Spanier Denied Supreme Court Hearing

[jerot]

See my post #16 above. Humor me and tell me how any of the charge he was convicted of applies to him? A very important point that you will surely overlook is the fact that Jack Raykovitz was informed about the incident.

Raykovitz was never informed, just google his name.
One of Raykovitz’s vice presidents said Raykovitz also shared little information with his managers about a 2008 sexual abuse complaint that led to the current criminal charges against Sandusky.

And the head of Clinton County’s child welfare agency, where the 2008 investigation began, said Raykovitz’s wife told him in November 2008 that Sandusky had been spoken to about getting “too close” to children involved with the charity. Gerald Rosamilia said Raykovitz’s wife, Katherine Genovese, who helped run The Second Mile, did not define what was meant by “too close” or give a timeframe.

Raykovitz defended himself in a telephone interview, saying he acted appropriately at all times. “There have always been steps in place to protect kids,” he said.

Two grand jury reports, which led to Sandusky being charged with 52 sexual abuse-related counts involving 10 boys, said the former coach found his victims through The Second Mile and committed many of his offenses inside Penn State football buildings.

The nonprofit had thrived since its creation in 1977 because of Sandusky’s prominence as a defensive coach at Penn State, its close ties to university donors and leaders, and its use of Penn State’s athletic fields for its camps serving at-risk children. Then-coach Joe Paterno often served as master of ceremonies at Second Mile fundraisers.


Paterno, 84, led Penn State football for more than 45 years until early November, when the sexual abuse charges against Sandusky shook the entire university and claimed the jobs of major college football’s winningest coach and the school’s president, Graham Spanier.

Now, with The Second Mile’s future in doubt, it is unclear whether Raykovitz properly handled the charity’s response to the 2002 case.

Penn State athletic director Tim Curley testified that a graduate assistant had told him in 2002 only that he had seen “inappropriate conduct” that made him feel uncomfortable, and nothing of a sexual nature. But Mike McQueary, now an assistant coach, testified to the grand jury that he told Curley he saw what he believed to be Sandusky raping the boy, who he said was about 10.

Curley, who has been charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse, testified he told Raykovitz of inappropriate conduct and that Sandusky was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus.

Asked what Curley told him, Raykovitz cited a Nov. 6 Second Mile statement that referred only to inappropriate conduct: “At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the Grand Jury report.”


The statement also said Curley, who has been placed on leave, told Raykovitz the shower incident “had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing.”

But Lunsford said the charity’s board couldn’t take action in 2002 that might have prevented other assaults of children “if there’s a cover-up from the source.”

Even if Raykovitz had only limited information, he still should have acted more aggressively in 2002 when contacted by Curley and should have viewed Curley’s ban on Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids to campus as “a red flag,” Lunsford said.

As the person in charge, Raykovitz was legally required to provide the board all available information whether he believed it was true or suspected it was false, Lunsford said.

“We still need to know. That’s our job,” he added. “By not telling us, it essentially rendered us ineffective and we had no chance to help those children.”

Informed of Lunsford’s comments, Raykovitz said, “He can feel anything he wants to feel.”

Charles Markham, retired president of Uni-Marts Inc. and a Second Mile board member from the late 1990s until about 2004, said that Raykovitz never discussed the 2002 case with him personally or at board meetings. “If I’d known anything in 2002, I would have had a hard time keeping it under my hat,” Markham said.

Two other former board members — Larry Snavely, who runs a State College-based higher education marketing firm, and Donald Cross, a retired Centre County school employee — said Raykovitz never mentioned the 2002 allegation. Another former member said he was not told, but asked that he not be publicly identified.

David Woodle, acting CEO, refused to address concerns raised by board members about Raykovitz’s handling of information regarding the 2002 shower incident, saying to do so would be a distraction from the goal of helping serve children.

 

[interrobang]

Swim trunks

 

[interrobang]

Raykovitz was never informed, just google his name.

Are you joking? He admitted he was informed several times, including during Spanier's trial

 

[91Joe95]

The only thing Wendy is missing is Freeh's conclusion that no cover up occurred, or Bruce Heim's remarks to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (?) that he told Rayckovitz to make it go away.

 

[jerot]

Local business owner and Second Mile co-founder/Board Member Bruce Heim, provided the media and the nation yet another chance to see the duplicity and arrogance with which the Penn State Board of Trustees has been operating since the Jerry Sandusky scandal came to light. Current Penn State Trustee Ryan McCombie nominated Mr. Heim, a West Point grad and Army vet, to represent the Vietnam War and stand at midfield, center stage so to speak, at Beaver Stadium. The incident opened a door for the local, state, national media, and authorities to focus once again on the failures of The Second Mile and, more specifically, its leaders Mr. Heim and Dr. Jack Raykovitz.

