As others pointed out that is not how reasonable doubt works (in a legal sense). You cannot use reasonable doubt to show guilt, only to acquit.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Please tell me what your credentials are. Snedden’s report was fact based and is 1,000 times more credible than Louis Freeh’s opinion-based Freeh Report farce. The Freeh Report isn’t worth the paper it is written on let alone the $8.3 million the PSU BOT paid him.
You beat me too it. The Clemente report that is often cited as to why JoePa got railroaded stated that Sandusky was a monster.
The problem is this crowd likes to selectively use information:
1. Clemente report means JoePa did not know, just forget the part about saying Jerry was a monster.
2. The 2001 incident, boy says nothing happened and claimed Jerry did nothing wrong. Of course they forget that the same person told Jerry's lawyer in a deposition that someone saw the incident and reported it too PSU admin and claimed it was a sexual assault.
Can't wait to see how they twist this. In this case Snedden's opinion will have more value than Clemente even though he made a career of investigating these monsters.
No they don't, that is why there is an appeal process which has gone nowhere.
Snedden is a former NCIS Special Agent of the Year.
Clemente is also dead wrong about the Jon Bonet Ramsey case.
One thing Freeh had over Snedden is that Freeh did have access to many individual's at PSU, he did get to look at the State's evidence, etc. Snedden could not do any of that. I am not saying I agree with all of Freeh's conclusions.
Why don't we pick apart everyone of Snedden's investigations. Bet we find a few he got wrong too.
How bout Sandusky's appeals which is what I was referring too. The prosecution of the PSU admins was always shaky because of the statue of limitations. That does not mean that the PSU admins did not screw up the handling of Sandusky...very well possible that sans the statue of limitations, they did exactly what they were accused of.
I do know this, they were advised by PSU legal counsel to report the 2001 incident to the proper legal authorities and they did not. Please don't post they reported it to TSM who had an obligation to report it:
1. TSM is not an entity that has investigative authority
2. What would TSM report, they were told a story about Sandusky at PSU by PSU.
3. Since Sandusky created TSM and was it face and identity, TSM would be cutting its own throat by reporting their meal ticket. Huge conflict of interest there.
The differences between The Freeh Report and Snedden’s report are night and day. Freeh’s report didn’t list who was interviewed, what questions were asked and what the specific answers were. Freeh has admitted that his report was opinion-based. Freeh was paid to ensure that his opinion was consistent with his clients (old guard PSU BOT, Corbett, OAG) objectives to reinforce their false narratives and absolve them of any blame.
Snedden listed the 14 people he interviewed including Spanier, Schultz, Curley, Garban, Ericsson, and Baldwin. He included the answers that they provided and you can infer the questions. Snedden’s Report was 100% fact-based. Snedden’s motivation for the Report was national security to determine if Spanier could be trusted with our nation’s most sensitive secrets.
Below, I have listed the Pillar of the Community CSA cases that Snedden has investigated:
Once PSU told TSM that Sandusky was alone with a child on their campus, TSM is bound by law to report. Did you call an expert on this to see if this is true. You cling to TSM looking the other way and so be it because it obvious happened. Then why didn't LE do their job with TSM. You should be asking why LE did that.
Sandusky has not had much luck with the Pennsylvania judicial system as judges are highly influenced by public opinion as opposed to the rule of law as they need to win elections in order to be retained. The OAG was very successful in polluting the jury pool with their false narratives (eg McQueary witnessing an anal rape) as demonstrated by a majority of people wanted Curley, Schultz and Spanier to suffer consequences even if they weren’t guilty of a crime.
Sandusky still has an appeal pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but he may have to wait for the case to go to the federal level before he is able to receive justice.
1. Did PSU report the incident to the appropriate legal authority as advised by PSU legal counsel?
2. TSM had a huge conflict of interest in any Sandusky investigation. PSU Admin would be aware of this conflict of interest.
3. Based upon the info Curley provided to Raykovitz, what exactly would TSM report to the legal authorities.
4. PSU Admin got exactly what they wanted. They could pass the buck to TSM knowing nothing would happen with it.
Saying PSU reported it to TSM is a cop out.
In theory, yes. Freeh had more access to important information and individuals. The question is whether or not they used that access and what they found in an impartial manner. We already know the answer to that is a resounding "no!!", of course.
I've talked with a couple of people who were "interviewed" by Freeh et. al. Those interviews were a farce, packed full of assumptions and questions to which the answers lead down the path they wanted. (ala the tried and true 'Are you still beating your wife?' approach).
There were 4 people in the interrogation room; 1 person being interrogated (who was not allowed representation, no notes brought in nor note taking allowed, and the threat of employment termination hanging over them if they did not fully comply).
