Stuff'tdoodoo is full of shit. Notice how he and the other trolls avoid the question of who was responsible to call the police. Because it was 3 assholes, none of whom were C/S &S.
Spanier targeting Lubert
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
While we have heard lots from mike on this, we still haven't heard all from Schultz. Based on his position in 2001 and the years that followed, I understand your position, but, pardon the pun, the jury is still out on Schultz.
Good God you are insufferable, read the testimony of MM I just posted above.
Molestation/fondling wasn't reported to anyone bc MM didn't see any hands, that being the case JR/TSM were still required to look into ANY AND ALL incidents no matter how benign, including an inappropriate shower that made a PSU GA uncomfortable.
If anyone dropped the ball it was TSM and no amount of hindsight bias from you is going to change that FACT.
Well, gee Wally! Maybe it's because Curley did not receive a "sexual molestation" report either. Now, Beaver Cleaver, please stop re-posting the same straw man in 3 different threads multiple times.
However, and this is what you need to get through your head: Raykovitz had had several of these reports and was TRAINED to recognize a grooming pattern.
Based on how this thread is going, I think we need a preemptive "I don't know what you'd call it."
I don't know what you'd call it.
I don't know what you'd call it.
This is a cop out response. If the witness was so certain in 2001 of what he saw in 2001, he had a host of other options at his disposal for reporting.
Last edited:
I'd call it - an OUTRAGE !
Perpetrated by the PennJive obfuscation brigade.
I'd call it - an OUTRAGE !
Or simple stupidity on their part works. They have it in spades.
indeed, I pulled them off ignore to find their idiotic response to my question
bottom line is that the PSU admins were not required, by law, to report anything to the police. and McQueary's eye witness account made it to the desk of the only person who WAS.
here's another zinger of a question for the trolls . . . knowing this is true (and the OAG even conceded it in refiling charges against C/S/S) . . . why would PSU accept ANY liability for any of these charges? Why hire Freeh to do a hatchet job on Paterno and C/S/S?
the answer is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70.
Understood. But as the man in charge of the university police department, he was informed of something and it didn't result in the arrest of a man that went on to sexually abuse other children. That's a failure on his behalf.
I disagree. That's a hindsight failure. He was charged with investigating an incident.
So your explanation is that Curley received a report that Jerry Sandusky brutally and savagely sodomized an underaged youth in a shower, and he goes to Jack Raykovitz and gives him some watered down story about horseplay. Why? Why would he do that? If you're going to dilute this to the point of making it a non-story, why even tell him? And don't say he didn't tell him, because we know he did. Heim has stated that he was aware and that he heard it from Raykovitz. Who else would he have heard it from?
That would have been a failure if this man was ever told of anything illegal that was witnessed.
could have sworn you were the one who said that a middle aged man in a shower would raise all kinds of red flags... now you let Rayk off the hook because no molestation was reported to him. Why the double standard? The football coach and the athletic director were supposed to see all the red flags ... but the trained child welfare PHD isn't held to the same standard?
Look as much on the side of people wondering what went on as anybody else and doubting some of what he have heard. Simple fact is that whatever they were told led Schultz to speak with Courtney about it. For some reason it was not investigated by the police department. They then spoke with TSM to tell them about the incident. So they felt what they heard from McQueary was enough for them to seek legal counsel to investigate whether or not it was abuse. They felt what they heard was enough to inform the agency as which he worked. However, they didn't feel that it was enough to investigate with the actual police officers or detectives. That's on Schultz.
I would disagree on this in order
MM
Dranov
Raykovitz
Mr M
Schultz
Hindsight is 20/20. Not to defend Schultz here but if you are him, before you hear from Mike you have
MM witnessing and doing nothing,
Mr M and Dranov hearing in close to real time
JVP hearing something
at this point in time no one has suggested police. Raykovitz moves way up the list because he was the only mandated reporter in the whole group, and to Stuuftoodo he is responsible for investigating NO MATTER what Curley told him. He didn't. While Curley might have said horseplay if I am not mistaked JR's response was something like "if you are trying to tell me JS is a pedophile you are crazy" so Curley's report was serious enough to generate that type of response.