The University either ‘forgot’ or just didn’t care how this honor would appear to Sandusky’s victims, who they spent great money assuaging, starting two years ago in the legal settlements totaling well over $60 million and continuing with more undisclosed settlements since. If Mr. Sandusky was the public face of The Second Mile, then surely Heim was the brains of the operation. He was the suave local businessman who handled operations. He had intimate knowledge of all things related to the charity. Penn State rescinded the invitation after a flood of complaints, but in his responses to the story, we learned directly from Mr. Heim exactly what he did know Heim admitted to direct knowledge of the 2001 incident witnessed by Mike McQueary in the Lasch football building. Mr. Heim’s response to the situation has confirmed he and the executive committee were told of the 2001 incident by Dr. Raykovitz, but claims it was nothing inappropriate.

Contradicting such a notion of “nothing inappropriate” is the fact that Raykovitz and Heim both admit to discussing this matter with staff members inside Second Mile. What we don’t know is what specifically Raykovitz discussed. Was Raykovitz looking for confirmation of previous behaviors? Many in the local community are open that rumors of Jerry’s penchant for being in intimate situations with young boys was rampant for years prior to 2001. More importantly, why would Raykovitz need input from low-level staff? He was a licensed child psychologist trained in recognizing signs of child abuse, and a mandated reporter. Heim, in his role as board member, was also a mandated reporter. A trained professional should have immediately raised a flag when told of the situation: an older man naked and alone with a young boy late at night in a private space. Most child advocates and experts would agree that alone is enough to warrant suspicion. Similar acts in 1998 alerted Dr. Alicia Chambers to file a report against Sandusky. The media has reported that a septuagenarian football coach “should have known,” but had nothing to say about the licensed child psychologist, Dr. Jack Raykovitz, who failed to report the 2001 incident. Even if nothing overtly specific was reported, one might think that Curley’s report to Raykovitz,the charity’s executive director, informing him of the ban placed on Sandusky from bringing children on campus, was a sign of inappropriate behavior that warranted further investigation. Incredibly, Heim stated that Curley came to the charity and told Raykovitz that nothing inappropriate happened. However, a report in the Delaware County Times contradicts Mr. Heim’s account. In that report, citing a person close to the case, Raykovitz is quoted in response to Curley: “Are you trying to tell me that you think Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile?” suggesting Curley had lost his mind. The evidence (and common sense) tells us that Curley reported that Sandusky’s behavior was inappropriate.. No matter, the businessman Heim told the licensed child psychologist Raykovitz to not only ignore the complaint, but to bury it from the larger organization, despite Raykovitz’s position as a licensed, trained, state-mandated reporter. So we now have documentary proof of where the break in the reporting chain was. It broke at the two mandated reporters, Heim and Raykovitz, within The Second Mile, not at Penn State. Penn State administrators consulted with legal counsel on their obligation to report, yet there is no evidence that Heim or Raykovitz consulted with theirs. Why? Legal counsel would surely have informed both that they were bound by law to report it, both overseeing children directly and thus being mandated reporters in their capacities at The Second Mile.

So there we were on October 1st, with Penn State preparing to honor the man who buried the 2001 report. No one else related to the case, whether you think they acted correctly or not, ignored the report and advised anyone to bury it. Each person reported it to whom they thought was the proper link in the chain, until it hit two mandated reporters who directly oversaw Mr. Sandusky in his employed position at the charity. Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier were indicted, yet Penn State leadership thought they could walk Mr. Heim to midfield and celebrate all he has done for Penn State supposedly.

Penn State leadership flipped a coin, hoping they could insult everyone who is dedicated to the truth about the Sandusky scandal and the improvement of child protection procedures. They lost. They will keep losing until they allow the truth to be exposed, not locked away in Mr. Freeh’s vault for their eyes only. Heim, Raykovitz, and The Second Mile will have to answer for their judgment soon enough because We Are never going to rest until the truth is known.

 

[Cletus11]

Corbett hated Spanier for Spanier fighting him on funding through the newspapers and more importantly knew his political career was done if the truth came out about he slow played the Sandusky investigation and the money he gave (and took as donations) from them.

Frazier wanted a Vioxx settlement for Merck from Corbett so played along for a deal.

Heim knew he was at risk for covering it up.

