And that is fine, you would have advised MM to contact police so it would have been reported. The fact that the Dr never got clarification as to what MM saw/heard is a massive failure on his part.
Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?
- Thread starter marshall23
- Start date
I did reply. My reply was that the University policy doesn’t stop anyone from contacting police.
It may not have but would have provided CYA. He played his part well apparently.
Same goes for people on trial. Look how CSS didn't say a word and still have not. Lawyers tell their clients/witnesses to STFU....not out of the norm in any way what so ever. That doesn't excuse her twisting his words and embellishing story and presenting it that way to the world, but telling him to keep quiet is the norm.
Can you define "sexual sounds"? Also, please provide a link, as I am pretty sure MM said "no" three times, not that he didn't respond. Funny you don't seem to ever talk about the mandated reporter who was not only better trained than Paterno, he was involved in a much more timely fashion... he could have prevented all the damage to PSU.
Someone doesn't understand who leaders get results, vs how individual contributors get results.
How much clarification can one get when the witness isn't even sure what he heard or saw in the brief glance? How reliable is the report if you claim eye contact but don't even know what color the boy's hair was?
crm114pitt said:
No shit. Have you not been paying attention? There was nothing to report. From the victim himself, to MM's dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Spanier, Shultz, Raykovitz... not one acted or testified as if they received hearsay that needed to be reported. It would have worked out just fine if the BOT didn't throw everyone under the bus.
You mean Joe, or McQ? Because in this mess, everyone seems to feel Joe had more responsibility than anyone else (which is false).
By the way - do you have a copy of the University policy in 2011 regarding this type of situation? I have never seen any statement that says "but, go ahead and call police if you want".
8.B. The policy described in subparagraph (A) shall address the following areas:
8.B.(v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses.
"If the student so chooses." In other words, it is the victim's decision whether or not police are informed. Now, this isn't always the case.
I think you have misread the statute.
The words "if the student so chooses" refers to "the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying (law enforcement) authorities.The first sentence has already established the option to notify proper law enforcement authorities.
Beyond that, there is nothing in the Clery Act that requires a victim to tell anyone of an assault. So obviously a student has that choice.
I think your attempt to use the Clery Act as a justification for not contacting law enforcement authorities in the Sandusky case is misguided.
The provisions that you cited refer to procedures as relate to a known victim; which is not the case in the Sandusky matter.
I would suggest that nobody would seriously contend that the Clery Act prevents the notification of law enforcement of a sexual assault observed on campus by a known perpetrator against an unidentified student.
Wait - is in relation to the "victim" in the shower? Who was not a Penn State student?
I would love to know why that wasn’t the advice of anybody. I would also love to know why a 27 year old man would have to be advised on what to do about what he claims to have seen. It just doesn’t make sense.
Honestly, does there need to be a company policy that says that? If you know of a crime you can call the police.
The question was did the protocol apply to an unknown victim. Sure, there was nothing in the protocol preventing anyone from calling police except that that would have been violating University protocol.
I’m willing to bet that if it wasn’t Jerry in the shower but just some regular bum, the police would have been contacted immediately.
I was asked for a quote by Ralph. I gave him one that didn't make it into the story --- probably because it was not sensational.
Mike was able to tell Joe that something of a sexual nature occurred. That is all that would be needed to determine if there was suspected CSA.
For the record, I do not collaborate with John Ziegler and John Snedden. The characterization of "holy trinity" is wholly incorrect.
Cheers!
No policy can prevent any from reporting a crime. It doesn’t matter what the policy said, that’s the point. Both MM and Paterno could have went to police. If it was Paterno, the police would have just gone straight to MM.
Just to play along, if reporting a crime would have violated policy, what do you think would have happened to Joe Paterno if that is what he did?
The answer to that question is why this whole policy thing is worthless to even discuss.
Incorrect.
We have a wide range of people in at least three different PSU departments (Athletics, Finance and Business, and General Counsel) who may have contacted CYS. Harmon, as a direct report to Schultz and the head of the police, would be at the top of the list. Given the email evidence and the inconsistencies in his testimony, it is almost certain Schultz informed him of the 2001 incident.
There are more than 3 other folks as options for Victim 2, however it is rather easy to figure out the names of at least three of the other kids (aside from AM) who were associating with Jerry in 2001.
True. But that is the policy. Your beef is with every university in the country and the NCAA.
And, again, Joe was not the one to call police. He saw nothing and MM stated that he gave Joe a watered down story.
Which is why Joe should have taken the coward that was MM to the police station and had him fill out a report. Clearly, MM was incapable of doing it on his own.
