Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal

[Stufftodo]

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").

Lauro and Houston worked for the PA A Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children Youth and Families (or whatever the name was then). That is one of the subdivisions of the Office, which visiting the Department's website will easily verify. Office of Children Youth and Families. http://dhs.pa.gov/learnaboutdhs/index.htm

"Office" is a term for a subdivision of the agency. Under that, there are further subdivisions each called a "Bureau."

I never worked for the Office of Children Youth and Families (or its predecessor agencies, if they changed the name). Nor did I ever have a supervisory or support role over that Office. And I will be happy to detail my employment after the trial starts.

Now, if you assume that I worked for DPW, then you would have to know that the agency possibly had between approximately 10,000 and 15,000 employees in 1998, spread out across the state. I do know a lot of people but quite that many.

Now, you might find some other connections quite interesting, but they may just point in the opposite direction. LOL!!!

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Is that Buterbaugh, Jockstraps female counterpart from CDT?

Think she'll be annoyed that JJ refers to her here as "that person?"

 

[Royal_Coaster]

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.

Why weren't TSM and Raykovitz made aware of the 1998 incident? Whose job was that? Wouldn't it be DPW or CYS-- you know that agency that partnered with them?

 

[Stufftodo]

Royal, you still have not managed to show a "relationship" between anyone and the Board, OAG, Corbett, or anyone else.

So, take your pick:

Why weren't TSM and Raykovitz made aware of the 1998 incident? Whose job was that? Wouldn't it be DPW or CYS-- you know that agency that partnered with them?

In theory, Lauro should have contacted TSM (and should have contacted Chambers). He knew who filed the report.

The Chambers Report, so far as her conclusions were involved, were not admissible in court in 1998 or 2012 (which is why there is no testimony from her). Lauro, even in 1998, could have used it to make their finding. As far as is known, he never talked to Chambers.

Can someone please explain the freeh/fina logic to me. Why would the PSU admins supposedly conspire to cover up in 2001 (when JS wasn't even an employee at PSU anymore) but didn't in 1998 when every agency under the sun was involved (when JS was still a PSU employee or in the process of retiring, etc.) and UPPD took the mother's complaint and forwarded it to CC CYS??

I submit this as at least a good possibility. In 1998 there was an "arrangement" made not to prosecute Sandusky; the DA's Office decided not to prosecute Sandusky if he "received help with the problem." Somebody (possibly plural) was suppose to see that Sandusky would no longer be a threat to children. Nothing illegal in this and we have seen such "arrangements" made in Cambria County.

The evidence supporting this is:

A. Arnold's removal from the case.

B. Nobody from the DA's Office interviewing at least one (and possibly both) of the victims.

C. Closing the case before Sandusky was interviewed.

D. Schultz's email from the period that focus on Seasock and the DPW investigation and not of the criminal one.


In 2001, McQueary saw Sandusky. Somebody (possibly plural) in the chain from Paterno to Spanier knew those details and didn't want the scandal (which could involve the NCAA coming in as well). They hid it.

This would explain the emphasis on 1998 in CSS indictment of 01/01/12; they are not charged with anything from 1998.

 

[colt21]

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.

You're stretching it on the TSM not knowing in 1998 std - just need to let you know that - there is no way that a childline report was made and they weren't informed

 

[indynittany]

.....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.

The 'option' to involve DPW remained on the table, but was always contingent upon what Jerry would do, not what he had done. The only change proposed by Curley was to include Sandusky among those to be informed.

You are intentionally misinterpreting the emails. Why? What's your agenda here?

 

[WeR0206]

Can someone please explain the freeh/fina/STD logic to me. Why would the PSU admins supposedly conspire to cover up in 2001 (when JS wasn't even an employee at PSU anymore) but didn't in 1998 when every agency under the sun was involved (when JS was still a PSU employee or in the process of retiring, etc.) and UPPD took the mother's complaint and forwarded it to CC CYS??

In 2001 what motive would the PSU admins have to cover up the supposed heinous crimes of an EX employee when they didn't even try to cover up for him while he was actually still employed by PSU during a similar incident (just like 2001, 1998 was reported OUTSIDE of PSU)??

The state's/STD's argument doesn't even pass the most rudimentary test of logic.

