Sandusky/CSS/Penn State - unknown info

[Zenophile]

So your take is that Victim 2 is NOT the person who says he is Victim 2, not the person who Jerry says is Victim 2, not the person that Joe Amendola says is Victim 2, and not the person who received a payout for being Victim 2. Instead, Victim 2 is a person "known only to God" who has never come forward in spite of an incredible financial incentive to do so. Sounds like a reasonable take....

Very well put.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

For 2001, the released discovery list (which was taken down a couple hours later) mentioned 17 pages of emails from February 12, 2001 to June 5, 2001. Blehar has mentioned we are missing a communication between Schultz and Harmon regarding why he wanted the 1998 incident on Feb 12.

I want to laser focus on this, and also add that the Freeh team claimed to have reviewed 3,000,000 "documents", yet the report only presented (inre) 7 emails. out of order. out of context. some with credible evidence they were doctored.

I do not believe for a moment these men exchanged a mere 7 emails in regards to the 2001 McQueary incident. Why haven't we seen ALL emails?

 

[ChiTownLion]

Notice I said a report of child abuse. Courtney was called for that. This further was not a report of "grooming" but sex with a small boy.

lol, really?

 

[TenerHallTerror]

lol, really?

View embedded media

wasn't the title of Courtney's folder "suspected child abuse"??

 

[Nellie R]

I should say, in a digital format. The things were not sent digitally. There was no digital record either,

Notice I said a report of child abuse. Courtney was called for that. This further was not a report of "grooming" but sex with a small boy.

Knock yourself out: http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/MCQUEARY TRANSCRIPT OF 10 17 16 PM.pdf

 

[Stufftodo]

lol, really?

View embedded media

You should go with what he stated under oath, and that he did recommend that DPW be contacted.

"Courtney received a call from Schultz requesting legal advice. The call involved a report of “horseplay in the showers that made a graduate assistant coach uncomfortable,” Courtney testified.

Courtney advised Schultz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare after reviewing the law regarding the incident." (Emphasis added)

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_c1d0e926-9486-11e6-8ec0-ff7510563b72.html

I don't know what the folder said, but Courtney billed under "suspected child abuse." His bill is attached to the Freeh Report.

 

[marshall23]

So your take is that Victim 2 is NOT the person who says he is Victim 2, not the person who Jerry says is Victim 2, not the person that Joe Amendola says is Victim 2, and not the person who received a payout for being Victim 2. Instead, Victim 2 is a person "known only to God" who has never come forward in spite of an incredible financial incentive to do so. Sounds like a reasonable take....

And in JS's recent hearing prosecutor asked AM if he had ever been abused. AM answered in the affirmative. Anyone curious why the question would not have been framed to define the abuser as Jerry Sandusky?

 

[Nellie R]

You should go with what he stated under oath, and that he did recommend that DPW be contacted.

"Courtney received a call from Schultz requesting legal advice. The call involved a report of “horseplay in the showers that made a graduate assistant coach uncomfortable,” Courtney testified.

Courtney advised Schultz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare after reviewing the law regarding the incident." (Emphasis added)

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_c1d0e926-9486-11e6-8ec0-ff7510563b72.html

I don't know what the folder said, but Courtney billed under "suspected child abuse." His bill is attached to the Freeh Report.

Is there a reason you refer to media articles instead of going to the actual court documents and reading them?

It is wrong to rely on a media representation as a primary source. Yes, student newspapers are great, but most of them are not attorneys and to rely on a 2nd-party interpretation is disingenuous.

You also just disproved your theory, btw. "Suspected" is not the same as definite. And nowhere in your newspaper quotes does it say "sex with a small boy" was reported to him.

Here's what you claimed: "This further was not a report of "grooming" but sex with a small boy."

