ADVERTISEMENT

Spanier targeting Lubert

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?
You really must be kidding or have lived under a rock for 6 years.
2.You say Courtney was brought up to point. He has subsequently testified he was told nothing about CSA.So you choose to believe half the story?
3.Harmon was asked about 1998 but we are to believe Harmon never asked why or between the two of them no follow up with CYS wasn't contacted. Illogical, also why has Harmon been "hidden from all inquiries"
4. Curley's email. i suggest you search any of the 500 times Indynittany has explained this.
5 You suggest Curley "made up" a story to Raykovitz.If he was going to make up a story why even go to JR. Again illogical
 
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?
No, you still have the same question. Why would Curley hear a story of sexual abuse and tell Raykovitz it was only horseplay?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
You really must be kidding or have lived under a rock for 6 years.
2.You say Courtney was brought up to point. He has subsequently testified he was told nothing about CSA.So you choose to believe half the story?

Courtney testified in McQueary's hearing and said that this was the advice he gave. He said that he didn't think it was a duty, but he advised them to report it. He billed it as suspected child abuse.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_c1d0e926-9486-11e6-8ec0-ff7510563b72.html

A copy of his bill is here:

https://billypenn.com/2015/11/17/th...buse-in-2001-why-dont-we-know-what-they-said/


3.Harmon was asked about 1998 but we are to believe Harmon never asked why or between the two of them no follow up with CYS wasn't contacted. Illogical, also why has Harmon been "hidden from all inquiries"

The report was for 1998, where CYS and the police investigated. The email does not indicate that anyone told Harmon about the 2001 incident.

4. Curley's email. i suggest you search any of the 500 times Indynittany has explained this.

Explained what, that there initial plan was to talk to Sandusky, tell TSM and report it to DPW? Then Curley says he's uncomfortable with it and it isn't done. What explanation is needed. That is what they said.

5 You suggest Curley "made up" a story to Raykovitz.If he was going to make up a story why even go to JR. Again illogical

Making up a story would have one of several logical reason, to keep Sandusky's activities "in-house." Not to worry about it leaking out. If they wanted to dissuade Sandusky from bringing children on campus, suggesting to Raykovitz that Sandusky shouldn't be on campus would be a help. Royal, that answers your question as well.

Now, there may be other logical reasons as well, but this is one of them.

What e-mail provider do you use at your rock, roswelllion? ;)
 
Last edited:
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?

And no "sex" happened you Pitt imbecile except between you and your right fist.
 
Courtney testified in McQueary's hearing and said that this was the advice he gave. He said that he didn't think it was a duty, but he advised them to report it. He billed it as suspected child abuse.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_c1d0e926-9486-11e6-8ec0-ff7510563b72.html

A copy of his bill is here:

https://billypenn.com/2015/11/17/th...buse-in-2001-why-dont-we-know-what-they-said/




The report was for 1998, where CYS and the police investigated. The email does not indicate that anyone told Harmon about the 2001 incident.



Explained what, that there initial plan was to talk to Sandusky, tell TSM and report it to DPW? Then Curley says he's uncomfortable with it and it isn't done. What explanation is needed. That is what they said.
5 You suggest Curley "made up" a story to Raykovitz.If he was going to make up a story why even go to JR. Again illogical[/QUOTE]

Making up a story would have one of several logical reason, to keep Sandusky's activities "in-house." Not to worry about it leaking out. If they wanted to dissuade Sandusky from bringing children on campus, suggesting to Raykovitz that Sandusky shouldn't be on campus would be a help. Royal, that answers your question as well.

Now, there may be other logical reasons as well, but this is one of them.

What e-mail provider do you use at your rock, roswelllion? ;)[/QUOTE]


Who was responsible to tell the police in 2001 Pitt shitbreath?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
OK, Stuffed Dodo, you are a piece of work. Now you want us to believe that in order to keep Sandusky's activities "in house," Curley went to Raykovitz with some lame watered down story about horseplay so as not to reveal what really happened.

How about if they really wanted to keep it secret, they don't tell Raykovitz anything at all, you asshat? Now tell me how your option A is better.
 