Oh yeah and don't forget that in 2001 the PSU admins never told the one and only witness to keep quiet and reported the incident OUTSIDE of PSU to outside counsel WC and also to JR at TSM who was required to look into any and all incidents no matter how benign. That's one hell of a "cover up"! If they were trying to cover up 2001 there's no way in hell they'd tell someone like JR (whom the admins had no control over and whom was a mandatory reporter) ANYTHING.

 

[Stufftodo]

You're stretching it on the TSM not knowing in 1998 std - just need to let you know that - there is no way that a childline report was made and they weren't informed

No way that Gricar wouldn't have prosecuted the case either, but he didn't. Lauro has never said that he told them. Courtney, I think, didn't know that there was an incident in 1998 until he read about it in 2011.

Was Lauro told it was taken care of? Did Lauro assume it was taken care of?

Nothing would have prevented Lauro from talking to Chambers, and he had to have known that Chambers reported it, even by asking the mother or Victim 6.

I have not heard anyone suggest that Lauro did a good job in 1998. I just question if TSM was in the loop in 1998.

 

[indynittany]

Well, let's just be clear that Raykovitz was out of the loop, if Curley's testimony was accurate in that regard.....

Jack "just tell Jerry to wear swim trunks" Raykovitz does not have being out of the loop as an option or an excuse.

 

[Zenophile]

No way that Gricar wouldn't have prosecuted the case either, but he didn't. Lauro has never said that he told them. Courtney, I think, didn't know that there was an incident in 1998 until he read about it in 2011.

Was Lauro told it was taken care of? Did Lauro assume it was taken care of?

Nothing would have prevented Lauro from talking to Chambers, and he had to have known that Chambers reported it, even by asking the mother or Victim 6.

I have not heard anyone suggest that Lauro did a good job in 1998. I just question if TSM was in the loop in 1998.

Do District Attorneys commonly pursue criminal prosecution in cases where the DPW has made an "Unfounded" designation?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

The 'option' to involve DPW remained on the table, but was always contingent upon what Jerry would do, not what he had done. The only change proposed by Curley was to include Sandusky among those to be informed.

You are intentionally misinterpreting the emails. Why? What's your agenda here?

One of the worst decisions looking back. You talk about other peoples agenda like you're on the level. Correct me if I'm wrong you actually do have a relationship with TC.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Why weren't TSM and Raykovitz made aware of the 1998 incident? Whose job was that? Wouldn't it be DPW or CYS-- you know that agency that partnered with them?

Of course DPW is REQUIRED by PA CPS Law to notify the participating charity of the Childline Report & DPW Investigation AND put in place a "Child Protection Plan" with the cooperation of the charity until the investigation is complete and findings rendered. Lauro never did any of this despite being assigned to Chambers' Childline Report as a result of the manner in which Chamber made the report (i.e., identified herself as the child's personal therapist, a licensed Child Psychologist and therefore a "Mandatory Reporter" under the law...and identified that the incident happened while participating in a TSM Program....and that DPW's Centre County CYS was conflicted in regards to TSM as they had an Agency Relationship with TSM). Go figure that DPW was notified of all of this in the Childline Report by Chambers and yet still failed to uphold the law in regards to TSM and creating a Child Protection Plan in regards to the incident and DPW's investigation....but it's all PSU's fault according to clown-boy here (who is conflicted himself in regards to matter as he's already admitted he worked for DPW at the time). LOL....

 

[WeR0206]

One of the worst decisions looking back. You talk about other peoples agenda like you're on the level. Correct me if I'm wrong you actually do have a relationship with TC.

You're incorrectly assuming they had the DPW option on the table for reporting suspected child abuse as opposed to them being "an independent agency concerned with child welfare" that would hellp the admins in getting JS to abide by their new directives (that JS' showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop and that he was no longer allowed to bring guests into Lasch). The law at the time required a report to be made to childline ASAP by phone and local CYS office in writing within 48 HOURS (which both Courtney and Schultz testified they believed happened-the same agency as 1998 was contacted re: MM's report)....not DPW two weeks later. DPW was on the table for a whole other reason and Indy pointed out repeatedly.

The whole "Joe told TC to not report JS to DPW' theme is a red herring by freeh which EVERYONE bought hook line and sinker without actually looking up what the law in 2001 would tell Courtney to advise.