Various people have been telling you for a week now that is not the case. Now you just proved it to yourself, so we are all finally in agreement and can stop beating a dead horse.

~~~~~~~~~~~

We already know calling DPW was on the table. We also do not know, because there has not been a trial yet (because constitutional rights were violated in a GJ), whether someone such as TOM HARMON was instructed to do so and did or did not, or if it was done and DPW expunged the record.

In the JS case, they never ASKED the one person about this, the question in the GJ was based on the WRONG DATE, and the answer was, no record of 2002. They never asked about 2001, and they never asked the right person from DPW either.

Finally, there is as Didier started out saying, much missing, because only selected GJ transcripts were made public.

 

[ChiTownLion]

You should go with what he stated under oath, and that he did recommend that DPW be contacted.

"Courtney received a call from Schultz requesting legal advice. The call involved a report of “horseplay in the showers that made a graduate assistant coach uncomfortable,” Courtney testified.

Courtney advised Schultz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare after reviewing the law regarding the incident." (Emphasis added)

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_c1d0e926-9486-11e6-8ec0-ff7510563b72.html

I don't know what the folder said, but Courtney billed under "suspected child abuse." His bill is attached to the Freeh Report.

"Notice I said a report of child abuse. Courtney was called for that. This further was not a report of "grooming" but sex with a small boy."

Show us where Courtney stated under oath that he received a report about "sex with a small boy." Or are you intentionally trying to derail the thread?

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Is there a reason you refer to media articles instead of going to the actual court documents and reading them?


It is wrong to rely on a media representation as a primary source. Yes, student newspapers are great, but most of them are not attorneys and to rely on a 2nd-party interpretation is disingenuous.

You also just disproved your theory, btw. "Suspected" is not the same as definite. And nowhere in your newspaper quotes does it say "sex with a small boy" was reported to him.

Here's what you claimed: "This further was not a report of "grooming" but sex with a small boy."

Various people have been telling you for a week now that is not the case. Now you just proved it to yourself, so we are all finally in agreement and can stop beating a dead horse.

I can't believe we're wasting time arguing with a knuckle dragging moron who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "suspected"

 

[Stufftodo]

Is there a reason you refer to media articles instead of going to the actual court documents and reading them?

It is wrong to rely on a media representation as a primary source. Yes, student newspapers are great, but most of them are not attorneys and to rely on a 2nd-party interpretation is disingenuous.

You also just disproved your theory, btw. "Suspected" is not the same as definite. And nowhere in your newspaper quotes does it say "sex with a small boy" was reported to him.

Here's what you claimed: "This further was not a report of "grooming" but sex with a small boy."

Various people have been telling you for a week now that is not the case. Now you just proved it to yourself, so we are all finally in agreement and can stop beating a dead horse.

~~~~~~~~~~~

We already know calling DPW was on the table. We also do not know, because there has not been a trial yet (because constitutional rights were violated in a GJ), whether someone such as TOM HARMON was instructed to do so and did or did not, or if it was done and DPW expunged the record.

In the JS case, they never ASKED the one person about this, the question in the GJ was based on the WRONG DATE, and the answer was, no record of 2002. They never asked about 2001, and they never asked the right person from DPW either.

Finally, there is as Didier started out saying, much missing, because only selected GJ transcripts were made public.

Well, because I didn't realize that the transcript was up.

If you read Courntey's testimony, he felt that it should be reported and that the decision would be up to DPW. In other words, he was not making the call.

As to "sex with a small boy" that is what McQueary reported. Even before this, (Schultz had not talked to McQueary at this point) Courtney advised Schultz to call DPW. It did not have anything to do with "grooming."

 

[ChiTownLion]

Clever tactic, troll. Allege that Courtney received a report about "sex with a small boy" and hopefully divert everyone's attention from these important questions:

Thought I'd start a thread approaching this well-worn subject from a different angle. Rather than rehashing and debating what information is known about the whole subject I thought I'd start a list of specific information that has not been made available. Again, this is information we know the OAG has in their possession but the rest of us have not seen.

For instance, with the 1998 incident we have not yet seen the following:

1. Second sting operation pages in the police report. NBC's release was missing those. I've contacted them to see if they would release them. They said they would barring any legal/law enforcement issues. That was a year and a half ago.

