The victims aren't the people who were violated by Sandusky??
You are the reason we look like loons to some people outside of PSU.
Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.
- Thread starter moofafoo
- Start date
You are the reason we look like loons to some people outside of PSU.
Again, the Dr. is just covering his ass. They asked for his subjective opinion and he gave it to him. The sexual sounds part that he testified MM told him about should have been enough to contact police. It is reasonable enough to think that something *may* have occurred.
So, basically, Dr. Dranov told Mike to STFU out of some sort of fealty to Joe Paterno. Is that it? Penn State football's toxic culture got to Dr. Dranov and threw his moral compass out of whack.
No, not at all. It seems that he didn't want to deal with it just like the rest of them. Of course, he couldn't say that or he would have created a real problem for himself.
Well, since we don't know the context, they might have felt that Sandusky was too chummy with them, replacing their parents.
Actually, no. The DPW/CYS investigation is not a criminal investigation or prosecution. It is totally separate.
As for 1998, that presents a problem. The DA made his decision not to prosecute before DPW made its determination. What DPW (Lauro) was doing did not effect the DA's decision one way or the other.
Another problem is that the DA decided not to prosecute before Sandusky was interviewed by Schreffler and Lauro.
There are a number of red flags with Gricar. Too much debate has focused on Mike and not nearly enough on the DA.
Many in the legal community, who are respected, including Tony DeBoef, have nothing but good things to say about Ray Gricar.
Although CYS is the sole authority to determine if child abuse is founded under the civil provisions of the Child Protective Services statute, law enforcement is the sole authority to determine if a crime had been committed. CYS proceedings are often put on hold pending a conclusion of the criminal investigation. Law enforcement does not need a founded report from CYS to file criminal charges as you appear to imply.
As to the '98 case, the DA decided that it was a difficult case to prosecute and chose not to. If McQueary had notified CYS and the police of what he has testified he observed, law enforcement could have filed criminal charges regardless of any CYS determination.
A lot of people had nice things to say about Jerry before 2011. Even DAs with strong track records can make bad judgement calls.
Has anyone figured out that "stuffeddoodoo" is just lionrevival under another nic? Only other trolls are giving him likes.
I never said CYS did prosecutions or criminal investigations, I said they are the only authority on whether or not there was child abuse, especially in the case of sexual child abuse.
As far as your timeline goes where are you getting your dates? If the state's own child welfare experts said no abuse happened then the DA would have a hell of a time bringing a case.
Chambers report was overruled (seemingly without question by anyone including the mom) once seasock showed up and said it was all no big deal, misunderstanding. That's where any chance of charges being brought died.
With a lot more evidence to work with than there ever was in 2001. You actually had a complainant. From 2001 to 2008 or so no one came forward on behalf of the youth in the shower to buttress a case. That was mostly because their identity was unknown. TSM was both the legal and logical place to go where Raykovitz might be expected to try and make that identification.
To be honest it was not only other "trolls".
I don't know about you, but when I first appeared here knowing I would be considered some newbie unknown person who came out of thin air to most except a few here, I tried to give some background information on why I had arrived.
I'm not sure if he was told in 98. I find it hard to believe it wasn't mentioned in 2001.
In any case Raykovitz had a responsibility to report it to the proper agency. There's a reason those protocols are in place.
RED FLAG behavior. Should have been recognized by a trained child psychologist.
Because you don't read threads or evidence, how do you explain Tom Harmon saying this then:
Line 4: Police will do in conjunction with DPW's turn facts over to DPW (illegible) will determine if crime was committed.
What part of "Police will... turn over facts to DPW/DPW will determine if crime committed" do you not understand?
Police were told to CLOSE THE CASE after this and after Gricar decided that without this and possibly other factors we don't know about,charges could not be filed. I'm not going to go find it right now, but that is what Schreffler? testified to, IIRC.
Last edited:
Emails show a conscious decision to keep it quiet by going to Sandusky and the charity rather than the designated state agency.
The "offer to get him professional help" part is especially damming.
No it's not. Please review a professional opinion of what that actually was, ref: James T Clemente. Not to mention it is likely a complete cherry-pick of only selected emails. In the previous post, as you can see, an exculpatory document surfaced in the MMQ v PSU case that was purposely left out of the Freeh Fraud. Written on same day, same notepad as their exhibit 2H or 2I.
These guys had no idea that "going to Sandusky" would tip him off so he could go into personal coverup mode, because none of them suspected he was a pedophile and were treating this as outdated, previously acceptable behavior decades ago which was now unacceptable behavior that needed to be addressed if he didn't understand why. If he didn't, they were going to have DPW ( aka "professional help") explain it to him.