 

[Stufftodo]

Jack "just tell Jerry to wear swim trunks" Raykovitz does not have being out of the loop as an option or an excuse.

That was in 2001; we are talking about 1998.

Do District Attorneys commonly pursue criminal prosecution in cases where the DPW has made an "Unfounded" designation?

They normally conduct their own investigations and talk to the witnesses and the suspect.

I still have not heard about all these "relationships" I'm suppose to have.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You're incorrectly assuming they had the DPW option on the table for reporting suspected child abuse as opposed to them being "an independent agency concerned with child welfare" that would hellp the admins in getting JS to abide by their new directives (that JS' showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop and that he was no longer allowed to bring guests into Lasch). The law at the time required a report to be made to childline ASAP by phone and local CYS office in writing within 48 HOURS (which both Courtney and Schultz testified they believed happened-the same agency as 1998 was contacted re: MM's report)....not DPW two weeks later. DPW was on the table for a whole other reason and Indy pointed out repeatedly.

The whole "Joe told TC to not report JS to DPW' theme is a red herring by freeh which EVERYONE bought hook line and sinker without actually looking up what the law in 2001 would tell Courtney to advise.

I don't think the decision was made with malice, but some relationships existed and I think Jerry had them fooled. I'm not even talking about Freeh or anything, just the simple fact they wanted to consult with Jerry. Again...human nature and relationships aside in addition to Jerry's manipulating everyone...it was just the wrong call. I'm not screaming burn TC or anyone, far from it. Easy to make that statement today versus the time it occurred.

 

[dshumbero]

The 'option' to involve DPW remained on the table, but was always contingent upon what Jerry would do, not what he had done. The only change proposed by Curley was to include Sandusky among those to be informed.

You are intentionally misinterpreting the emails. Why? What's your agenda here?

Things are slow for the moron on PennLive,

 

[Zenophile]

They normally conduct their own investigations and talk to the witnesses and the suspect.

That's nice. Why would a DA pursue criminal charges in a case that was designated "unfounded" by the DPW?

 

[WeR0206]

I don't think the decision was made with malice, but some relationships existed and I think Jerry had them fooled. I'm not even talking about Freeh or anything, just the simple fact they wanted to consult with Jerry. Again...human nature and relationships aside in addition to Jerry's manipulating everyone...it was just the wrong call. I'm not screaming burn TC or anyone, far from it. Easy to make that statement today versus the time it occurred.

In hindsight I'm sure A LOT of people would do things differently, including the admins. But this goes back to pillar of the community offenders grooming entire communities to think they'd be the last person who would ever hurt a kid. Same thing happened at MSU with Nassar but at an even greater scale. People thought the very notion that Nassar was abusing these kids/students was absurd due to all the good will he had built up in the community over the years, and this was even with adult student athletes making complaints (not just kids) and even they were rebuked.

 

[AvgUser]

... but we won't know what MM said exactly.

However, we do know how EVERYONE whom Mike spoke to reacted about what they were told. At least three different audiences separated by time and distance all reacted the same. The conclusion is obvious.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

However, we do know how EVERYONE whom Mike spoke to reacted about what they were told. At least three different audiences separated by time and distance all reacted the same. The conclusion is obvious.

They all felt obligated to raise it to someone else? Sorry there was nothing obvious about it, but some can pretend that. It's actually still not very clear to this day why the lack of action occurred, but they seemed to remember MM being upset by it. Part of the problem is that lack of clarity, but daring to say something is gray still on this site...is crazy. Everyone has it all figured out.

 

[didier]

Why weren't TSM and Raykovitz made aware of the 1998 incident? Whose job was that? Wouldn't it be DPW or CYS-- you know that agency that partnered with them?

CYS was supposed to inform them.

 

[didier]

That's nice. Why would a DA pursue criminal charges in a case that was designated "unfounded" by the DPW?

I think Gricar made his decision not to prosecute before Lauro decided not to indicate.

In fact I'd go as far as to say Gricar had made his decision before Lauro even made it up to State College.

 

[colt21]

No way that Gricar wouldn't have prosecuted the case either, but he didn't. Lauro has never said that he told them. Courtney, I think, didn't know that there was an incident in 1998 until he read about it in 2011.

Was Lauro told it was taken care of? Did Lauro assume it was taken care of?

