Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.

[ChiTownLion]

I find it sickening that the defense of the inaction is "well, something sexual between a man and a boy may have occurred, but let not worry about contacting police because the law doesn't require that from us." Fantastic... give those men medals.

Interestingly enough that is EXACTLY what our BOT DID try to do for Bruce Heim.

 

[L.T. Young]

Only if you are talking about Raykovitz. Dranov, altho probably trained in mandatory reporting, is a kidney specialist, not a child specialist who had more than one report, and JR was directly responsible for the care of his charity's clients. His duties under the law are clear. Initiate safety plan upon each report. He STILL didn't do that when notified by OAG in 2008! That makes 3 known times: '98 (DPW was required to notify him) '01 PSU notified, '08 OAG notified.

This is the one part of the scandal that's never made sense at all.

Regardless of how the narrative was crafted, even if it were accurate, how do journalists not scream about this from mountain tops?

There's zero question that he endangered the welfare of children under his supervision.

There is simply no excuse for a competent press ignoring it.

 

[L.T. Young]

It means everything.

Okay, if it's everything why didn't it come up when C/S/S met (according to them)?

All three were copied in on 98 so there isn't a single, legitimate reason it wouldn't have been part of the discussion (as they claim).

Spanier's history as a family therapist, one that specifically focused on sexuality, means he knew what grooming was. The knowledge of both 98 and 2001 is damming rather than an argument for innocence.

 

[coveydidnt]

Okay, if it's everything why didn't it come up when C/S/S met (according to them)?

All three were copied in on 98 so there isn't a single, legitimate reason it wouldn't have been part of the discussion (as they claim).

Spanier's history as a family therapist, one that specifically focused on sexuality, means he knew what grooming was. The knowledge of both 98 and 2001 is damming rather than an argument for innocence.

I"ll take "2001 SexFaire scandal was currently & embarrassingly news" for $500, Alec. My answer, in the form of a question: "What major university's budget and funding were being debated in the PA State Capital in the days just after Jerry and V2 were seen & heard in Penn State's showers?"

 

[getmyjive11]

He should have been indicted.

Yes, I believe he should have as well.

 

[getmyjive11]

LOL. I'm fine with raking Heim over the coals as well. Lots of people failed.

 

[bjf1991]

I"ll take "2001 SexFaire scandal was currently & embarrassingly news" for $500, Alec. My answer, in the form of a question: "What major university's budget and funding were being debated in the PA State Capital in the days just after Jerry and V2 were seen & heard in Penn State's showers?"

SexFaire?

Good grief.

Find a day in the last 20 years where "Sandusky" wouldn't be big news vav Penn State

 

[didier]

This is the one part of the scandal that's never made sense at all.

Regardless of how the narrative was crafted, even if it were accurate, how do journalists not scream about this from mountain tops?

There's zero question that he endangered the welfare of children under his supervision.

There is simply no excuse for a competent press ignoring it.

Are we sure he was notified in 1998? Center CYS was supposed to notify him but he and Second Mile have denied being alerted.

 

[coveydidnt]

SexFaire?

Good grief.

Find a day in the last 20 years where "Sandusky" wouldn't be big news vav Penn State

For once we agree.

After repeated embarassment & sex scandals, Spanier could ill afford to report the Sandusky matter at that time.

 

[WeR0206]

I've still yet to hear the following logic explained in the state's and trolls argument:

how does reporting an incident to folks who are mandatory reporters = "not reporting" or a cover up? That is one of the most illogical arguments I've ever seen spread on such a mass scale. Even if the admins watered the story down it still wouldn't make sense to tell anything to someone at TSM whom you had no direct control over and was required by law to look into any and all incidents.

People tend to forget that TSM was CC CYS' biggest contractor and JR did contract work for CCCYS. For all intents and purposes JR was a CYS employee. In fact TSM/CCCYS being so intertwined is the reason DPW had to be brought in to make the determination in 1998.

 

[getmyjive11]

I've still yet to hear the following logic explained in the state's and trolls argument:

how does reporting an incident to folks who are mandatory reporters = "not reporting" or a cover up? That is one of the most illogical arguments I've ever seen spread on such a mass scale. Even if the admins watered the story down it still wouldn't make sense to tell anything to someone at TSM whom you had no direct control over and was required by law to look into any and all incidents.

People tend to forget that TSM was CC CYS' biggest contractor and JR did contract work for CCCYS. For all intents and purposes JR was a CYS employee.

Sorry, but those people are not the authorities.