Surma had the family grudge against Paterno blaming him for his nephews downfall into alcoholism and drugs.

Joyner saw a chance to get out of bankruptcy.

Rodney Erickson saw a chance as an academic to finally take down the almighty football program and as added benefit become a multimillionaire in the processs through his golden parachute and huge pension increase.

All the PSU board members who were also involved in the second mile saw there potential for huge personal liability.

The state agencies who all dropped the ball multiple times on Sandusky through the years just wanted to protect themselves from scrutiny.

All using PSUs endowment as their own personal piggy bank to sweep it under the rug.

Only honorable man of the bunch who felt remorse and talked about how to prevent this from happening again was Paterno.

 

[step.eng69]

A lot of hammers and nails in that post

Well stormin, Good Friday is rapidly approaching.

 

[jim cummings]

SWIM. TRUNKS.

FIFY

 

[indynittany]

Raykovitz was never informed, just google his name.
One of Raykovitz’s vice presidents said Raykovitz also shared little information with his managers about a 2008 sexual abuse complaint that led to the current criminal charges against Sandusky.

And the head of Clinton County’s child welfare agency, where the 2008 investigation began, said Raykovitz’s wife told him in November 2008 that Sandusky had been spoken to about getting “too close” to children involved with the charity. Gerald Rosamilia said Raykovitz’s wife, Katherine Genovese, who helped run The Second Mile, did not define what was meant by “too close” or give a timeframe.

Raykovitz defended himself in a telephone interview, saying he acted appropriately at all times. “There have always been steps in place to protect kids,” he said.

Two grand jury reports, which led to Sandusky being charged with 52 sexual abuse-related counts involving 10 boys, said the former coach found his victims through The Second Mile and committed many of his offenses inside Penn State football buildings.

The nonprofit had thrived since its creation in 1977 because of Sandusky’s prominence as a defensive coach at Penn State, its close ties to university donors and leaders, and its use of Penn State’s athletic fields for its camps serving at-risk children. Then-coach Joe Paterno often served as master of ceremonies at Second Mile fundraisers.


Paterno, 84, led Penn State football for more than 45 years until early November, when the sexual abuse charges against Sandusky shook the entire university and claimed the jobs of major college football’s winningest coach and the school’s president, Graham Spanier.

Now, with The Second Mile’s future in doubt, it is unclear whether Raykovitz properly handled the charity’s response to the 2002 case.

Penn State athletic director Tim Curley testified that a graduate assistant had told him in 2002 only that he had seen “inappropriate conduct” that made him feel uncomfortable, and nothing of a sexual nature. But Mike McQueary, now an assistant coach, testified to the grand jury that he told Curley he saw what he believed to be Sandusky raping the boy, who he said was about 10.

Curley, who has been charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse, testified he told Raykovitz of inappropriate conduct and that Sandusky was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus.

Asked what Curley told him, Raykovitz cited a Nov. 6 Second Mile statement that referred only to inappropriate conduct: “At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the Grand Jury report.”


The statement also said Curley, who has been placed on leave, told Raykovitz the shower incident “had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing.”

But Lunsford said the charity’s board couldn’t take action in 2002 that might have prevented other assaults of children “if there’s a cover-up from the source.”

Even if Raykovitz had only limited information, he still should have acted more aggressively in 2002 when contacted by Curley and should have viewed Curley’s ban on Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids to campus as “a red flag,” Lunsford said.

As the person in charge, Raykovitz was legally required to provide the board all available information whether he believed it was true or suspected it was false, Lunsford said.

“We still need to know. That’s our job,” he added. “By not telling us, it essentially rendered us ineffective and we had no chance to help those children.”

Informed of Lunsford’s comments, Raykovitz said, “He can feel anything he wants to feel.”

Charles Markham, retired president of Uni-Marts Inc. and a Second Mile board member from the late 1990s until about 2004, said that Raykovitz never discussed the 2002 case with him personally or at board meetings. “If I’d known anything in 2002, I would have had a hard time keeping it under my hat,” Markham said.

Two other former board members — Larry Snavely, who runs a State College-based higher education marketing firm, and Donald Cross, a retired Centre County school employee — said Raykovitz never mentioned the 2002 allegation. Another former member said he was not told, but asked that he not be publicly identified.

David Woodle, acting CEO, refused to address concerns raised by board members about Raykovitz’s handling of information regarding the 2002 shower incident, saying to do so would be a distraction from the goal of helping serve children.

The statement in red has been proven to be completely false! And everything about this situation and how it should be viewed today is dramatically different than the initial narrative outlined above.