Nothing would have prevented Lauro from talking to Chambers, and he had to have known that Chambers reported it, even by asking the mother or Victim 6.

I have not heard anyone suggest that Lauro did a good job in 1998. I just question if TSM was in the loop in 1998.

two things
1) I agree 100% with your last statement about the job that Lauro did (or did NOT do) in '98 - there is just NO excuse for that~!

2) it doesn't matter if HE (Lauro) notified TSM - if a Childline report went in then they WILL BE NOTIFIED by the state - that's the process -

 

[Stufftodo]

two things
1) I agree 100% with your last statement about the job that Lauro did (or did NOT do) in '98 - there is just NO excuse for that~!

2) it doesn't matter if HE (Lauro) notified TSM - if a Childline report went in then they WILL BE NOTIFIED by the state - that's the process -

Who does the reporting? It is not automated.

We both know that it should have been reported, but "should have been" does not mean "was."

Still waiting for your answer about the"relationships" answer, Zero.

You know, a good attorney never asks a question unless he knows the answer. I would probably never be asked the question on cross.

That's nice. Why would a DA pursue criminal charges in a case that was designated "unfounded" by the DPW?

Well, for one, because it was a strong case. You seem to be operating under the delusion that any DA's decision is required to based on DPW's decision. Please cit that, Royal has had a problem with it.

Further, as didier noted, Gricar made his decision before Lauro made his. Maybe Gricar is a time traveler as well?

 

[indynittany]

One of the worst decisions looking back. You talk about other peoples agenda like you're on the level. Correct me if I'm wrong you actually do have a relationship with TC.

It was only a poor decision in retrospect. At the time, since there was no reason to believe a child had been abused, I believe the only motivation to escalate the matter was to cover their butts. From their perspective, there was no reason to throw Jerry under the bus as long as, in Spanier's words, their "message was "heard" and acted upon". The person who should have taken a more intensive look at the matter was Jack Raykovitz.

I do have a relationship with Tim. But since I have the facts on my side, I consider myself to be on the level.

 

[Zenophile]

Still waiting for your answer about the"relationships" answer, Zero.

You know, a good attorney never asks a question unless he knows the answer. I would probably never be asked the question on cross.



Well, for one, because it was a strong case. You seem to be operating under the delusion that any DA's decision is required to based on DPW's decision. Please cit that, Royal has had a problem with it.

Can you cite a single example where a DA chose to pursue criminal charges on a case that was designated by the DPW as "unfounded"?

And I'm not an attorney. If you'd like to argue with an attorney, I'm certain that @Pennoyer would be happy to indulge you.

 

[roswelllion]

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.

Well to me the term horseplay comes from Joe's era. Quit horsing around I heard as a kid.
MM sees something that bothers him
Tells dad and Dr D BOTH of which think it isn't.worthy of anymore than tell Joe tomorrow. (They haven't changed that view in 5 years of questioning)
MM by his own admission tells Joe a watered down story. So we have a watered down version of a story that didn't warrant calling the police. Hello horseplay
JVP was savvy enough to move this up the chain of command. JS was "weird" he was also a legend in the field of helping troubled youths. Nobody wanted to falsely accuse JS.

 

[Stufftodo]

Still nothing on those "relationships" I supposedly have.

Can you cite a single example where a DA chose to pursue criminal charges on a case that was designated by the DPW as "unfounded"?

And I'm not an attorney. If you'd like to argue with an attorney, I'm certain that @Pennoyer would be happy to indulge you.

No, because those records are normally secret.

I can demonstrate, however that findings are civil, not criminal: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1451396.html. You will note that the appeal was from Commonwealth Court, which only handles civil cases.

I cannot find anything where a prosecution was based on a finding. It does not appear to play into a criminal case one way or the other. I did find that a DA is a mandatory reporter. http://www.pcar.org/laws-policy/mandated-reporting

Again, in this case, Gricar made his decision not to prosecute prior to Lauro reaching a decision.

In my experience, lawyers are wrong at least 50% of the time. It is the nature of the system.

 

[Zenophile]

Still nothing on those "relationships" I supposedly have.

Did we not resolve this earlier?

 

[roswelllion]

Royal, you still have not managed to show a "relationship" between anyone and the Board, OAG, Corbett, or anyone else.