You can't leave Joe out of that lineup if you are including Dranov, Mr. McQueary and Tim Curley. I get Raykovitz being including. But his investigation is not a police investigation. Shultz is thebhead of the campus PD. Absolutely nothing harmed in involving them in an investigation. My guess is that most did what they should have done. He dropped the ball, or passed the buck. Whichever cliche' you choose.
On this point perhaps. Not overall I don't think.
And I will add that this is all guesswork. I still have no idea what actually went down. My point is simply that if Schultz thought it was enough to check with legal counsel about its legality then it was probably worthy of having it checked into by the PD.
Don't know if it makes a difference in your thinking, but Schultz contacted WC before he spoke to MM. IMO, no administrator contacts counsel and then ignores his advice. What ever JVP relayed to TC and in essence GS........MM must have related essentially the same story when he met with GS and TC. Therefor no need to engage WC again.
If GS intended to "cover up" the incident, why would he first ask for guidelines from counsel? It is reasonable to assume WC told GS what responsibilities PSU had and an outline of how to proceed in addressing the incident. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that MM never gave a clear, unambiguous charge of sexual abuse or any sort of sodomy. Everyone including Dad and Dr. D responded as if they were given a very non-specific report.
I'll speculate a bit more. GS testified that he thought "the same agency that investigated '98" was contacted. Of course, if this is true and the report was "not founded" or never pursued, no record would exist. In any event, I would be willing to bet a significant sum that our friend, Tom Harmon, was entrusted with making that contact. It seems to me that Mr. Harmon has enjoyed a "protected species" status from the Commonwealth OAG. Did he call? Or did the incident die, since he did hide the '98 report.
I am curious why isn't contacting TSM the correct way to go? Unless i have been reading wrong TSM was the only mandated reporter in this whole thing.
One thing I am confused about is, was Schultz considered the police. I think MM has said he thought he was, I think I read some recent testimony where PSU was claiming he was. If he was that certainly changes the narrative vis a vie Joe and Tim. The public and OAG apparently didn't think he was. So if he wasn't, he goes to Courtney who claims he never heard anything like CSA, there is no vic etc. etc. I think Courtney's advice was contact CYS and TSM. [not police] Now here is where I agree with you, IF CYS was never contacted by Schultz or Harmon that is on him. However to believe this whole mess you would still need to believe
Schultz JVP and TC heard a more serious charge that Dranov and Mr. M.
Then TC and GS would need to concoct a story that wasn't CSA, but was serious enough to investigate.Each then goes to someone different, [Courtney and Raykovitz], and relays this concocted story.
Then they never coach or try to quiet anyone for the next 10 years about the story, which is supposed to be DIFFERENT than the story MM told them.
That just does not pass any test of logic for me w/o even considering the heretofore impeccable characters of TC and JVP [can't speak for Schultz i don't know anything about him.]
We have covered this ground a million times, I just needed to vent again.
You can absolutely leave Joe off the list - he did exactly as he should have
Exactly what he did.
Good point about the timing of Shultz contacting Courtney. Everything gets fuzzy the further I get from it. And I absolutely agree with you in that I don't think McQueary made clear at the time what he stated clearly 10 years later. Everybody's actions point to that. Still, he could have had somebody on the force go out and check in with Sandusky just based off of the information he received from Joe . No harm in doing that.
People forget that Joe was not exactly riding the crest of his peak popularity at the point of this incident. I wonder how leading a crusade to investigate Sandusky (who many and at least a few trustees felt should have been the HC) would have played at that juncture. I think he stated that he felt the best thing was to report it according to University policy and get out of the way. It is completely asinine to suggest he should have done differently.
Vent on. I occasionally have to need to lash about it all as well. It's like a gnat constantly flying around my brain. It's constant but sometimes it's unbearable.