 

[WeR0206]

Sorry but per usual jive you don't know wtf you're talking about. DPW/CYS is THE authority as far as determining if abuse happened and reporting suspected abuse. One can report suspected abuse to LE but they will simply forward it to CYS (see 1998) bc LE doesnt have the authority to make the "indicated" determination. Only CYS/DPW can do that.

If during looking into a case CYS thinks law enforcement needs involved (to track someone down or interview adults, etc) they will loop them in.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Sorry but per usual jive you don't know wtf you're talking about. DPW/CYS is THE authority as far as determining if abuse happened and reporting suspected abuse. One can report suspected abuse to LE but they will simply forward it to CYS (see 1998) bc LE doesnt have the authority to make the "indicated" determination. Only CYS/DPW can do that.

If during looking into a case CYS thinks law enforcement needs involved (to track someone down or interview adults, etc) they will loop them in.

I am shocked gmj got a fact wrong. simply shocked

 

[Stufftodo]

Are we sure he was notified in 1998? Center CYS was supposed to notify him but he and Second Mile have denied being alerted.

Actually DPW (Lauro) was suppose to notify TSM. Raykovitz said it never happened.

 

[Nellie R]

Actually DPW (Lauro) was suppose to notify TSM. Raykovitz said it never happened.

Did Lauro ever get asked that question on the stand? If not, why not?

 

[Stufftodo]

Even more interesting is the continual ignoring of those who have seen more evidence than we:

1. PAOAG considered Paterno to have notified police via Schultz. (Fina on 60 minutes)

2. Commonwealth argued (circularly) in C/S/S case that Schultz WAS a law enforcement authority :

View embedded media

It was not that Paterno technically notified "the police." It was that, under the laws at the time, Paterno had a duty to notify his superior. He did, and there is ample evidence he did.

The only person that is charged with failure to notify (which was a summary offense at the time), is Spanier. The Commonwealth is arguing that Curley and Schultz were informed and that they, as required by the existing law at the time, reported it to their superior, Spanier. In other words, the buck stopped with Spanier under the Commonwealth's argument.

Spanier's duty was to report this to Childline, under the prosecution's theory.

The bottom line is that McQueary, Paterno, Curley and Schultz did report it according to law at the time. The law at time permitted them to report it to their respective superiors, and there is evidence they did.

 

[Stufftodo]

Did Lauro ever get asked that question on the stand? If not, why not?

Possibly, at the grand jury, but his testimony was never released. He was not called in the Sandusky trial.

Keep in mid that the only person charged with anything relating to 1998 was Sandusky. 1998, however, relates to what Schultz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno knew in 2001. There is evidence that Schultz, at least, was fully aware that Sandusky was being investigated for a possible sex crime against minors (plural) in 1998. I can at least make the argument, at least, that the other three were not aware that it was relating to sexual contact.

 

[Nellie R]

It was not that Paterno technically notified "the police." It was that, under the laws at the time, Paterno had a duty to notify his superior. He did, and there is ample evidence he did.

The only person that is charged with failure to notify (which was a summary offense at the time), is Spanier. The Commonwealth is arguing that Curley and Schultz were informed and that they, as required by the existing law at the time, reported it to their superior, Spanier. In other words, the buck stopped with Spanier under the Commonwealth's argument.

Spanier's duty was to report this to Childline, under the prosecution's theory.

The bottom line is that McQueary, Paterno, Curley and Schultz did report it according to law at the time. The law at time permitted them to report it to their respective superiors, and there is evidence they did.

You're talking to the wrong person. Try getting that through GMJ, Wally Gator and other heads.

 

[Nellie R]

Possibly, at the grand jury, but his testimony was never released. He was not called in the Sandusky trial.

Keep in mid that the only person charged with anything relating to 1998 was Sandusky. 1998, however, relates to what Schultz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno knew in 2001. There is evidence that Schultz, at least, was fully aware that Sandusky was being investigated for a possible sex crime against minors (plural) in 1998. I can at least make the argument, at least, that the other three were not aware that it was relating to sexual contact.

Tweeted that many times b4, and it's been discussed here as well. Did you create this new acct. today to give me/us instructions on what we already know?

 

[Nellie R]

It was not that Paterno technically notified "the police." It was that, under the laws at the time, Paterno had a duty to notify his superior. He did, and there is ample evidence he did.

The only person that is charged with failure to notify (which was a summary offense at the time), is Spanier. The Commonwealth is arguing that Curley and Schultz were informed and that they, as required by the existing law at the time, reported it to their superior, Spanier. In other words, the buck stopped with Spanier under the Commonwealth's argument.