So, take your pick:

In theory, Lauro should have contacted TSM (and should have contacted Chambers). He knew who filed the report.

The Chambers Report, so far as her conclusions were involved, were not admissible in court in 1998 or 2012 (which is why there is no testimony from her). Lauro, even in 1998, could have used it to make their finding. As far as is known, he never talked to Chambers.



I submit this as at least a good possibility. In 1998 there was an "arrangement" made not to prosecute Sandusky; the DA's Office decided not to prosecute Sandusky if he "received help with the problem." Somebody (possibly plural) was suppose to see that Sandusky would no longer be a threat to children. Nothing illegal in this and we have seen such "arrangements" made in Cambria County.

The evidence supporting this is:

A. Arnold's removal from the case.

B. Nobody from the DA's Office interviewing at least one (and possibly both) of the victims.

C. Closing the case before Sandusky was interviewed.

D. Schultz's email from the period that focus on Seasock and the DPW investigation and not of the criminal one.


In 2001, McQueary saw Sandusky. Somebody (possibly plural) in the chain from Paterno to Spanier knew those details and didn't want the scandal (which could involve the NCAA coming in as well). They hid it.

This would explain the emphasis on 1998 in CSS indictment of 01/01/12; they are not charged with anything from 1998.

So the beginning of your story makes sense. Then it falls apart. The "arrangement" who be responsible for keeping Jerry away from kids? It would have to be TSM not PSU. Second point TC and GS cover it up. Why??? It would all fall on TSM and the "arrangement" for not keeping JS away from kids. Makes no sense.
One other thought your suggested "arrangement from 1998 sounds an awful lot like the C/S/S plan of 2001.

 

[AvgUser]

It's actually still not very clear to this day why the lack of action occurred, but they seemed to remember MM being upset by it.

Help me understand here. Isn't it abundantly clear how everyone reacted after Mike spoke to them?

I agree that one will never ever know exactly what was said ten years later. However, there should be no dispute and there should be no debate that nobody felt as if a crime had been committed or that the actions they understood warranted an immediate call to police or other authorities.

I don't know how you can look at it any other way. Three different groups. Three different times. Three different places. All actions were the same. That leads to one and only one logical conclusion.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Royal, you still have not managed to show a "relationship" between anyone and the Board, OAG, Corbett, or anyone else.

So, take your pick:

In theory, Lauro should have contacted TSM (and should have contacted Chambers). He knew who filed the report.

The Chambers Report, so far as her conclusions were involved, were not admissible in court in 1998 or 2012 (which is why there is no testimony from her). Lauro, even in 1998, could have used it to make their finding. As far as is known, he never talked to Chambers.



I submit this as at least a good possibility. In 1998 there was an "arrangement" made not to prosecute Sandusky; the DA's Office decided not to prosecute Sandusky if he "received help with the problem." Somebody (possibly plural) was suppose to see that Sandusky would no longer be a threat to children. Nothing illegal in this and we have seen such "arrangements" made in Cambria County.

The evidence supporting this is:

A. Arnold's removal from the case.

B. Nobody from the DA's Office interviewing at least one (and possibly both) of the victims.

C. Closing the case before Sandusky was interviewed.

D. Schultz's email from the period that focus on Seasock and the DPW investigation and not of the criminal one.


In 2001, McQueary saw Sandusky. Somebody (possibly plural) in the chain from Paterno to Spanier knew those details and didn't want the scandal (which could involve the NCAA coming in as well). They hid it.

This would explain the emphasis on 1998 in CSS indictment of 01/01/12; they are not charged with anything from 1998.

You're not playing fair. You keep asking us to divulge information and our sources, yet you get to ramble on endlessly without divulging yours. Did I ever say anything about Corbett or the OAG or the Board? (Although I recall reading on one your extended posts on one forum or another how you planned to contact the BOT to offer your parliamentary services.) I said Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and State College. Are you getting your info from your buddies Sloane and Poppy?

 

[Stufftodo]

Did we not resolve this earlier?

No, there were supposedly more. Now, if you say there were not any, I'll be fine with that.

You're not playing fair. You keep asking us to divulge information and our sources, yet you get to ramble on endlessly without divulging yours.