2. Handwritten note given to PSU officer Schreffler by V6s mother following the sting

3. Missing pages from Schreffler and John Miller's (CYS) interview with victim 6.

4. Audio tape from above interview.

5.) 25 page interview of second victim BK by Schreffler and Miller

5. Missing pages from counselor John Seasock's report (not clear if those were ever available)

6.) Letter attached to Seasock's report

7.) Childline intake report

8.) DPW report of Suspected Abuse

9.) Grand Jury testimony of ADA Karen Arnold regarding why Ray Gricar didn't bring charges

10.) Grand Jury testimony from PSU Investigator Wayne Weaver

11.) Grand Jury testimony from CYS Director Terry Watson and caseworker John Miller

12.) Grand Jury testimony from Genovese and Raykovitz regarding whether they were informed of the 1998 incident.

13.) Hardcopy of email written May 27, 1998 between Harmon and Schultz regarding CYS Director speaking with Ray Gricar

For 2001, the released discovery list (which was taken down a couple hours later) mentioned 17 pages of emails from February 12, 2001 to June 5, 2001. Blehar has mentioned we are missing a communication between Schultz and Harmon regarding why he wanted the 1998 incident on Feb 12.

For Second Mile we know that the box of records titled 'S' went missing. Whether it was ever recovered has never been stated. In addition, the full GJ testimony from Genovese and Raykovitz regarding their knowledge.

Obviously as it stands we are missing a lot of information on this case. In fact, I think we have far less information available than was made public. OAG usually withholds some of their case until trial, of course, but this seems to be far more than usual. We know the above exists...it's not speculation. But will we ever see it?

 

[WeR0206]

Is there a reason you refer to media articles instead of going to the actual court documents and reading them?

It is wrong to rely on a media representation as a primary source. Yes, student newspapers are great, but most of them are not attorneys and to rely on a 2nd-party interpretation is disingenuous.

You also just disproved your theory, btw. "Suspected" is not the same as definite. And nowhere in your newspaper quotes does it say "sex with a small boy" was reported to him.

Here's what you claimed: "This further was not a report of "grooming" but sex with a small boy."