The statement in blue should be the elephant in the room. This was never a PSU scandal. How is JR not on the hot seat at all, while Spanier is facing jail time?

C/S/S were initially charged with 15 felonies between them. The commonwealth was unable to convict on a single one!

This was a rush to judgment! Once you discount McQueary's testimony because of the email he sent to that prosecutor (Her name slips my mind at the moment.), all the evidence supports the grand jury testimonies of Curley and Schultz.

The easiest thing in the world should have been to give Joe Paterno the benefit of the doubt. "With the benefit of hindsight", Joe did exactly what he should have done. All the attention should have been on JR and TSM from day 1. Without the deliberate manipulation of McQueary's testimony, it would have been

PSU should have never been the epicenter of the whole Sandusky mess. That was fake news! And it was done deliberately. 'Who' and 'why' is the story that's not being told. Was it as simple as not wanting to damage the case against Sandusky? If so, PSU should have fought that vigorously. No, there's more to it than that. Why the press hasn't done its job here suggests a broken 4th estate.

 

[francofan]

The statement in red has been proven to be completely false! And everything about this situation and how it should be viewed today is dramatically different than the initial narrative outlined above.

The statement in blue should be the elephant in the room. This was never a PSU scandal. How is JR not on the hot seat at all, while Spanier is facing jail time?

C/S/S were initially charged with 15 felonies between them. The commonwealth was unable to convict on a single one!

This was a rush to judgment! Once you discount McQueary's testimony because of the email he sent to that prosecutor (Her name slips my mind at the moment.), all the evidence supports the grand jury testimonies of Curley and Schultz.

The easiest thing in the world should have been to give Joe Paterno the benefit of the doubt. "With the benefit of hindsight", Joe did exactly what he should have done. All the attention should have been on JR and TSM from day 1. Without the deliberate manipulation of McQueary's testimony, it would have been

PSU should have never been the epicenter of the whole Sandusky mess. That was fake news! And it was done deliberately. 'Who' and 'why' is the story that's not being told. Was it as simple as not wanting to damage the case against Sandusky? If so, PSU should have fought that vigorously. No, there's more to it than that. Why the press hasn't done its job here suggests a broken 4th estate.

Jonelle Eshbach was the prosecutor that twisted McQueary's words so that the grand jury presentment cemented the false narrative that MM witnessed an anal rape.

I believe the elephant in the room is that the Penn State/Sandusky scandal should actually be the Gov. Tom Corbett/OAG office political corruption scandal. This is not a story about any conspiracy or cover-up of CSA, but rather a story of a political hit job.

 

[indynittany]

Jonelle Eshbach was the prosecutor that twisted McQueary's words so that the grand jury presentment cemented the false narrative that MM witnessed an anal rape.

I believe the elephant in the room is that the Penn State/Sandusky scandal should actually be the Gov. Tom Corbett/OAG office political corruption scandal. This is not a story about any conspiracy or cover-up of CSA, but rather a story of a political hit job.

I agree. I also believe the narrative should be rewritten and it would be if PSU wanted it to be.

 

[PSUMATT85]

Very clear the powers that be at Penn state have no interest in clearing the name of the school

 

[jerot]

Jonelle Eshbach was the prosecutor that twisted McQueary's words so that the grand jury presentment cemented the false narrative that MM witnessed an anal rape.

I believe the elephant in the room is that the Penn State/Sandusky scandal should actually be the Gov. Tom Corbett/OAG office political corruption scandal. This is not a story about any conspiracy or cover-up of CSA, but rather a story of a political hit job.

No twist necessary. Just very obvious as hell.
In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"

Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

 

[indynittany]

No twist necessary. Just very obvious as hell.
In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"

Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

The part of Eshbach's email that's missing is after she told McQueary he couldn't set the record straight, she added that it would harm her case. The truth would harm her case. Let that sink in!

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Raykovitz was never informed, just google his name.
One of Raykovitz’s vice presidents said Raykovitz also shared little information with his managers about a 2008 sexual abuse complaint that led to the current criminal charges against Sandusky.

And the head of Clinton County’s child welfare agency, where the 2008 investigation began, said Raykovitz’s wife told him in November 2008 that Sandusky had been spoken to about getting “too close” to children involved with the charity. Gerald Rosamilia said Raykovitz’s wife, Katherine Genovese, who helped run The Second Mile, did not define what was meant by “too close” or give a timeframe.

Raykovitz defended himself in a telephone interview, saying he acted appropriately at all times. “There have always been steps in place to protect kids,” he said.