I consider Shultz separately from the rest. He was in charge of the campus police department (whether you consider him to be "police" or not, they were under his purview). That puts him at a higher degree of responsibility and at a higher level of knowledge on what would be happening.
I tend to think that the result of the 98 inquiry led GS not to "over react." In hindsight, of course it would have been prudent. I'm convinced, however, with admittedly no proof.....that Harmon was well aware of "the incident."
Another contention of mine.....Let us not forget that JS had Emeritus Status. The impetus of this honor came from his very powerful friends on the BOT. I'm convinced that JS was treated with "kid gloves" since to do otherwise might provoke the ire of his benefactors. Just one of the motivations the OGBOT had in firing JVP, GS and throwing millions at all comers to keep a lid on the truth.
Maybe because MM, the one and only witness, never filed a report/written statement to UPPD? You know, step ONE in getting a formal criminal investigation started...
If MM really was sure a kid was abused and really did want JS criminally investigated why didn't he ever take this step? Why didn't JM/Dr. D tell him to go to UPPD that night and file a report?
A few weeks after his initial meeting with C/S, TC called MM to follow up with PSU's action plan and MM had an opportunity to tell TC, one of the men he trusted to handle his report, that he was unhappy with only going to TSM/confronting JS and unhappy that no one from UPPD ever came to get his written statement. He never expressed one word of dissatisfaction nor said that MORE needed to be done. Same thing goes with JM when he had a face to face meeting with Schultz a few months later...hmm...perhaps MM was happy at the time with the admins response since he didn't actually witness any sex acts/molestation b/c he couldn't see any hands/privates??
I'm currently sitting next to Spanier, anyone want to know anything?
No double standard. Note that I said "alone in a shower." I could also add "having some type of physical contact."
I remember showering in public facilities where anyone of the same gender could come in and shower. That isn't unusual, and people Booker Brooks noted that. I would not find that unusual, or in that context, inappropriate.
It was reported by Curley, to Raykovitz, as being a boy in the shower. Not a boy in the shower alone, except for Sandusky, not in the shower late at night, not having physical contact with the boy.
And since the anal fixative Pnnylion asked, he will have to ask Nellie R and Wensilver. They insisted that Raykovitz knew it was molestation, and Curley testified that he did not tell Raykovitz that it was molestation.
Oh, and if Spanier is available, please ask him why he did not inform the Board between the April 2011 meeting and when he resigned?
Or he was pressured by his employer to let it drop. Or he was told it was completely handled & as a low level employee didnt feel like he could question it.
Your circlular mental gymnastics are impressive though.
Yours aren't impressive. An extremely ridiculous post, even for you.
Well, that is what Curley testified to. We know these things:
1. McQueary talked to Paterno on Saturday morning (2/10/01). They both say that happened. Paterno said that was "sexual."
2. Paterno had to have told Curley and/or Schultz because by Sunday (2/11), they were meeting. Courtney did a bill for "suspected child abuse," and recommended it be reported, so he was brought in by that point.
3. We know that sometime before 5:00 PM on 2/12, Schultz asked Harmon about the 1998 incident report, because Harmon sent him an e-mail saying that they had it.
At the end of this, according to Curley, he told Raykovitz that it was "horseplay." Now, and this not a rhetorical question, if Curley lied under oath about what he told Raykovitz, why?
We do know that Curley stated he was "uncomfortable" going to anyone "I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved." Raykovitz was not "the person involved." Why did Curley suddenly feel this way? That may be the key question.
I'll answer my own question: Raykovitz told Heim that nothing inappropriate happened. That is consistent with what Curley said he told Raykovitz.
Raykovitz also told Heim that he was told (presumably by Curley) that the matter had been investigated. We know of no investigation. So we still have the same question. Why would Curley lied about what told Raykovitz, if he did tell Raykovitz that it was an assault?
Last edited:
Your point #1 is wrong, so I stopped reading.