Various people have been telling you for a week now that is not the case. Now you just proved it to yourself, so we are all finally in agreement and can stop beating a dead horse.

~~~~~~~~~~~

We already know calling DPW was on the table. We also do not know, because there has not been a trial yet (because constitutional rights were violated in a GJ), whether someone such as TOM HARMON was instructed to do so and did or did not, or if it was done and DPW expunged the record.

In the JS case, they never ASKED the one person about this, the question in the GJ was based on the WRONG DATE, and the answer was, no record of 2002. They never asked about 2001, and they never asked the right person from DPW either.

Finally, there is as Didier started out saying, much missing, because only selected GJ transcripts were made public.

A few points of clarification...

If Courtney looked the statute up correctly in 2001 he would have told Schlultz that if they wanted to report suspected/possible abuse that it would need to be done ASAP via phone call to ChildLine and via writing within 48 hrs to CC CYS, NOT DPW two weeks later. The whole DPW issue is a red herring by Freeh.

The only reason DPW was on the table two weeks later was if JS tried to pull the "I'm a child care expert what do you guys know" card with the admins when they confronted him about his inappropriate behavior and told him his guest privileges were revoked, IOW they needed an "Independent child welfare agency" backing them up in case of push back. The plan was to also inform TSM regardless if JS agreed with their new directive or not (which completely removes any notion of a "cover up"). Apparently JS agreed with TC so there was no need to loop in DPW and they then worked with JS to inform TSM about the incident.

Also, re: the state's looking into if a report ever made it's way to CC CYS in 2002, Sassano spoke to a grand total of 2 people (boy what an exhaustive search!) one was Jerry Laruo who never even worked at CCCYS but for DPW (and who is up to his eye balls in this mess), and the other was Carol Smith who at the time of the 2010/2011 investigation was the director of CC CYS but in 2001 was a low level employee in CCCYS. Sassano also stated that he circled back with this contacts once they figured out the real year of 2001 and they still came back negative re: a report being found. This is all most likely because the report, if it was made, was determined to be unfounded and expunged. It's the same reason CC CYS/DPW had no record of 1998. Of course the state completely ignored this possibility and immediately jumped to the conclusion of FTR/EWOC somehow based only on talking to one person who actually worked at CC CYS and who may not have even been in the loop back in 2001.

 

[Stufftodo]

Clever tactic, troll. Allege that Courtney received a report about "sex with a small boy" and hopefully divert everyone's attention from these important questions:

That is what McQueary reported. I have made it clear that Courtney's billing record was fpr "suspected child abuse." That didn't have anything to do with "grooming."

And, it was sufficient for Courtney to advise Schultz to report it.

WeR0, no person remembers a report being made (though they do the1998 report). The report would be made through Childline, which would be forwarded to CC CYS. However, in 2001, the conflict of interest still existed and they would have called DPW.

No one has a recollection of what agency was contacted, when they were contacted, who contacted them, who investigated it, and the deposition of the case. The closest is Schultz who said it was a child protection agency, but could not come up with any of those details.

McQueary has indicated that he was never contacted by any agency.

Contrast this 1998, where a number of people remember the investigation.

 

[ChiTownLion]

A few points of clarification...

If Courtney looked the statute up correctly in 2001 he would have told Schlultz that if they wanted to report suspected/possible abuse that it would need to be done ASAP via phone call to ChildLine and via writing within 48 hrs to CC CYS, NOT DPW two weeks later. The whole DPW issue is a red herring by Freeh.

The only reason DPW was on the table two weeks later was if JS tried to pull the "I'm a child care expert what do you guys know" card with the admins when they confronted him about his inappropriate behavior and told him his guest privileges were revoked, IOW they needed an "Independent child welfare agency" backing them up in case of push back. The plan was to also inform TSM regardless if JS agreed with their new directive or not (which completely removes any notion of a "cover up"). Apparently JS agreed with TC so there was no need to loop in DPW and they then worked with JS to inform TSM about the incident.

Also, re: the state's looking into if a report ever made it's way to CC CYS in 2002, Sassano spoke to a grand total of 2 people (boy what an exhaustive search!) one was Jerry Laruo who never even worked at CCCYS but for DPW (and who is up to his eye balls in this mess), and the other was Carol Smith who at the time of the 2010/2011 investigation was the director of CC CYS but in 2001 was a low level employee in CCCYS. Sassano also stated that he circled back with this contacts once they figured out the real year of 2001 and they still came back negative re: a report being found. This is all most likely because the report, if it was made, was determined to be unfounded and expunged. It's the same reason CC CYS/DPW had no record of 1998. Of course the state completely ignored this possibility and immediately jumped to the conclusion of FTR/EWOC somehow based only on talking to one person who actually worked at CC CYS and who may not have even been in the loop back in 2001.