OK, Stuffed Dodo, you are a piece of work. Now you want us to believe that in order to keep Sandusky's activities "in house," Curley went to Raykovitz with some lame watered down story about horseplay so as not to reveal what really happened.

How about if they really wanted to keep it secret, they don't tell Raykovitz anything at all, you asshat? Now tell me how your option A is better.


You asked for one possible explanation of why, and that is it. It is consistent with not telling Courtney, Raykovitz, DPW or the police. They also might have wanted it not to happen in the future, at least on campus, for nobody to see it in the future. That is only one possible reason, but it is a logical one.

Pnnykitty, two juries have now felt it happened. I believe them more than I believe you. And the person that was responsible for reporting it to the police in 2001 was Spanier. He's an old friend of yours, right?
 
You asked for one possible explanation of why, and that is it. It is consistent with not telling Courtney, Raykovitz, DPW or the police. They also might have wanted it not to happen in the future, at least on campus, for nobody to see it in the future. That is only one possible reason, but it is a logical one.

Pnnykitty, two juries have now felt it happened. I believe them more than I believe you. And the person that was responsible for reporting it to the police in 2001 was Spanier. He's an old friend of yours, right?


Spanier had no reporting responsibility in 2001 you PL clown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
All this chain of debate event talk is useless for one reason.

Paterno, the supposed most powerful person in the state, could have buried the report right then and there.

"Mike, you were mistaken. Jerry was likely teaching a showering skills class to a TSM kid. Go home and rest and don't talk about it anymore."

Rule #1 of a cover up. Don't tell more people.
 
All this chain of debate event talk is useless for one reason.

Paterno, the supposed most powerful person in the state, could have buried the report right then and there.

"Mike, you were mistaken. Jerry was likely teaching a showering skills class to a TSM kid. Go home and rest and don't talk about it anymore."

Rule #1 of a cover up. Don't tell more people.

So Paterno covered nothing up, or st least didn't mastermind it. Noone on these boards suggests he did.
 
So Paterno covered nothing up, or st least didn't mastermind it. Noone on these boards suggests he did.

But the general narrative in all this (as you well know) is that there was a cover up.

Within a week or two of it happening, at least 10, probably more, people knew that MM saw Sandusky in a shower that night. Not a very good way to orchestrate a cover up.

MM
JM
Dranov
Paterno
Curley
Schultz
Spanier
At least one PSU admin assistant
Dr R at TSM
Other board members at TSM
PSU's attorney
 
But the general narrative in all this (as you well know) is that there was a cover up.

Within a week or two of it happening, at least 10, probably more, people knew that MM saw Sandusky in a shower that night. Not a very good way to orchestrate a cover up.

MM
JM
Dranov
Paterno
Curley
Schultz
Spanier
At least one PSU admin assistant
Dr R at TSM
Other board members at TSM
PSU's attorney

Yet... it was indeed not widely known or investigated for 10 years.
 
But the general narrative in all this (as you well know) is that there was a cover up.

Within a week or two of it happening, at least 10, probably more, people knew that MM saw Sandusky in a shower that night. Not a very good way to orchestrate a cover up.

MM
JM
Dranov
Paterno
Curley
Schultz
Spanier
At least one PSU admin assistant
Dr R at TSM
Other board members at TSM
PSU's attorney


Okay let's look at this list:

JM
Dranov

These two are completely out of control of PSU and didn't find out from anyone othe than McQueary.

Dr R at TSM
Other board members at TSM
PSU's attorney

None of these were told it was molestation. It was just a complaint about something unknown that made someone unknown.

So new we have:
MM
Paterno
Curley
Schultz
Spanier*
At least one PSU admin assistant*

Everyone on that list is part of Penn State and there is the possibility the unnamed assistant and Spanier not knowing what it was (the asterisks).

BTW: Lurker, wrong again. And pnnykitty continues his stellar record of error. He'll probably call me Johnathan M. Jacobs next. LOL.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: psudukie
Okay let's look at this list:

JM
Dranov

These two are completely out of control of PSU and didn't find out from anyone othe than McQueary.