Two grand jury reports, which led to Sandusky being charged with 52 sexual abuse-related counts involving 10 boys, said the former coach found his victims through The Second Mile and committed many of his offenses inside Penn State football buildings.

The nonprofit had thrived since its creation in 1977 because of Sandusky’s prominence as a defensive coach at Penn State, its close ties to university donors and leaders, and its use of Penn State’s athletic fields for its camps serving at-risk children. Then-coach Joe Paterno often served as master of ceremonies at Second Mile fundraisers.


Paterno, 84, led Penn State football for more than 45 years until early November, when the sexual abuse charges against Sandusky shook the entire university and claimed the jobs of major college football’s winningest coach and the school’s president, Graham Spanier.

Now, with The Second Mile’s future in doubt, it is unclear whether Raykovitz properly handled the charity’s response to the 2002 case.

Penn State athletic director Tim Curley testified that a graduate assistant had told him in 2002 only that he had seen “inappropriate conduct” that made him feel uncomfortable, and nothing of a sexual nature. But Mike McQueary, now an assistant coach, testified to the grand jury that he told Curley he saw what he believed to be Sandusky raping the boy, who he said was about 10.

Curley, who has been charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse, testified he told Raykovitz of inappropriate conduct and that Sandusky was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus.

Asked what Curley told him, Raykovitz cited a Nov. 6 Second Mile statement that referred only to inappropriate conduct: “At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the Grand Jury report.”


The statement also said Curley, who has been placed on leave, told Raykovitz the shower incident “had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing.”

But Lunsford said the charity’s board couldn’t take action in 2002 that might have prevented other assaults of children “if there’s a cover-up from the source.”

Even if Raykovitz had only limited information, he still should have acted more aggressively in 2002 when contacted by Curley and should have viewed Curley’s ban on Sandusky bringing Second Mile kids to campus as “a red flag,” Lunsford said.

As the person in charge, Raykovitz was legally required to provide the board all available information whether he believed it was true or suspected it was false, Lunsford said.

“We still need to know. That’s our job,” he added. “By not telling us, it essentially rendered us ineffective and we had no chance to help those children.”

Informed of Lunsford’s comments, Raykovitz said, “He can feel anything he wants to feel.”

Charles Markham, retired president of Uni-Marts Inc. and a Second Mile board member from the late 1990s until about 2004, said that Raykovitz never discussed the 2002 case with him personally or at board meetings. “If I’d known anything in 2002, I would have had a hard time keeping it under my hat,” Markham said.

Two other former board members — Larry Snavely, who runs a State College-based higher education marketing firm, and Donald Cross, a retired Centre County school employee — said Raykovitz never mentioned the 2002 allegation. Another former member said he was not told, but asked that he not be publicly identified.

David Woodle, acting CEO, refused to address concerns raised by board members about Raykovitz’s handling of information regarding the 2002 shower incident, saying to do so would be a distraction from the goal of helping serve children.

 

[bdgan]

I've mentioned this before. It is truly shocking that he was convicted of a crime which does not even remotely apply to him and his circumstances. How can this f***ing state of PA judicial system be this F***ed up [semi-rhetorical].

Again, and for giggles, here is is below.
Item (1): Spanier did not supervise the victim known only to God
Item (2): Jack Raykovitz was notified of the shower incident
Item (3): None of the condition apply to Spanier.

2010 Pennsylvania Code
Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 43 - Offenses Against the Family
4304 - Endangering welfare of children.
§ 4304. Endangering welfare of children.
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the
welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that
employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he
knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a
duty of care, protection or support.
(2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an
official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of
a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63
(relating to child protective services).
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "person
supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than
a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training
or control of a child.

This case reminds me of Miracle on 34th Street. No politician wanted to be responsible for finding Santa guilty. In this case no politician wants to be responsible for finding the most hated man in America or PSU administrators not guity.

 

[Art]

This case reminds me of Miracle on 34th Street. No politician wante?d to be responsible for finding Santa guilty. In this case no politician wants to be responsible for finding the most hated man in America or PSU administrators not guity.

Touches on an interesting question: without the McQueary testimony (which collaterally requires the prosecution of C/S/S) does Sandusky get convicted?

 

[colt21]

Touches on an interesting question: without the McQueary testimony (which collaterally requires the prosecution of C/S/S) does Sandusky get convicted?

I’m not gonna say what I think regarding his guilt or innocence

But I will answer your question - not a chance in heck

 

[Connorpozlee]

Touches on an interesting question: without the McQueary testimony (which collaterally requires the prosecution of C/S/S) does Sandusky get convicted?

