charge. Hmm yeah that makes perfect sense. Lets hold the admins to a higher standard than the experts who are supposed to see these red flags, etc.
If you want to see a conplete 180 from the PAOAG's actions toward PSU just look at the Mich AG in the Nassar case. There were multiple contemporaneous complaints made directly to MSU staff who told those people they didn't know what they were talking about (due to ththe grooming people had the wool pulled over them). We see the Mich AG actually defer to MSU and their internal investigation as to whether or not there will be MSU folks charged. Whaaaaaa?!?
Last edited:
Similar threads