Are you suggesting that Joe Paterno would have been disciplined by the University in 2001 if he called the police after hearing of a possible crime?
Fined, Suspended, Terminated? Joe Paterno? For calling the police?
That's even more delusional than most of your beliefs.
Exactly. Could you imagine the backlash if Joe got fired for reporting suspected CSA? LOL.
I still wonder WHY this has to be stated so many times:
The OAG conceded that, even if C/S/S were informed of sexual assault, under the circumstances, there was STILL no legal requirement for them to report it in 2001
Re: 1 - Chambers told me she gave her report to CYS and you are correct that is "big" (I've been saying that since 2012). DPW/CYS claimed to have never seen it, sort of. Jerry Lauro danced around it by saying the Penn State never showed him either Chambers' or Seasock's report. Well, we know that he and CYSset up the Seasock interview (over the DA's objections - not a small detail) so it is almost certain that saw the Seasock Report. Given that the Chambers report was submitted around May 7th, it is hard to believe that CYS did not share it with Lauro -- given the investigation lasted into June. Based on the evidence, it is also very clear that CYS was reluctant to investigate Jerry and thought he was innocent. Chambers rained on their parade, so Seasock got the call to rebut her report.
Re: 2 - I don't think Seasock interviewed Jerry because CYS had not notified Jerry about being under investigation until June. Also, on May 27th, the PSU police were going to interview Jerry but CYS stopped them because the protocol is for both the caseworkers and the police to be present.
Re: 3 - My take on it is that Jerry might have told Matt he donated the money. In the last interview AM gave, he stated that Jerry showed him stocks for he and Frankie Probst in the amount of 500-800 dollars. Well, that wasn't Jerry's money but money given to Jerry by another TSM donor. Also, the same donor gave $265 to the "Matthew Sandusky Association" in 1999. I asked Matt about it and he replied to the effect that he never saw the money and Jerry had it. Given there was no "Matt Sandusky Association" in 1999, I have little doubt that Matt was truthful.
Last edited:
the one that says if you're not specifically told a crime occurred, dimmy
They would have had cause to fire him. Especially as he was not a witness. The standard policy in most places when you have a second hand report of CSA is to give it to the designated authority at your institution and then leave it alone. You are not even supposed to ask about it again. I've worked with a worldwide charity and this is their policy--and we had required training on it before being permitted to work with them.
There are reasons for that. False claims or publicity of CSA can ruin a persons life--to the point of death in some cultures for the accused or accuser or both. It's one reason why the Commonwealth has a rule about expunging accusations after a certain time if found to be unfounded (and incidentally why there would be no record of any report made to the state by CSS or their subordinates if such happened--there's no way to know because it would have been expunged).
Perhaps that protocol was wrong. But it's the same protocol the NCAA put in place after all of this took place.
And then nailed them for it, ex post facto, anyway.
Here were my thoughts on Eshbach's instructions to Mike (which were not published in Cipriano's story).
"It is not unusual for an attorney to tell a client or witness not to make a public statement while a case is pending. The most troubling thing is that Eshbach knew the AG's grand jury presentment version of what Mike witnessed was not accurate, yet that version was foisted on the public as a "Finding of Fact."
Also as an FYI, Gary Schultz has posted some interesting stuff on Facebook. One thing in particular was that the AG reneged on the deal that there would be no jail time.
well they made the weird legal argument that once the law changed in 2007, C/S/S should have THEN reported the 2001 incident (even though the change in 2007 is still pretty vague that it would apply to them)
What is frustrating is that the same idiots keep making the same dumb statements over and over and over even after the have been proven wrong for years
By McQueary? I’m not sure about that. He’s has proven himself to be pretty spineless.
If you are referring to Joe, I’m not sure about that either. Joe did take it further. He took it to the people responsible for handling these situations. Once it’s in their hands, it’s out of his (I know you consider this CYA. I consider it taking the proper steps.). I really have no problem with the steps Joe took.
None. The real question you should be asking is why isn't it protocol to call the police. Guys like Osprey and GMJ will never try to find out because they won't like the response and ignore it. I ask them all to seek out experts, but they never will. Not to do so and still hammer these people shows bias. That is why there is no point arguing with them.
There's a concerted effort being made to hold people with no authority, no responsibility and no qualifications accountable, rather than those with the authority, the responsibility and the qualifications.
Did this regular bum just so happen to run a charity for at risk kids? Apples/Oranges.
There was no crime to report, so your point is moot.
Similar threads