I am telling you that your sources, at least the initial claims, are false. I never met Jerry Lauro nor Richard Houston; I know of Lauro from reading the news stories and had to google Houston.

I do indicate that I know a number of people in Centre County and in Philadelphia, which largely has to do me being a Penn State alum.

Did I ever say anything about Corbett or the OAG or the Board?

and

I said Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and State College.

You did say Harrisburg as well, and I don't know too many people from there.

(Although I recall reading on one your extended posts on one forum or another how you planned to contact the BOT to offer your parliamentary services.)

I recall no such offer, except commenting on who I think a number of rules in the bylaws are not particularly good and should be changed. Ironically, one is the so called "Lubrano rule," though the rule predates him.

Are you getting your info from your buddies Sloane and Poppy?

That could prove to be an interesting question, assuming that is former ADA and close Gricar friend Steve Sloane (and one of the alumni). If I did get information from him, it could be quite telling, especially if there was a way to verify it. I could then possibly have gotten information that the general public, right?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Help me understand here. Isn't it abundantly clear how everyone reacted after Mike spoke to them?

I agree that one will never ever know exactly what was said ten years later. However, there should be no dispute and there should be no debate that nobody felt as if a crime had been committed or that the actions they understood warranted an immediate call to police or other authorities.

I don't know how you can look at it any other way. Three different groups. Three different times. Three different places. All actions were the same. That leads to one and only one logical conclusion.

Yet none thought it was nothing at all and felt compelled to push it along. Very odd if it was nothing at all? That is odd, nothing at all, but yet they had to tell Joe and he had to tell TC and so on. So your conclusion maybe is clear to you but very odd to some others. I'd like to hear what they say before I make any assumption.

 

[Stufftodo]

So the beginning of your story makes sense. Then it falls apart. The "arrangement" who be responsible for keeping Jerry away from kids? It would have to be TSM not PSU. Second point TC and GS cover it up. Why??? It would all fall on TSM and the "arrangement" for not keeping JS away from kids. Makes no sense.
One other thought your suggested "arrangement from 1998 sounds an awful lot like the C/S/S plan of 2001.

Why would you think it would fall to TSM to control Penn State facilities?

 

[AvgUser]

Very odd if it was nothing at all?

I did not say it was nothing at all.

What it clearly wasn't was a situation that the recipients of Mike's tale(s) thought was necessary to elevate to law enforcement or CYS/DPW. It was a "situation" of some sort. That is why all referred it along. That it why it did not die. That is why there was never any cover-up. That is why everyone treated it like a 'sensitive" HR-type issue as opposed to a defacto child sexual assault.

Three different sets of people. Three different conversations. Three different times. Three different places. Only one follow-on reaction. What was the constant in all of that? The guy who delivered the message.

Only one of two things is possible:
1. Either mike told different stories to different people at different time; or,
2. Mike told the same story to different people at different times.

Which are these are you suggesting is truth?

 

[indynittany]

Yet none thought it was nothing at all and felt compelled to push it along. Very odd if it was nothing at all? That is odd, nothing at all, but yet they had to tell Joe and he had to tell TC and so on. So your conclusion maybe is clear to you but very odd to some others. I'd like to hear what they say before I make any assumption.

It wasn't nothing. It was a wake up call. The possibility of another he said/he said situation, like the one in '98 was real. Jerry was lucky V6 was honest and said nothing sexual took place. He and his mother could have been looking for a payday. That would have not been good for Jerry, TSM or PSU. Steps were taken in '01 to prevent that possibility from occurring in the future, but there is nothing to indicate anybody was worried that V2 was abused or would go to the authorities and claim that he was.

 

[BobPSU92]

I knew I should have invested in Vaseline back in November 2011.

 

[didier]

Curley and Schultz filed 16 sealed entries between them (may be 17) today. Interestingly, as of now, Spanier only filed 1.

 

[dshumbero]

You're not playing fair. You keep asking us to divulge information and our sources, yet you get to ramble on endlessly without divulging yours. Did I ever say anything about Corbett or the OAG or the Board? (Although I recall reading on one your extended posts on one forum or another how you planned to contact the BOT to offer your parliamentary services.) I said Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and State College. Are you getting your info from your buddies Sloane and Poppy?

Ask stuffedfullof shit to link his sources about the Paternos lying about Sandusky.