Spanier's duty was to report this to Childline, under the prosecution's theory.

The bottom line is that McQueary, Paterno, Curley and Schultz did report it according to law at the time. The law at time permitted them to report it to their respective superiors, and there is evidence they did.

You missed the whole point of the post, BTW. The main point was that OAG is now arguing that a law enforcement official was notified, yet GMJ keeps going on and on and on saying one wasn't.

 

[Stufftodo]

Tweeted that many times b4, and it's been discussed here as well. Did you create this new acct. today to give me/us instructions on what we already know?

No, just trying to be clear. As far I can tell, it is is an open question if Raykovitz knew about the 1998 incident prior to 2011. Raykovitz, in a then private email in April 2011, said he hadn't known about it. There was also suppose to have a plan set up by DWP, with just the report of the incident, to keep Sandusky away from children in the program (TSM), at least until the matter was resolved. That never happened.

I'm inclined to believe Raykovitz was not notified in 1998, but would be the fault of DPW.

 

[didier]

No, just trying to be clear. As far I can tell, it is is an open question if Raykovitz knew about the 1998 incident prior to 2011. Raykovitz, in a then private email in April 2011, said he hadn't known about it. There was also suppose to have a plan set up by DWP, with just the report of the incident, to keep Sandusky away from children in the program (TSM), at least until the matter was resolved. That never happened.

I'm inclined to believe Raykovitz was not notified in 1998, but would be the fault of DPW.

Where did you see this private email?

 

[getmyjive11]

Sorry but per usual jive you don't know wtf you're talking about. DPW/CYS is THE authority as far as determining if abuse happened and reporting suspected abuse. One can report suspected abuse to LE but they will simply forward it to CYS (see 1998) bc LE doesnt have the authority to make the "indicated" determination. Only CYS/DPW can do that.

If during looking into a case CYS thinks law enforcement needs involved (to track someone down or interview adults, etc) they will loop them in.

I understand that. What I am saying is that the groups you say represent CYS/DPW are not CYS/DPW. Additionally, nothing has come indicating that C&S thought they were, so your notion lacks validity.

 

[WeR0206]

You missed the whole point of the post, BTW. The main point was that OAG is now arguing that a law enforcement official was notified, yet GMJ keeps going on and on and on saying one wasn't.

Exactly. The state is saying Spanier should have notified law enforcement but at the same time the state says one of the people who forwarded the report to Spanier was law enforcement (Schultz) so as you said it's a circular argument. The state, per usual, is trying to have it both ways.

To make their argument even more bizarre add in the fact that the state admits CSS weren't mandatory reporters in 2001 but were starting in 2007. So according to the state, starting in 2007 Spanier should have not only been keeping daily tabs on the child abuse reporting laws but he should have taken the report back to Schultz, the very person who told Spanier about the incident in 2001.

 

[getmyjive11]

I am shocked gmj got a fact wrong. simply shocked

I didn't get a fact wrong, the poster made something up on his head, grasping for straws.

 

[Stufftodo]

You missed the whole point of the post, BTW. The main point was that OAG is now arguing that a law enforcement official was notified, yet GMJ keeps going on and on and on saying one wasn't.

I think you miss the poit of my post. It isn't a claim that law enforcement was notified. It is that reporting requirements were met by McQueary, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. Those reporting requirements were met by those four but neither law enforcement, DPW, nor CYS were notified.

 

[getmyjive11]

You missed the whole point of the post, BTW. The main point was that OAG is now arguing that a law enforcement official was notified, yet GMJ keeps going on and on and on saying one wasn't.

And one wasn't. Lawyers arguing falsehoods is nothing new.

 

[Nellie R]

I think you miss the poit of my post. It isn't a claim that law enforcement was notified. It is that reporting requirements were met by McQueary, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. Those reporting requirements were met by those four but neither law enforcement, DPW, nor CYS were notified.

What I am not understanding is why you: 1. Created a new account today. and 2. Are not quoting/responding to the people that need to know these things.

@WeR0206 understands exactly what my post meant. I'm sorry if you did not.

 

[Stufftodo]

Where did you see this private email?

My error, it was Courtney regarding 1998.

 

[Nellie R]

And one wasn't. Lawyers arguing falsehoods is nothing new.

'
You have to admit it's pretty funny they are arguing things that make their case weaker.

 

[Stufftodo]

First account, not a new one. I decided to join in.

Other people do read these boards, not just the person you are responding to in your posts.

 

[Nellie R]

First account, not a new one. I decided to join in.