Dr R at TSM
Other board members at TSM
PSU's attorney

None of these were told it was molestation. It was just a complaint about something unknown that made someone unknown.

So new we have:
MM
Paterno
Curley
Schultz
Spanier*
At least one PSU admin assistant*

Everyone on that list is part of Penn State and there is the possibility the unnamed assistant and Spanier not knowing what it was (the asterisks).

BTW: Lurker, wrong again.


mbe, get lost already.
 
Okay let's look at this list:

Paterno
Curley
Schultz
Spanier*
At least one PSU admin assistant*

None of these were told it was molestation. It was just a complaint about something unknown that made someone unknown

FIFY

The fault lies at the beginning and the end of the communication chain, with those that actually witnessed something (or nothing), heard timely firsthand accounts within minutes, or were mandated to investigate such reports and had direct oversight of JS... that's not going to change no matter how much you hate PSU.

When you point the spotlight towards PSU, you point it away from those that actually failed the victims. Obviously you don't care about them, or future victims.
 
FIFY

The fault lies at the beginning and the end of the communication chain, with those that actually witnessed something (or nothing), heard timely firsthand accounts within minutes, or were mandated to investigate such reports and had direct oversight of JS... that's not going to change no matter how much you hate PSU.

When you point the spotlight towards PSU, you point it away from those that actually failed the victims. Obviously you don't care about them, or future victims.

Unless it got to Spanier who pushed out word in both directions to let it go, given the state of the school in the media at that time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
I think you twist his words to fit your agenda.

"I don't know what you'd call it."

We also know his testimony wasn't cross examined and has never been heard to verify its accuracy. It's worthless, yet you cling to it.

Far from worthless, though both Paterno McQueary testified that it was not a detailed account.

Further, it triggered Paterno's call to Curley and/or Schultz. That very clearly happened, as we have Courtney's billing record.

Now that is no criticism of Paterno (or McQueary) expressed or implied. He did what he was legally required to do within the time from that was legally required.

Again the mandatory reporter was Spanier and the details of what happened went to Curley and Schultz. That is at the heart of Penn State's administration.
 
Far from worthless, though both Paterno McQueary testified that it was not a detailed account.

Further, it triggered Paterno's call to Curley and/or Schultz. That very clearly happened, as we have Courtney's billing record.

Now that is no criticism of Paterno (or McQueary) expressed or implied. He did what he was legally required to do within the time from that was legally required.

Again the mandatory reporter was Spanier and the details of what happened went to Curley and Schultz. That is at the heart of Penn State's administration.


You're so full of shit you Pitt idiot, mbe. Why didn't Dranov or Mike call, asshole?
 
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.

Lol. How could he believe it was "completely handled" if he never did step one in getting JS criminally investigated (file written statement on the record at UPPD)?

Instead all MM did was have an informal off the record chat (10 days later mind you) with some admins as if it was an HR matter. Then when the admins follow up with their action plan (that doesn't invovled someone from UPPD getting his statement) MM expresses ZERO dissatisfaction nor says more needed to be done....yet that failure is somehow on the admins not the witness?? The admins were taking their cues from the witness not the other way around.

If they wanted to placate MM they never would have followed up, contacted outside counsel, or reported it to the MANDATORY reporters at TSM whom they had no control over. They would have said it was nothing and told MM to drop it. But that never happened and MM was never told to keep queit. MM was free to file a report with LE whenever he wanted starting with the very night of the incident.
 
Far from worthless, though both Paterno McQueary testified that it was not a detailed account.

Further, it triggered Paterno's call to Curley and/or Schultz. That very clearly happened, as we have Courtney's billing record.

Now that is no criticism of Paterno (or McQueary) expressed or implied. He did what he was legally required to do within the time from that was legally required.

Again the mandatory reporter was Spanier and the details of what happened went to Curley and Schultz. That is at the heart of Penn State's administration.
Let's try it again: What the difference between 2011 and 2001?
 