Freeh's team set up a good cop/bad cop deal.... 'would you like some water? Are you comfortable? Thanks for coming in to talk with us' and bad cop throwing angry (in tone) questions at them.... 'is it true that you and Paterno/Curley/Spanier did not always see eye-to-eye? Who won those disagreements.... Joe/Curley/Spanier? How intimidating was it to talk with Joe/Tim/Spanier?'
And then just for fun, an NCAA rep sitting in the corner with their arms folded and the most delightful scowl on their face, glaring at the 'volunteer interviewee'.... never saying a word.
To think that whatever info came out of that farce is completely or even nearly viable is probably naive, imo. And now knowing that they excluded exonerating evidence in their report (per the A7 report), I cannot agree that Freeh's report and unreasonable conclusions had any advantage over anyone else's.
You guy's are still at it. We used to get three or four "poor Jerry" threads a week in the olden days. I thought/wished they had a merciful death. You and your buddies were hungry for some stale meat so enjoy.
Quit making sense. This is a thread about "poor Jerry".
No it's not. It would be if what was reported to them constituted CSA, but it did not. C/S/S took reasonable steps to control what they could control....how their facilities were to be used in the future. Sandusky was not a PSU employee. The boy was not a PSU student. TSM, however, was responsible for both of them. When Curley informed Captain Swim Trunks of what had been reported to him, the ball was clearly in Jack Raykovitz's court.
As for your 4th point, the boy and his family would have always been a risk to report on their own. Why do you think that risk wasn't at the top of everyone's list of concerns?
It’s great that others pointed that out. I wasn’t referring to a court of law. In the world of common sense, it is not reasonable to believe that he was showering alone with underage boys and having physical contact with them at all, let alone again after being told by police and agreeing to never do it again, for non-sexual reasons. Possible? Sure. Reasonable? No.
Given what they were told by McQ, I don't think it is a cop out at all. I think they took what they thought was the correct step with the limited info they had.
In the Spanier trial, Raykovitz testified that Central Mtn. School reporting an incident (involving Sandusky) to him directly was the correct protocol.
That is what PSU did - Jack, by way of his profession and position, was and is a mandated reporter. I believe others on here who have direct experience in this line of work have indicated that PSU reporting the 2001 info to Jack was the correct thing to do.
It was then in the hands of a trained professional who was obligated to open an investigation. Instead, he blew it off as a nothing burger, retained his license, testified (ironically) against Spanier regarding receiving the exact same type of report, and continues to live his life unscathed.
Yet, imo, he should be at or near the center of the whole deal for his lack of action.
I think there is a fine line with that second paragraph. The correct thing to do is dependent upon exactly what McQueary actually said to them. If McQueary said, “Hey, I saw Jerry Sandusky in the shower with a boy alone at night. I’m not sure what they were doing, but it’s weird that that would be taking place.” then I think contacting TSM would be the correct move. If McQueary came in and said, “Hey, I walked into the Lasch locker room and Sandusky was in the shower alone with a boy and seems like he was sexually assaulting him.” then calling the police would be the correct move. I think at that point you have a crime to report and contacting the agency could interfere with an investigation.
That said, I don’t think we’ll know exactly what McQueary said. The actions taken by those McQueary spoke to seem to indicate that he most likely reported the first scenario.
Again, reasonable according to you. And as previously agreed upon "unreasonable" =/= "illegal".
Nice try backtracking on reasonable doubt though. Enjoy your weekend.
If course reasonable according to me. I’m the one posting on here. I would add, it probably also reasonable to over 90% of adults.
The showering itself does not meet the criteria of legal/illegal. The showering along with grown men testifying to having been sexually assaulted by Sandusky as underage boys equals guilty in 45 counts. Now, you want to argue that they all lied about what happened, have at it. I hear a grown man is showering alone with multiple boys and having physical contact with them, then later men claim that he sexually assaulted them when they were boys? I’m going to connect dots and believe it’s probably true.
Last edited:
What did Central Mtn. report to Raykovitz, that prompted him to testify that reporting the incident to him was the right protocol?
I don't know for certain, but I think it was the 'wrestling' incident between JS and a student. (I'm not great at recalling the specific facts of this case, ala jimmyw and francofan and others). I don't recall that it was a CSA report, but rather an inappropriate and concerning incident.... same as McQ and the Lasch incident.
Note: I'm using the rather generic word 'incident' here because I think JS was reported for something less than CSA in both the Lasch and Central Mtn. reports. I'm not trying to minimize CSA by calling such assaults 'incidences'. I don't know for certain one way or the other wrt JS's guilt, although I think he is likely guilty of some degree of highly inappropriate, if not illegal, activity. I can't get past the multiple shower incidents, but on the other hand, I cannot get past the 3 decades of nothing being reported in any way, shape, or form until the PSU vault was opened by the OGBOT.