Other people do read these boards, not just the person you are responding to in your posts.

That's fine, but usually a new poster would introduce themselves, so people know where they are suddenly coming from.

 

[GTACSA]

Sorry but per usual jive you don't know wtf you're talking about. DPW/CYS is THE authority as far as determining if abuse happened and reporting suspected abuse. One can report suspected abuse to LE but they will simply forward it to CYS (see 1998) bc LE doesnt have the authority to make the "indicated" determination. Only CYS/DPW can do that.

If during looking into a case CYS thinks law enforcement needs involved (to track someone down or interview adults, etc) they will loop them in.

Just to be clear; law enforcement has the sole power to prosecute criminal behavior. Although an allegation of child sexual assault might be forwarded to CYS, law enforcement would continue to investigate the alleged criminal conduct independent of CYS and then determine whether criminal charges are filed.

 

[Stufftodo]

That's fine, but usually a new poster would introduce themselves, so people know where they are suddenly coming from.

Well, I don't feel the need to. If you want to see where I'm "coming from" read my posts.

 

[getmyjive11]

'
You have to admit it's pretty funny they are arguing things that make their case weaker.

One thing you should never count on with lawyers is consistency. It's never about being intellectually honest it's about winning the argument.

 

[didier]

Just to be clear; law enforcement has the sole power to prosecute criminal behavior. Although an allegation of child sexual assault might be forwarded to CYS, law enforcement would continue to investigate the alleged criminal conduct independent of CYS and then determine whether criminal charges are filed.

What if CYS is bullying the victim in his interview while law enforcement is present?

 

[Nellie R]

Just to be clear; law enforcement has the sole power to prosecute criminal behavior. Although an allegation of child sexual assault might be forwarded to CYS, law enforcement would continue to investigate the alleged criminal conduct independent of CYS and then determine whether criminal charges are filed.

How'd that work out in 1998 when the DA said they couldn't press charges or make a case because a non-indicated decision was made by DPW?

 

[Nellie R]

No, just trying to be clear. As far I can tell, it is is an open question if Raykovitz knew about the 1998 incident prior to 2011. Raykovitz, in a then private email in April 2011, said he hadn't known about it. There was also suppose to have a plan set up by DWP, with just the report of the incident, to keep Sandusky away from children in the program (TSM), at least until the matter was resolved. That never happened.

I'm inclined to believe Raykovitz was not notified in 1998, but would be the fault of DPW.

Whether he was notified in 1998 or not, please explain wife and co-director K Genovese quoted as saying: "We've had to tell him to back off certain kids before". They had more than 1-2 inklings for a professional psychologist trained in this field who is expected to pick up on multiple red flags over time to be excused.

 

[WeR0206]

Just to be clear; law enforcement has the sole power to prosecute criminal behavior. Although an allegation of child sexual assault might be forwarded to CYS, law enforcement would continue to investigate the alleged criminal conduct independent of CYS and then determine whether criminal charges are filed.

Just to be clear, we're not talking about who can prosecute, of course that falls under law enforcement. LE works hand in hand with CYS during the investigation if needed but CYS are the sole authority on whether or not child abuse aka criminal conduct (that LE would then prosecute) took place.

Re: charges involving the child, LE can do all the investigating they want and try to prosecute a case where CYS didn't "indicate" someone, but good luck with that. It's why the DA in 98 had their hands tied once DPW/CYS said it was no big deal, normal coach behavior.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Sorry, but those people are not the authorities.

those people are not the authorities........Why...as ususal - because YOU SAY SO. Facts should not cloud YOUR statements of trash! And they never do!!!!!

Look - its about time the TROLL PATROL be exposed as what they are....those who spout SH#T - They truthfully can't believe what they say - and they are only here to PERPETUATE what has become a highly visible LIE which is wrong at EVERY LEVEL.

The TROLL PATROL all know that the "victims" here are NOT those who went to court and got paid MILLIONS ...the REAL victims here are those who PAID for all of this....not just with money... but with their constitutional loss. A foundation loss of core American values caused by this fantasy "Story's" total distortion of justice and the abandonment of our core legal system for AN ENTIRE STATE.

The TROLL PATROL knows this....but THEY DON'T CARE! The "Truth" and an honest Legal Justice system has been replaced by the Politically Correct standards of someone with similar skills and values - Jerry Springer.

These guys ALL buy into that kind of mindset - that is what they are comfortable with - a value syetm based on SH#T. NOTHING OTHER THAN THIS TRASH ever comes from any of them.