Are you saying his testimony at the trial? I would say that he absolutely would have been convicted without McQueary’s testimony.
But without McQueary’s grand jury testimony I don’t think Sandusky would have been charged to begin with.

 

[interrobang]

Right, without an eye "witness" they have nothing to even charge Sandusky on

 

[francofan]

Are you saying his testimony at the trial? I would say that he absolutely would have been convicted without McQueary’s testimony.
But without McQueary’s grand jury testimony I don’t think Sandusky would have been charged to begin with.

I absolutely disagree. Without McQueary's testimony at trial, I don't think the state has a very strong case at all. The reason McQueary's testimony was so crucial was that it gave the state an "independent" non-accuser witness that corroborated CSA. This is the reason that the cross examination of McQueary was so important. Rominger failed to impeach McQueary in spite of McQueary's inconsistent prior statements as well as the compromising information the state had regarding MM's gambling on college football and his habit of sending cell phone photos of his anatomy to women who weren't his wife. Amendola giving Rominger 30 minutes to prepare for the cross examination of McQueary is one of strongest examples that demonstrates Amednola's ineffectiveness and should have been sufficient reason by itself to win Sandusky a new trial imho.

 

[francofan]

No twist necessary. Just very obvious as hell.
In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"

Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

@jerot - Who are you and where are you coming from? I have seen posters speculate that you are a bot. You make long winded posts based on information in the public domain. Your posts are all over the map. Some posts I really like, for example the post referenced here. There are other posts that seem like they are pure propoganda that supports the false narratives of the likes of Tom Corbett, Louis Freeh, and Frank Fina.

Are you capable of a short post that answers a direct question?

 

[Connorpozlee]

I absolutely disagree. Without McQueary's testimony at trial, I don't think the state has a very strong case at all. The reason McQueary's testimony was so crucial was that it gave the state an "independent" non-accuser witness that corroborated CSA. This is the reason that the cross examination of McQueary was so important. Rominger failed to impeach McQueary in spite of McQueary's inconsistent prior statements as well as the compromising information the state had regarding MM's gambling on college football and his habit of sending cell phone photos of his anatomy to women who weren't his wife. Amendola giving Rominger 30 minutes to prepare for the cross examination of McQueary is one of strongest examples that demonstrates Amednola's ineffectiveness and should have been sufficient reason by itself to win Sandusky a new trial imho.

The only charges Sandusky was found not guilty of were the ones related to McQueary’s testimony. It was the testimony of the victims (or “victims” for you, I suppose) that put Sandusky away.

 

[francofan]

The only charges Sandusky was found not guilty of were the ones related to McQueary’s testimony. It was the testimony of the victims (or “victims” for you, I suppose) that put Sandusky away.

Sandusky was also found not guilty for 1 of the counts (indecent assault) for both victim 5 and victim 6.

Sandusky was found guilty on 4 out of the 5 victim 2 counts and 5 out of 5 of the victim 8 counts. So Sandusky was found guilty for 9 out of 10 counts where the "victims" were unknown. Without McQueary's testimony, the victim 2 counts presumably would have been dismissed. The victim 8 counts at face value are a joke given there was no victim, no eyewitness, and no specific date. In fact, the supposed witness (Calhoun) had earlier stated when interviewed that it wasn't Sandusky.

Imho, the testimony of the accusers by themselves would have been an order of magnitude less persuasive than in conjuction with an "indepedent" witness.

https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html

 

[jerot]

No twist necessary. Just very obvious as hell.
In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"

Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

Snedden at least made sense. Check out his report -
In Snedden's report, he interviewed Schuyler J. McLaughlin, Penn State's facility security officer at the university's applied research laboratory. McLaughlin, a former NCIS agent himself, as well as a lawyer, told Snedden that McQueary initially was confused by what he saw.

"What McQueary saw, apparenty it looked sexual to him and he may have been worried about what would happen to him," Snedden wrote. "Because McQueary wanted to keep his job" at Penn State.

[McLaughlin] "believes Curley and Schultz likely asked tough questions and those tough questions likely caused McQueary to question what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. McLaughlin "believes that after questioning, McQueary likely did not know what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. "And McQueary "probably realized he could not prove what he saw."

There was also confusion over the date of the alleged shower incident. At the grand jury, McQueary testified that it took place on March 1, 2002. But at the Sandusky trial, McQueary changed the date of the shower incident to Feb. 9, 2001.