The jury foreman in the Spanier trial admitted (was it the following week?) that they likely got it wrong, but they all just wanted to go home for the weekend. That statement alone should be grounds for a mistrial at minimum.
McQueary did testify to what he said. The others didn’t take the stand .
None of the 5 people who Mike McQueary told in 2000/2001 (John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz) have said that Mike told them that it seemed like Sandusky was sexually assaulting v2 at the time. It was only 10 years later when the OAG had leverage and there were other reports that Sandusky may have been abusive with other boys that Mike started thinking the v2 incident may have CSA. I believe that Mike’s contemporaneous reports are much more believable that his testimony 10 years later by an order of magnitude. Snedden has stated his compelling reasons why he doesn’t find Mike’s 2011/2012 testimony credible as well.
I’m with you on the minute details. Francofan will surely be in to provide those. I believe you are right with regards to the high school incident. If I recall correctly, they were found in an otherwise empty gym, behind some wrestling mats? I think that calling TSM was probably correct in that instance.
I completely understand where you are coming from with your last sentence. I get it. Before I got into my current job I would have probably said the same thing. It doesn’t make sense. But I can tell you of many, many instances of people not telling anybody about their abuse for years. When they have told, they were not accepting money from the Penn State ATM. They had just finally reached a point where they were ready to deal with their abuse. My guess on some of these men that came forward is that the money pushed their timeline up a bit. They were probably not yet at the point of being ready to deal with their abuse, but the money pushed them forward.
In a bizarre coincidence, I went to lunch with a friend yesterday because he had texted me a week or so ago that his marriage was in trouble. We have been great friends for 22 years now. He is a social worker, like me though in a different location than me. He works with kids, like me. One of the best and funniest human beings I have ever met. During lunch he tells me that he and his wife have been going to marriage counseling for a few years and that he has also been going to individual counseling. He is now realizing that a lot of his marital issues and personal issues are the result of his having been molested by a few different individuals from the ages of 6-8. He never told me this before. We are both 46. We have dealt with really difficult issues with children together. But he, a helping professional who would be one of the first people I would think of calling to help a child who had been abused, felt such shame that he couldn’t tell me until yesterday. Such shame that he has done some unproductive things to avoid feeling the shame until he just couldn’t get away from it anymore. 40 years later. It’s powerful stuff.
1. I believe they did.
2. I believe Jerry molested children.
3. Juries have made mistakes either way with guilty or not guilty as their verdicts, however I believe they normally get it right . As in a great majority.
4. I believe the poster who claimed you fellows are similar to flat earthers nailed it.
5. The decision by the jury is reality, you agreeing or disagreeing with it changed nothing. Jerry is officially incarcerated.
That is also reality.
Get back to me when he’s exonerated . I don’t hold my breath.
Didn’t McQueary use the whole “What I would have said is....” line? I think the details are pretty important in his case as it relates to the actions of the administrators. And honestly, who can remember exact words ten years later?
On this point Franco, we largely agree. Still, Jerry was again alone in a shower with an underage boy after agreeing not to do so. Massive red flag.
And, OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are completely innocent!
Graham Spanier was found guilty, too. Why is he not in Jail?
Does the fact that the OAG lied in the Sandusky case make any difference?
Does the fact that the police perjured themselves make any difference?
Does the fact that the majority of the population thought the defendants (S and CSS) should go to jail even if they did not commit a crime make any difference?
Does it make a difference that Sandusky was convicted of a situation with no plaintiff, not date of a crime, no witness. He was convicted on the mere suggestion by a criminal OAG that something happened?
You are correct that Sandusky is in Jail. You are also correct that a jury found him guilty. What you apparently will not acknowledge is that a lot of testimony and methods used to convict him surely do not pass the reasonableness test.
It has been reported that Freeh manufactured his evidence from the PSU folks he interviewed. Freeh's own team admitted that the conclusions he drew had no basis in fact. PSU interviewees also have reported that they felt threatened to answer certain questions a certain way out of fear for their jobs. and you want to hang your hat on that?
Please state the 1 or 2 specific accusers that you find the most credible and are reasonably certain that they were sexually abused by Sandusky.
What does Paterno saying it was sexual in nature mean? Keep in mind when JoePa said that is son Scott who was an attorney was present. Then there is a file in Courtney's office that was labeled "possible child abuse".
It was a weekend, they got all the big chiefs together on a Sunday to discuss. They don't do that if it was Indy's theory that they were concerned about liability. They knew they were possibly dealing with a sexual assault by Sandusky on PSU property.
Just because you don't believe them is your issue. The jury did believe them as they have believed Mike.
Like I posted before, how come a prominent "Innocence Project" like organization has not taken up Sandusky's cause?