Courtney testified in McQueary's hearing and said that this was the advice he gave. He said that he didn't think it was a duty, but he advised them to report it. He billed it as suspected child abuse.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_c1d0e926-9486-11e6-8ec0-ff7510563b72.html

A copy of his bill is here:

https://billypenn.com/2015/11/17/th...buse-in-2001-why-dont-we-know-what-they-said/




The report was for 1998, where CYS and the police investigated. The email does not indicate that anyone told Harmon about the 2001 incident.



Explained what, that there initial plan was to talk to Sandusky, tell TSM and report it to DPW? Then Curley says he's uncomfortable with it and it isn't done. What explanation is needed. That is what they said.



Making up a story would have one of several logical reason, to keep Sandusky's activities "in-house." Not to worry about it leaking out. If they wanted to dissuade Sandusky from bringing children on campus, suggesting to Raykovitz that Sandusky shouldn't be on campus would be a help. Royal, that answers your question as well.

Now, there may be other logical reasons as well, but this is one of them.

What e-mail provider do you use at your rock, roswelllion? ;)

Last comment then I am gonna move on. You continue to ignore the other half of Courtney's testimony. May not be his exact words but he said "certainly if i were told of CSA I would have told them to go to the police" So you want to say because of his billing he was told [an assumption} but ignore his direct testimony. Further in this thread you say he was probably told the "made up story" So Gs meets with Courtney and is concerned enough that Courtney calls it suspected child abuse in his billing, BUT then makes up a story.
Well aware the request to Harmon was about 1998. We are to believe that GS asks harmon about 1998 and neither of these two discuss it any further. Just "go pull a file from 3 years ago" and harmon blindly pulls it and gives it to him like a secretary would do.

Curley's email. I believe the original plan was to go to everyone except JS not including JS. Curley simply said he felt he should go to JS as well. That is and was completely logical. Not sure if you are uninformed or intentionally misleading.

The idea that TC and GS would make up a story start to spread it as a CYA exercise is really silly. We have no vic MM is no longer pushing things and yet these two are going to make up a story that can backfire. Remember at this time MM, Mr M Dranov and JVP have heard the story.

On to more logical posters.
 
Unless it got to Spanier who pushed out word in both directions to let it go, given the state of the school in the media at that time.

I see you didn't find that post yet where I explained why your ridiculous "state of the school at that time" theory is garbage. Keep trying!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
Far from worthless, though both Paterno McQueary testified that it was not a detailed account.

Further, it triggered Paterno's call to Curley and/or Schultz. That very clearly happened, as we have Courtney's billing record.

Now that is no criticism of Paterno (or McQueary) expressed or implied. He did what he was legally required to do within the time from that was legally required.

Again the mandatory reporter was Spanier and the details of what happened went to Curley and Schultz. That is at the heart of Penn State's administration.

Almost everything you post is completely wrong. On ignore you go. I urge others to do the same.
 
Last comment then I am gonna move on. You continue to ignore the other half of Courtney's testimony. May not be his exact words but he said "certainly if i were told of CSA I would have told them to go to the police" So you want to say because of his billing he was told [an assumption} but ignore his direct testimony. Further in this thread you say he was probably told the "made up story" So Gs meets with Courtney and is concerned enough that Courtney calls it suspected child abuse in his billing, BUT then makes up a story.
Well aware the request to Harmon was about 1998. We are to believe that GS asks harmon about 1998 and neither of these two discuss it any further. Just "go pull a file from 3 years ago" and harmon blindly pulls it and gives it to him like a secretary would do.

Curley's email. I believe the original plan was to go to everyone except JS not including JS. Curley simply said he felt he should go to JS as well. That is and was completely logical. Not sure if you are uninformed or intentionally misleading.

The idea that TC and GS would make up a story start to spread it as a CYA exercise is really silly. We have no vic MM is no longer pushing things and yet these two are going to make up a story that can backfire. Remember at this time MM, Mr M Dranov and JVP have heard the story.

On to more logical posters.

Great post. Stufftodo is dishonest and trying to spread misinformation.