^^ This is, by far, the most reasonable interpretation of events in 2001.

Furthermore...

Now, back to the questions at hand:

For instance, with the 1998 incident we have not yet seen the following:

1. Second sting operation pages in the police report. NBC's release was missing those. I've contacted them to see if they would release them. They said they would barring any legal/law enforcement issues. That was a year and a half ago.

2. Handwritten note given to PSU officer Schreffler by V6s mother following the sting

3. Missing pages from Schreffler and John Miller's (CYS) interview with victim 6.

4. Audio tape from above interview.

5.) 25 page interview of second victim BK by Schreffler and Miller

5. Missing pages from counselor John Seasock's report (not clear if those were ever available)

6.) Letter attached to Seasock's report

7.) Childline intake report

8.) DPW report of Suspected Abuse

9.) Grand Jury testimony of ADA Karen Arnold regarding why Ray Gricar didn't bring charges

10.) Grand Jury testimony from PSU Investigator Wayne Weaver

11.) Grand Jury testimony from CYS Director Terry Watson and caseworker John Miller

12.) Grand Jury testimony from Genovese and Raykovitz regarding whether they were informed of the 1998 incident.

13.) Hardcopy of email written May 27, 1998 between Harmon and Schultz regarding CYS Director speaking with Ray Gricar

For 2001, the released discovery list (which was taken down a couple hours later) mentioned 17 pages of emails from February 12, 2001 to June 5, 2001. Blehar has mentioned we are missing a communication between Schultz and Harmon regarding why he wanted the 1998 incident on Feb 12.

For Second Mile we know that the box of records titled 'S' went missing. Whether it was ever recovered has never been stated. In addition, the full GJ testimony from Genovese and Raykovitz regarding their knowledge.

Obviously as it stands we are missing a lot of information on this case. In fact, I think we have far less information available than was made public. OAG usually withholds some of their case until trial, of course, but this seems to be far more than usual. We know the above exists...it's not speculation. But will we ever see it?

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

I can't believe we're wasting time arguing with a knuckle dragging moron who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "suspected"

 

[WeR0206]

Actually Courtney said that he left it up to the admins discretion what they wanted to do with MM's report, since you know, they weren't mandatory reporters at the time...

Courtney could recommend that IF they wanted to report it they do xyz, but they didn't HAVE to do anything and yet they still reported it OUTSIDE of PSU to Courtney and TSM. What a brilliant cover up!!

 

[WeR0206]

^^ This is, by far, the most reasonable interpretation of events in 2001.

Furthermore...

View embedded media

Now, back to the questions at hand:

Slim to none....the same chance that we ever see the email from Schultz to Harmon the morning of monday feb 12, 2001 that freeh just so happened to leave out of his report except for mentioning it in a footnote.

 

[Zenophile]

That is what McQueary reported. I have made it clear that Courtney's billing record was fpr "suspected child abuse." That didn't have anything to do with "grooming."

And, it was sufficient for Courtney to advise Schultz to report it.

WeR0, no person remembers a report being made (though they do the1998 report). The report would be made through Childline, which would be forwarded to CC CYS. However, in 2001, the conflict of interest still existed and they would have called DPW.

No one has a recollection of what agency was contacted, when they were contacted, who contacted them, who investigated it, and the deposition of the case. The closest is Schultz who said it was a child protection agency, but could not come up with any of those details.

McQueary has indicated that he was never contacted by any agency.

Contrast this 1998, where a number of people remember the investigation.

You really monitor these threads. No Other Stuff To Do?

 

[JmmyW]

FWIW, neither Dranov nor Courtney concluded that the 2001 incident fit the criteria for a legally mandated report.



But just for the sake of argument, let's assume Childline, CYS, and/or DPW was notified of the 2001 incident. What would those organizations have done considering the child was not identified?

And how would their response change if the same details were reported to them today, considering there were significant changes to the CPSL (at the end of 2014; largely due to Sandusky)?

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

You really monitor these threads. No Other Stuff To Do?

 

[Stufftodo]

Actually Courtney said that he left it up to the admins discretion what they wanted to do with MM's report, since you know, they weren't mandatory reporters at the time...

Courtney could recommend that IF they wanted to report it they do xyz, but they didn't HAVE to do anything and yet they still reported it OUTSIDE of PSU to Courtney and TSM. What a brilliant cover up!!

Courtney testified that they should report, not that they could report it if they wanted to. He stated that it would be prudent to DPW, but went on to say "... and it was my assessment that the appropriate course of conduct would be to report it and allow the Department of Public Welfare to investigate in the manner that it deemed appropriate (pp. 77-8)"