There was also confusion over the identity of the boy in the showers. In 2011, the Pennsylvania State Police interviewed a man suspected of being "Victim No. 2." Allan Myers was then a 24-year-old married Marine who had been involved in Sandusky's Second Mile charity since he was a third-grader.

Myers, however, told the state police he "does not believe the allegations that have been raised" against Sandusky, and that another accuser was "only out to get some money." Myers said he used to work out with Sandusky since he was 12 or 13, and that "nothing inappropriate occurred while showering with Sandusky." Myers also told the police that Sandusky never did anything that "made him uncomfortable."

Myers even wrote a letter of support for Sandusky that was published in the Centre Daily Times, where he described Sandusky as his "best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more." Myers lived with Sandusky while he attended college. When Myers got married, he invited Jerry and Dottie Sandusky to the wedding.

Then, Myers got a lawyer and flipped, claiming that Sandusky assaulted him ten times. But at the Sandusky trial, the state attorney general's office deemed Myers an unreliable witness and did not call him to testify against Sandusky.

Instead, the prosecutor told the jury, the identity of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, "was known only to God."

Myers, however, eventually collected $3 million in what was supposed to be a confidential settlement with Penn State as Victim No. 2.

Mike McQueary may not have known for sure what he heard and saw in the shower. And the cops and the prosecutors may not know who Victim No. 2 really was. But John Snedden had it figured out pretty early what the source of the trouble was at Penn State.
Snedden recalled that four days into his 2012 investigation, he called his bosses to let them know that despite all the hoopla in the media, there was no sex scandal at Penn State.

"I just want to make sure you realize that this is a political hit job," Snedden recalled telling his bosses. "The whole thing is political."

Why did the Penn State situation get blown so far out of proportion?

"When I get a case, I independently investigate it," Snedden said. "It seems like that was not the case here. It wasn't an independent inquiry. It was an orchestrated effort to make the circumstances fit the alleged crime."

How did they get it so wrong at Penn State?

"To put it in a nutshell, I would say there was an exceptional rush to judgment to satisfy people," Snedden said. "So they wouldn't have to answer any more questions."

"It's a giant rush to judgement," Snedden said. "There was no debate."

"Ninety-nine percent of it is hysteria," Snedden said. Ninety-nine percent of what happened at Penn State boiled down to people running around yelling, "Oh my God, we've got to do something immediately," Snedden said.

It didn't matter that most of the people Snedden talked to at Penn State couldn't believe that Graham Spanier would have ever participated in a coverup, especially involving the abuse of a child.

Carolyn A. Dolbin, an administrative assistant to the PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier told her "that his father has physically abused him when [Spanier] was a child, and as a result [Spanier] had a broken nose and needed implants."

Spanier himself told Snedden, "He had been abused as a child and he would not stand for that," meaning a coverup, Snedden wrote.

Snedden couldn't believe the way the Penn State Board of Trustees acted the night they decided to fire both Spanier and Paterno.

There was no investigation, no determination of the facts. Instead, the officials running the show at Penn State wanted to move on as fast as possible from the scandal by sacrificing a few scapegoats.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Sandusky was also found not guilty for 1 of the counts (indecent assault) for both victim 5 and victim 6.

Sandusky was found guilty on 4 out of the 5 victim 2 counts and 5 out of 5 of the victim 8 counts. So Sandusky was found guilty for 9 out of 10 counts where the "victims" were unknown. Without McQueary's testimony, the victim 2 counts presumably would have been dismissed. The victim 8 counts at face value are a joke given there was no victim, no eyewitness, and no specific date. In fact, the supposed witness (Calhoun) had earlier stated when interviewed that it wasn't Sandusky.

Imho, the testimony of the accusers by themselves would have been an order of magnitude less persuasive than in conjuction with an "indepedent" witness.

https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html

All just opinion of course. No way to know for sure.

 

[Art]

Are you saying his testimony at the trial? I would say that he absolutely would have been convicted without McQueary’s testimony.
But without McQueary’s grand jury testimony I don’t think Sandusky would have been charged to begin with.

The only charges Sandusky was found not guilty of were the ones related to McQueary’s testimony. It was the testimony of the victims (or “victims” for you, I suppose) that put Sandusky away.

Fair enough. But I don't think jurors compartmentalize charges and testimony. Without McQueary, it's he said (actually he didn't say)/he said. I think that the presence of an independent witness helps to validate the testimony of the victims, even though it wasn't relative to their specific charges.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

He put on no defense. Which means that side was not preserved for appeals.

And at the time of the events he was in s position to ensure that no one, not he, not Joe, and not PSU took the fall for this. He didn't do that.