The inital plan was to tell TSM and DPW behind Jerry's back then after talking to Joe and thinking on it TC decided to not go behind JS' back and instead confront him about his inappropriate behavior (this is what prompted Spaniers email saying he admired TC for taking the extra step). If he agreed it was wrong and needed to stop then they would work with him to inform TSM. If he didn't then they would perhaps get him professional help and bring in DPW as an "independent child welfare" agency that would drive that message home and then inform TSM with or without JS' cooperation.

Freeh tried laughably to paint the above as Joe directing TC to cover up by telling him not to inform DPW.
 
Last comment then I am gonna move on. You continue to ignore the other half of Courtney's testimony. May not be his exact words but he said "certainly if i were told of CSA I would have told them to go to the police" So you want to say because of his billing he was told [an assumption} but ignore his direct testimony. Further in this thread you say he was probably told the "made up story" So Gs meets with Courtney and is concerned enough that Courtney calls it suspected child abuse in his billing, BUT then makes up a story.
Well aware the request to Harmon was about 1998. We are to believe that GS asks harmon about 1998 and neither of these two discuss it any further. Just "go pull a file from 3 years ago" and harmon blindly pulls it and gives it to him like a secretary would do.

Curley's email. I believe the original plan was to go to everyone except JS not including JS. Curley simply said he felt he should go to JS as well. That is and was completely logical. Not sure if you are uninformed or intentionally misleading.

The idea that TC and GS would make up a story start to spread it as a CYA exercise is really silly. We have no vic MM is no longer pushing things and yet these two are going to make up a story that can backfire. Remember at this time MM, Mr M Dranov and JVP have heard the story.

On to more logical posters.

Liking your post felt inadequate. GREAT post. Thank you.
 
Last comment then I am gonna move on. You continue to ignore the other half of Courtney's testimony. May not be his exact words but he said "certainly if i were told of CSA I would have told them to go to the police" So you want to say because of his billing he was told [an assumption} but ignore his direct testimony. Further in this thread you say he was probably told the "made up story" So Gs meets with Courtney and is concerned enough that Courtney calls it suspected child abuse in his billing, BUT then makes up a story.
Well aware the request to Harmon was about 1998. We are to believe that GS asks harmon about 1998 and neither of these two discuss it any further. Just "go pull a file from 3 years ago" and harmon blindly pulls it and gives it to him like a secretary would do.

Curley's email. I believe the original plan was to go to everyone except JS not including JS. Curley simply said he felt he should go to JS as well. That is and was completely logical. Not sure if you are uninformed or intentionally misleading.

The idea that TC and GS would make up a story start to spread it as a CYA exercise is really silly. We have no vic MM is no longer pushing things and yet these two are going to make up a story that can backfire. Remember at this time MM, Mr M Dranov and JVP have heard the story.

On to more logical posters.

It is quite clear that they were thinking of improper action. The mere fact that Courtney was called, very early on, demonstrates.

The original e-mail, and Schultz hand written note, stated:

3. Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile.

2. Report to Dept of Welfare.

1. Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.

*Who is the chair??

It is right here on page 223. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/396512-report-final-071212.html

The email, saying the same thing, but in reverse order. It is on page 225. Anybody can check.
 
Okay let's look at this list:

JM
Dranov

These two are completely out of control of PSU and didn't find out from anyone othe than McQueary.

Dr R at TSM
Other board members at TSM
PSU's attorney

None of these were told it was molestation. It was just a complaint about something unknown that made someone unknown.

So new we have:
MM
Paterno
Curley
Schultz
Spanier*
At least one PSU admin assistant*

Everyone on that list is part of Penn State and there is the possibility the unnamed assistant and Spanier not knowing what it was (the asterisks).

BTW: Lurker, wrong again. And pnnykitty continues his stellar record of error. He'll probably call me Johnathan M. Jacobs next. LOL.

1) JM discussed the situation with Schultz
2) There is no documented report of molestation. Just a kid in a shower with Sandusky and assumptions made about why a kid was in a shower with Sandusky
 
It is quite clear that they were thinking of improper action. The mere fact that Courtney was called, very early on, demonstrates.

The original e-mail, and Schultz hand written note, stated:

3. Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile.