Telling the employer, TSM, was part of the what Wendell Courtney advised them to do. T's were crossed, I's were dotted, and it was reported to the appropriate place under the law since none of them were professionals in determining or identifying a POC-PCSO anyway, which is obvious that none of them really thought this behavior was. TSM was the designated agency.
Last edited:
You appear to think, and correct me if I misinterpret your position, that CYS is the lead in the Child Protective Services investigation of suspected criminal sexual assault involving a minor where police are also conducting a criminal investigation. That is not correct.
Although CYS is the sole authority to determine if child abuse is founded under the civil provisions of the Child Protective Services statute, law enforcement is the sole authority to determine if a crime had been committed. CYS proceedings are often put on hold pending a conclusion of the criminal investigation. Law enforcement does not need a founded report from CYS to file criminal charges as you appear to imply.
In simple terms it is the criminal justice system which has the final word on the filing of criminal charges and not CYS.
So you look at the timeline of people who were aware that Mike saw something that made him uncomfortable. It starts the night of the incident with Mike, his dad, and Dranov... you don't seem to care that none of them called the authorities.
Next you have Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier who hear a watered down version starting the next day. They follow state law, university policy, and current NCAA guidelines. These are the folks you focus on .
Next you have Sandusky's employer, a mandated reporter at TSM... you don't seem to care that no one at TSM called the authorities.
Logically, you should focus on the people at the beginning or end of the chain, yet you focus on those in the middle exclusively. This agenda of yours is transparent to us, and since it points the focus away from those who actually failed those kids, it enables future abuse.
I appear to think? Or Thomas Harmon Chief of UPPD appeared to think or was told and was relaying this info to his boss, Schultz?
There was nothing, literally nothing at all in my post about CYS. The only mention/inference to CYS in the document was that they were NOT going to be involved further because of too much of an entanglement with Second Mile. Please read line 2 very carefully.
Last edited:
Your post of 2:35 this more interrupted a discussion I was having about the relationship of CYS investigations of alleged sexual assaults against children and criminal investigations of sexual assaults by law enforcement.
If you don't want to talk about that relationship that's fine. Carry on.
What I think king circle jerker GTA is trying to obfuscate is the following:
Child abuse = a crime. I think we all agree on that.
DPW/CYS are the sole authority on whether or not child abuse happened. So in a way they decide if the incident was criminal behavior or not (see @Nellie R excellent post above re: Schultz's note that details this). If so, then it's forwarded to LE for prosecution.
Now that isn't to say LE cant try add on certain other auxiliary crimes (that fall outside of CYS determination) such as corruption of minors, etc (this seemed to be what Schreffler wanted to do). But CYS/DPW are the ONLY agecy to determine if child abuse happened (aka a crime) per CPSL.
Once someone is "indicated" and they have criminal charges filed against them and they are convicted, then it is changed to "founded".
Child abuse = a crime. I think we all agree on that.
DPW/CYS are the sole authority on whether or not child abuse happened. So in a way they decide if the incident was criminal behavior or not (see @Nellie R excellent post above re: Schultz's note that details this). If so, then it's forwarded to LE for prosecution.
Now that isn't to say LE cant try add on certain other auxiliary crimes (that fall outside of CYS determination) such as corruption of minors, etc (this seemed to be what Schreffler wanted to do). But CYS/DPW are the ONLY agecy to determine if child abuse happened (aka a crime) per CPSL.
Once someone is "indicated" and they have criminal charges filed against them and they are convicted, then it is changed to "founded".
And how exactly do you know this for sure? How do you know what info gricar had or didn't have at the time he decided? Maybe since neither the mom nor kid were alleging absuse by JS gricar knew it would be very hard to prove JS had sexual intent?
All this chat about gricar is useless anyway, lets say he was covering for JS what does that have to do with PSU? What we know for sure is psu reported both 98 and 01 outside of the school to the folks who had direct control over JS access to kids. If people dropped the ball from there then that's on them.
Honest question, it seems there are moral reservations to reporting something you think might be true that is against the law, but are not 100% sure of, such as the risk of destroying someone's reputation that might not be guilty. Unlike, say homicide, where there is often a smoking gun or other damning evidence left behind that will require little personal investment with regards to reporting and testifying, what other reservations might someone have to report a crime? Embarrassing the suspected victim? Why wouldn't suspected CSA be as easy to report as Homicide?
You couldn't be more wrong.
As I previously posted, although CYS is the sole authority to determine if child abuse is founded under the civil provisions of the Child Protective Services statute, law enforcement is the sole authority to determine if a crime had been committed and charges filed. CYS proceedings are often put on hold pending a conclusion of the criminal investigation. Law enforcement does not need a founded report from CYS to file criminal charges as you appear to imply.