People who defend him are so confused about right and wrong that they just can't see how completely screwed up his decisions were.

 

[francofan]

He put on no defense. Which means that side was not preserved for appeals.

And at the time of the events he was in s position to ensure that no one, not he, not Joe, and not PSU took the fall for this. He didn't do that.

People who defend him are so confused about right and wrong that they just can't see how completely screwed up his decisions were.

Methinks you are the one who is very confused about right and wrong. Does political corruption bother you at all? This story is rife with political corruption imho.

 

[Art]

He put on no defense. Which means that side was not preserved for appeals.

And at the time of the events he was in s position to ensure that no one, not he, not Joe, and not PSU took the fall for this. He didn't do that.

People who defend him are so confused about right and wrong that they just can't see how completely screwed up his decisions were.

Fvck off.

 

[AvgUser]

People who defend him are so confused about right and wrong that they just can't see how completely screwed up his decisions were.

I've asked before but you choose not to answer. Please highlight the element of the law that Spanier violated to deserve a criminal conviction. .

 

[indynittany]

He put on no defense. Which means that side was not preserved for appeals.

And at the time of the events he was in s position to ensure that no one, not he, not Joe, and not PSU took the fall for this. He didn't do that.

People who defend him are so confused about right and wrong that they just can't see how completely screwed up his decisions were.

No abuse was reported to him or to those who reported to him. Certainly, after Curley informed Raykovitz about what they had been told and that Jerry's guest privileges were rescinded, the ball was squarely in TSM's court.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

No abuse was reported to him or to those who reported to him. Certainly, after Curley informed Raykovitz about what they had been told and that Jerry's guest privileges were rescinded, the ball was squarely in TSM's court.

You'd think he'd have made that case in court, then.

 

[AvgUser]

You'd think he'd have made that case in court, then.

Can't answer the question, huh? What are you afraid of ? The truth i suspect?

 

[Connorpozlee]

Fair enough. But I don't think jurors compartmentalize charges and testimony. Without McQueary, it's he said (actually he didn't say)/he said. I think that the presence of an independent witness helps to validate the testimony of the victims, even though it wasn't relative to their specific charges.

The eyewitness testified and they cleared him of some of those charges. The victims testimony is what did him in. You had men talking about having been abused as a boy and the man accused sitting mute in the same room, offering up no defense for himself.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Methinks you are the one who is very confused about right and wrong. Does political corruption bother you at all? This story is rife with political corruption imho.

They’re not mutually exclusive. I am bothered by political corruption and pedophilia. You don’t have to pick and choose.

 

[colt21]

He put on no defense. Which means that side was not preserved for appeals.

And at the time of the events he was in s position to ensure that no one, not he, not Joe, and not PSU took the fall for this. He didn't do that.

People who defend him are so confused about right and wrong that they just can't see how completely screwed up his decisions were.

It’s your opinion and your entitled to it but please understand that I’m a case like this you do not have to put on a “defense” if the prosecution “didn’t prove anything”, which they clearly didn’t.

That should have been enough right there.

So to me, those making the argument that he should have put a defense on are the ones who are ignorant of the facts of this case.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Can't answer the question, huh? What are you afraid of ? The truth i suspect?

I am wondering why Spanier then, sent an email in which he said it would be bad if going to Raykovitz was not sufficient.

Put plainly, if they had gone to CYS, PSU, then CSS and Joe would have been 100% clean in 2011.

Spanier made the choice to risk all by depending on Raykovitz.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It’s your opinion and your entitled to it but please understand that I’m a case like this you do not have to put on a “defense” if the prosecution “didn’t prove anything”, which they clearly didn’t.

That should have been enough right there.

So to me, those making the argument that he should have put a defense on are the ones who are ignorant of the facts of this case.

Not putting on a defense certainly didn’t work out for Spanier’s team.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

It’s your opinion and your entitled to it but please understand that I’m a case like this you do not have to put on a “defense” if the prosecution “didn’t prove anything”, which they clearly didn’t.

That should have been enough right there.

So to me, those making the argument that he should have put a defense on are the ones who are ignorant of the facts of this case.

At every stage of all this, Spanier made bad choices. This includes things completely separate from the Sandusjy affair. If Corbett held a grudge against him and PSU, that's bad on Corbett. But without question, part of Spanier's job is to navigate political waters. He failed at that. His decisions caused serious harm.

And they have nothing to do with Sandusky's guilt or innocence. In fact, Jerry (and everyone else) would have been better off in the long run if Spanier had informed Raykovitz AND CYS.