2. Report to Dept of Welfare.

1. Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.

*Who is the chair??

It is right here on page 223. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/396512-report-final-071212.html

The email, saying the same thing, but in reverse order. It is on page 225. Anybody can check.

I'm gonna regret getting into this, but....
When you say "It is quite clear that they were thinking of improper action." you lose me and almost everyone else.
There is no way I would ever believe, and no one with a rational, logical thought process could ever believe, that this specific collection of men (C/S/S/JVP) - all in strong marriages, all fathers, all with stellar reputations for doing both personal and professional things the right way, even when the right way is the harder, less-advantageous way, could find it in themselves to believe that young children were being sexually molested and raped... and then make a conscious, collective decision to allow it to go on, cover it up on their end and hope that the approx. 20 people (and growing) who already knew about it would also decide independently to not take any further steps... and have no regard for not only the victims and any future victims, but also for the consequences of taking that course of action (these are men, especially JVP, whose daily mantra was about being held accountable for your action and making a positive impact on your family, your school, and the larger community! They simply would not and could not push all that aside for something so horrible.) And all that without any one of them offering a differing opinion or raising serious concerns or 'opting out' or taking a stand due to their own conscience. (Even now, with ample opportunities to 'flip' on the others to save their own skin - take the easy way out - none of them have.)
The odds of these things happening both actively and within their own consciences with this specific group of men is staggering.
Not one thing that they had done in their lives had pointed to that even being something that would enter their minds. Based on the kind of people they were/are, none of them would be able to face their wives and children if they made such a decision, let alone the more public faces they would have to hear encounter and explain to. I happen to know Curley. I'd be surprised if someone told me he had once stolen a pack of gum, let alone make these kinds of conscious decisions without regard for his lifetime of making logical, deeply considered, decisions.
That is why I believe that their actions match what they were told at the time, and why any knowledge gained either in 2001 or 3 years prior about 1998 actually led some of them to be even more convinced that it was nothing more than JS's infamous boundary issues and that anything beyond that needed to be given over to TSM or other investigative agencies. Schultz did state that CYS (or DPW) was informed, if I recall. So, they told TSM and likely made a call - took the harder course of action vs. doing nothing - and put it in the hands of the pros to investigate for something more than what they were told at the time.
Nothing beyond that makes sense when I consider the overwhelmingly human aspects of their logical thinking and actions. Any evidence we have seen so far supports that human aspect very well.
Just my opinion. But it's personal to me, because I believe in those men and what they stood/stand for, and because I can so easily put myself in their places and so easily and completely understand why they did what they did, especially while being at least somewhat naive to what the extent of the mess was behind the scenes in the towers of power in SC and TSM and Hbg.
 
I'm gonna regret getting into this, but....
When you say "It is quite clear that they were thinking of improper action." you lose me and almost everyone else.
There is no way I would ever believe, and no one with a rational, logical thought process could ever believe, that this specific collection of men (C/S/S/JVP) - all in strong marriages, all fathers, all with stellar reputations for doing both personal and professional things the right way, even when the right way is the harder, less-advantageous way, could find it in themselves to believe that young children were being sexually molested and raped... and then make a conscious, collective decision to allow it to go on, cover it up on their end and hope that the approx. 20 people (and growing) who already knew about it would also decide independently to not take any further steps... and have no regard for not only the victims and any future victims, but also for the consequences of taking that course of action (these are men, especially JVP, whose daily mantra was about being held accountable for your action and making a positive impact on your family, your school, and the larger community! They simply would not and could not push all that aside for something so horrible.) And all that without any one of them offering a differing opinion or raising serious concerns or 'opting out' or taking a stand due to their own conscience. (Even now, with ample opportunities to 'flip' on the others to save their own skin - take the easy way out - none of them have.)
The odds of these things happening both actively and within their own consciences with this specific group of men is staggering.
Not one thing that they had done in their lives had pointed to that even being something that would enter their minds. Based on the kind of people they were/are, none of them would be able to face their wives and children if they made such a decision, let alone the more public faces they would have to hear encounter and explain to. I happen to know Curley. I'd be surprised if someone told me he had once stolen a pack of gum, let alone make these kinds of conscious decisions without regard for his lifetime of making logical, deeply considered, decisions.
That is why I believe that their actions match what they were told at the time, and why any knowledge gained either in 2001 or 3 years prior about 1998 actually led some of them to be even more convinced that it was nothing more than JS's infamous boundary issues and that anything beyond that needed to be given over to TSM or other investigative agencies. Schultz did state that CYS (or DPW) was informed, if I recall. So, they told TSM and likely made a call - took the harder course of action vs. doing nothing - and put it in the hands of the pros to investigate for something more than what they were told at the time.
Nothing beyond that makes sense when I consider the overwhelmingly human aspects of their logical thinking and actions. Any evidence we have seen so far supports that human aspect very well.
Just my opinion. But it's personal to me, because I believe in those men and what they stood/stand for, and because I can so easily put myself in their places and so easily and completely understand why they did what they did, especially while being at least somewhat naive to what the extent of the mess was behind the scenes in the towers of power in SC and TSM and Hbg.

