I think you'll see more tinfoil now in this place than you ever have before sadly. There are no winners in cases like this. Jerry ruined the victims lives as well as so many more than that but we still have f--king loons here fighting for that man. You think this stops them? I too thought maybe the 3 were just caught up in a witch hunt, but I'm starting to realize that maybe they had a better handle on the 98 situation than we were led to believe.
Since Day One I've wondered why the PSU administrators, knowing, as Curley stated they did, about the 1998 investigation when McQueary made his report to them in 2001, chose to report what they were told only to TSM in the person of Jack Raykovitz, and not also to the PA DPW.
True, they were not mandated reporters and they would've known the 1998 investigation had cleared Sandusky of any wrongdoing. But the fact remains they would've also known that they now had a second report, from a presumably credible source, of that same individual in a locked, limited-access building at or about 10:00 o'clock at night, naked in the showers possibly engaging in sexual activity with a young boy. Given their knowledge of 1998, why did they
not choose to act out of an abundance of caution, with a primary view to the protection of innocent children, and make a concurrent report to DPW? No 20/20 hindsight would've been required to make that choice. The fact that a report
was made to mandated reporter Raykovitz, thus enlarging the circle of those who were aware of what had transpired, without an ability to control what Raykovitz might subsequently do with their information, indicates to me
there was no intent-to-conceal with a view to protecting anyone or anything -- in particular the PSU football program. In the event, mandated-reporter Raykovitz apparently chose not to even discuss the double-hearsay report he received from PSU with the SM Board, much less report anything to DPW. Which, I assume, was completely legal. Not even mandated reporters were required to report hearsay. Which in turn, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the good Doctor Raykovitz saw no potential EWOC resulting from a failure to forward his newly-acquired Sandusky information up the line.
That he has never been charged with any crime for his omission begs the question of
why the PA OAG apparently believes the Raykovitz failure to report Sandusky hearsay differs in some material way from the PSU administrators' failure to report it, a difference requiring charges to be brought in the PSU case but not against Raykovitz.
My own thought has always been that CSS made a mistake in judgment in not
reporting what McQueary told them to DPW right away. But mistakes in judgement
are not crimes and, unlike Raykovitz, they were not mandated reporters.
So why no EWOC charges, ever, against Jack Raykovitz, who was every bit as privy to the content of the McQueary report as were Gary Shultz and Tim Curley but did nothing to report it up the line, or even bring it to the attention of TSM Board -- and why the sudden guilty plea on the parts of Curley and Shultz as opposed to telling the OAG to "prove it in court..." ?