Jimmy, actually he said that he did not reach a conclusion if this was mandatory reporting case. He said, "I do not recall having drawn a conclusion." There is a difference between not reaching a conclusion and concluding something is proper.

 

[psudukie]

Jimmy hope you don't mind a question. The meeting with Courtney was before gs had any chance to talk to Mike, is that correct? Is there any information about a follow up meeting with Courtney after talking to the witness? Could one speculate that a course of action was put in place regardless of what Mike reported in the meeting with tc and gs?

Thanks jimmy.

 

[Zenophile]

Courtney testified that they should report, not that they could report it if they wanted to. He stated that it would be prudent to DPW, but went on to say "... and it was my assessment that the appropriate course of conduct would be to report it and allow the Department of Public Welfare to investigate in the manner that it deemed appropriate (pp. 77-8)"

Jimmy, actually he said that he did not reach a conclusion if this was mandatory reporting case. He said, "I do not recall having drawn a conclusion." There is a difference between not reaching a conclusion and concluding something is proper.

Look down, sport.

Jimmy hope you don't mind a question. The meeting with Courtney was before gs had any chance to talk to Mike, is that correct? Is there any information about a follow up meeting with Courtney after talking to the witness? Could one speculate that a course of action was put in place regardless of what Mike reported in the meeting with tc and gs?

Thanks jimmy.

 

[Stufftodo]

Look down, sport.

And? Even the initial report was enough for Courtney to recommend calling in DPW. Why didn't they call?

Pnnykitty, none of those people were advised by their lawyer to contact DPW.

Chitown, Courtney, by his own testimony, reached no conclusion. His testimony was "I do not recall having drawn a conclusion" in relation to mandatory reporting.

 

[moofafoo]

And? Even the initial report was enough for Courtney to recommend calling in DPW. Why didn't they call?

Ask Mike, Heim, Dranov and Raykovitz. No one else had to call in 2001, ass.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Courtney testified that they should report, not that they could report it if they wanted to. He stated that it would be prudent to DPW, but went on to say "... and it was my assessment that the appropriate course of conduct would be to report it and allow the Department of Public Welfare to investigate in the manner that it deemed appropriate (pp. 77-8)"

Jimmy, actually he said that he did not reach a conclusion if this was mandatory reporting case. He said, "I do not recall having drawn a conclusion." There is a difference between not reaching a conclusion and concluding something is proper.

Either you didn't read @JmmyW's post or you're intentionally obtuse. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and a second chance to read Jimmy's post:

FWIW, neither Dranov nor Courtney concluded that the 2001 incident fit the criteria for a legally mandated report.

View embedded media

But just for the sake of argument, let's assume Childline, CYS, and/or DPW was notified of the 2001 incident. What would those organizations have done considering the child was not identified?

And how would their response change if the same details were reported to them today, considering there were significant changes to the CPSL (at the end of 2014; largely due to Sandusky)?

 

[michnittlion]

I've said this before, but I would love to know: why on Earth would Fran Ganter, Ray Gricar, Ron Schreffler, Ralph Ralston and Steve Sloane (there's a rather interesting 5-some!!!) have had a meeting at the Lasch Building in October 1998?

Per Gricar's records, this meeting occurred. But we don't know what they talked about then.

I don't think that meeting is any sort of "red herring." I honestly think there's sort of clue there.

It would be nice if Ganter would talk one of these days.

 

[sluggo72]

I've said this before, but I would love to know: why on Earth would Fran Ganter, Ray Gricar, Ron Schreffler, Ralph Ralston and Steve Sloane (there's a rather interesting 5-some!!!) have had a meeting at the Lasch Building in October 1998?

Per Gricar's records, this meeting occurred. But we don't know what they talked about then.

I don't think that meeting is any sort of "red herring." I honestly think there's sort of clue there.

It would be nice if Ganter would talk one of these days.

We also know more than just Franny is available to discuss this, why not one of them?

 

[michnittlion]

Corbett is long gone, so the cover up wouldn't be by him.

1998, which only tangentially involves Paterno (at least to date), is exceptionally odd. Just how the DA's Office handled the case raises numerous red flags.

1. Arnold was removed, even though she was designated as the abuse prosecutor in the office.

2. No one from the DA's Office interviewed Victim 6 (though they possibly interviewed the second victim).

3. Gricar made his decision before Schreffler interviewed Sandusky. Even with Schreffler's second request Gricar still said no.

Then we have that meeting involving Gricar, Schreffler, Ralston, ADA Sloane, and Fran Ganter at the "football building" on October 13, 1998; it was about an investigation. Sloane was reported to have been involved in the case in 1998.

Ad then some strange things happened after the Freeh report was released.