Perhaps you could provide a citation to either a Pennsylvania statute or court decision which supports your "tortured" position.
You love to play semantics don't you. You yourself admitted CYS has the sole authority to determine if child abuse happened, child abuse is a criminal action. Therefore they can determine if a crime had been committed, it's not that complicated. LE are the only ones who can prosecute and file charges but as far as crimes against the kid are concerned they all take their cues from DPW/CYS (see 1998 historical record and note that Nellie analyzed).
A "founded" report doesn't happen until AFTER the person is "indicated", charged, then convicted so I'm not sure what you're talking about re: that.
I never said LE needs an "indicated" report to file charges (since filing charges doesn't fall under CYS) but it certainly makes their case a lot easier if the state's experts agree there was abuse found vs. non expert cops trying to figure that out (which they shouldn't). If suspected abuse is reported directly to LE (instead of CYS) LE is REQUIRED to bring in CYS to determine if abuse occurred, LE can't just make that decision on their own unilaterally, as you yourself admitted.
Also as we saw with Chambers' report in 1998, LE can't even rely on an "outside" evaluation by a therapist, psychologist, etc. it must come from CYS/DPW's "expert", which in 98 was Seasock.
Back on ignore you go.
"You yourself admitted CYS has the sole authority to determine if child abuse happened,....."
You omitted some very important language which followed that cited language; "under the civil provisions of the Child Protective Services statute."
The Pennsylvania judicial system is divided into three basic divisions, Civil, Criminal and Orphans Court. CYS functions in the Civil section while law enforcement functions in the Criminal section. Any determination as to whether a crime has been committed occurs in Criminal court where CYS is not a player.
"DPW/CYS are the sole authority on whether or not child abuse happened. So in a way they decide if the incident was criminal behavior or not
That is only true as to the civil proceedings to determine if abuse has occurred under the Protective Services Act. If the abuse rises to a criminal act, then CYS does not determine if a crime occurred for purposes of prosecution.
"If suspected abuse is reported directly to LE (instead of CYS) LE is REQUIRED to bring in CYS to determine if abuse occurred, LE can't just make that decision on their own unilaterally, as you yourself admitted."
What does this have to do with the point at issue? The criminal courts do not make any determination whether child abuse has occurred; they make a determination as to whether a crime has occurred.
Perhaps we can find common ground as to the following: Law enforcement does not need a founded report from CYS to file criminal charges. That was the premise of my initial post which read: "Just to be clear; law enforcement has the sole power to prosecute criminal behavior."
So it appears we are, after all of the bickering, in the end on the same page.
The only reason that I initially responded was the positioning of some posters, in response to GMJ's position that the police should have been contacted, who maintained that as long as CYS or a mandatory reporter is notified, all is well.
First, on Chambers, her conclusions and her report were not admissible in court in 1998, though DPW could have used it. It had no legal value. The law was changed in 2012 as a result of the Sandusky case, but you will note that neither the Chambers nor Seasock Reports were used in the Sandusky trial.
Second, as to the dates, we have the police report and we have Schreffler's testimony. The DA closed the case prior to the June 1, 1998 meeting, because that is where Schreffler told Sandusky that he would be charged. He also told Lauro before that. Also Schreffler testified that he called the DA again and again recommended charges. Victim 6 testified that he was never interviewed by anyone from the DA's Office. (The other victim, B. K., could not testify in 2011-12, as he was in the Armed Forces and out of the country; he may have been interviewed.)
It is both incorrect that DPW would have to make a ruling of abuse first as a matter of law or of fact. The DA made that decision first. It is not a matter of semantics but of chronology. Actually, DPW can rule a report "founded," "indicated," or "unfounded," so there would be ambiguity on what happened in a given case.
In 2008, the report on Sandusky was "founded" and there was no indictment at that point. He actually began the appeal process of that with DPW. After he dropped it, he resigned from DPW.
I would also note that Sandusky was not "employed" by TSM/ He was a full member of the board, but he did not work for them nor was he supervised by them. He was no more "employed" by them than a member of the US House is an employee of the House.
I do agree with Hugh that it can be sensitive reporting something like child abuse, but in 1998, it had been reported.
OAG requested an in camera review with the judge regarding the Seasock report when Amendola requested a copy. The Seasock report is not what it appears to be, i.e. there's more going on there.
Except Spanier knew what grooming was in 2001. He's a former family therapist with a well documented interest in sexuality.
If they were totally clueless why would they offer to get him professional help?
In 2001, Spanier was not required to report anything. Now go back and sit on your PL commode.