1. In 9/12, Sloane was charged with getting marijuana (and some pills) from an friend in CA. He denied it at the time, but faced 7 years and $10 K fine.

2. 11/12, Spanier indicted, Curley and Schultz were re-indicted. The presentment is released and it goes into great detail about 1998; there were not charged with committing any crime in 1998.

3. 2/13, Ganter resigns as AAD and gives 24 hours notice. He cancels a previously scheduled interview with the Altoona Mirror. Despite being employed by PSU for 40+ years, there is absolutely no send off.

4. 8/13, Sloane pleads guilty, changing his position. He gets 7 years probation and a $200 (Two Hundred Dollar) fine.

Very strange.

Ah, someone else already mentioned this October 1998 meeting.

You are right. Ganter resigned very quietly.

Ganter's also the "ultimate company man." I think he knows where some of the bodies are buried on this one. But I'll bet $1000 to $10 he NEVER talks.

 

[michnittlion]

We also know more than just Franny is available to discuss this, why not one of them?

Gricar's obviously unavailable. Sloane is on the record as saying "I can't recall." I think (not 100%) sure it's the same for Schreffler.

But you are right --- legitimate questions for all four of them.

 

[psudukie]

Let's be honest about people with k owl edge coming forward... You encounter a total shit storm and it ruins your life. There are people with knowledge who won't say a word .... Trust me I wish more would stand up and be honest.

 

[sluggo72]

Ah, someone else already mentioned this October 1998 meeting.

You are right. Ganter resigned very quietly.

Ganter's also the "ultimate company man." I think he knows where some of the bodies are buried on this one. But I'll bet $1000 to $10 he NEVER talks.

looks about the same as any other person who was not a HC or AD.

http://news.psu.edu/story/266460/20...re-after-46-years-penn-state-football-program

 

[michnittlion]

Let's be honest about people with k owl edge coming forward... You encounter a total shit storm and it ruins your life. There are people with knowledge who won't say a word .... Trust me I wish more would stand up and be honest.

True. Maybe one of them when on their deathbed. Likely the only way.

 

[michnittlion]

looks about the same as any other person who was not a HC or AD.

http://news.psu.edu/story/266460/20...re-after-46-years-penn-state-football-program

Here on February 27. Gone on February 28 --- which wasn't even a Friday, waiting to the end of the week!

After 46 years, gone in the blink of an eye ..........

Obviously he got cold feet on the aforementioned Neil Rudel interview also.

 

[sluggo72]

Here on February 27. Gone on February 28. After 46 years, gone in the blink of an eye ..........

did you want him to stick around and work for free? There has to be an end date, lets face it by then most of his 'buddies' were gone, so who did you want him to hang out with, BO'B?? I doubt he could stand to be around BO'B, just my opinion.

 

[Stufftodo]

I have heard that some people are not taking, publicly, until the trial. Some are witnesses, but there might be some tipsters as well.

If it were me, I would not want to damage the prosecution's or defense's case by speaking out of turn.

Oh, it was on Sloane's Dictaphone. He might be a key figure.

 

[JmmyW]

Jimmy hope you don't mind a question. The meeting with Courtney was before gs had any chance to talk to Mike, is that correct? Is there any information about a follow up meeting with Courtney after talking to the witness? Could one speculate that a course of action was put in place regardless of what Mike reported in the meeting with tc and gs?

Thanks jimmy.

I don't mind a question at all. (Or even three questions ;-)

Schultz met Courtney before he & Curley met with Mike, which was about 9-10 days later.

I've seen no information that suggests there was a follow-up meeting between Schultz & Courtney, after Schultz had met with Mike.

You can speculate anything you want to. Anything at all. Especially on this message board. (But it's generally helpful to clarify when you're engaging in speculation. Oh, and it's helpful to cite and link your sources.)

 

[sluggo72]

I've said this before, but I would love to know: why on Earth would Fran Ganter, Ray Gricar, Ron Schreffler, Ralph Ralston and Steve Sloane (there's a rather interesting 5-some!!!) have had a meeting at the Lasch Building in October 1998?

Per Gricar's records, this meeting occurred. But we don't know what they talked about then.

I don't think that meeting is any sort of "red herring." I honestly think there's sort of clue there.

It would be nice if Ganter would talk one of these days.

well if I had to guess, Sloane wanted to know from Franny where the players were getting their weed, he maybe wanted in on that business, Gricar was to provide cover. As good as guess as any, especially if no one can remember.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_9b431e64-f3ee-11e2-99d8-0019bb30f31a.html

 

[michnittlion]

well if I had to guess, Sloane wanted to know from Franny where the players were getting their weed, he maybe wanted in on that business, Gricar was to provide cover. As good as guess as any, especially if no one can remember.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_9b431e64-f3ee-11e2-99d8-0019bb30f31a.html

Yep --- that certainly explains the presence of ALL of (1) a Penn State detective, (2) a State College detective, (3) folks from Bellefonte, and (4) a representative of the football program (Joe Pa's right-hand man, but not the other coordinator at the time, of course).

Sloane, IMO, is lying when he says he "doesn't recall."