Maybe you should read the Clemente report and educate yourself on how Pillar of the Community Offenders deceive people.

It is completely possible for these people to have attempted to do the right thing, done the legal minimum thing, but still not have made the best choice. We can see it in hindsight. Joe himself said the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
I'm gonna regret getting into this, but....
When you say "It is quite clear that they were thinking of improper action." you lose me and almost everyone else.
There is no way I would ever believe, and no one with a rational, logical thought process could ever believe, that this specific collection of men (C/S/S/JVP) - all in strong marriages, all fathers, all with stellar reputations for doing both personal and professional things the right way, even when the right way is the harder, less-advantageous way, could find it in themselves to believe that young children were being sexually molested and raped... and then make a conscious, collective decision to allow it to go on, cover it up on their end and hope that the approx. 20 people (and growing) who already knew about it would also decide independently to not take any further steps... and have no regard for not only the victims and any future victims, but also for the consequences of taking that course of action (these are men, especially JVP, whose daily mantra was about being held accountable for your action and making a positive impact on your family, your school, and the larger community! They simply would not and could not push all that aside for something so horrible.) And all that without any one of them offering a differing opinion or raising serious concerns or 'opting out' or taking a stand due to their own conscience. (Even now, with ample opportunities to 'flip' on the others to save their own skin - take the easy way out - none of them have.)
The odds of these things happening both actively and within their own consciences with this specific group of men is staggering.
Not one thing that they had done in their lives had pointed to that even being something that would enter their minds. Based on the kind of people they were/are, none of them would be able to face their wives and children if they made such a decision, let alone the more public faces they would have to hear encounter and explain to. I happen to know Curley. I'd be surprised if someone told me he had once stolen a pack of gum, let alone make these kinds of conscious decisions without regard for his lifetime of making logical, deeply considered, decisions.
That is why I believe that their actions match what they were told at the time, and why any knowledge gained either in 2001 or 3 years prior about 1998 actually led some of them to be even more convinced that it was nothing more than JS's infamous boundary issues and that anything beyond that needed to be given over to TSM or other investigative agencies. Schultz did state that CYS (or DPW) was informed, if I recall. So, they told TSM and likely made a call - took the harder course of action vs. doing nothing - and put it in the hands of the pros to investigate for something more than what they were told at the time.
Nothing beyond that makes sense when I consider the overwhelmingly human aspects of their logical thinking and actions. Any evidence we have seen so far supports that human aspect very well.
Just my opinion. But it's personal to me, because I believe in those men and what they stood/stand for, and because I can so easily put myself in their places and so easily and completely understand why they did what they did, especially while being at least somewhat naive to what the extent of the mess was behind the scenes in the towers of power in SC and TSM and Hbg.

And here seems to be the time for me to post the same diatribe that I have posted about 20 times and it has never, ever been contradicted by anyone... has held up for 5 years and new "news" / accusations and court reports and everything else.

EVERY SINGLE action by EVERY SINGLE person involved in 2001 (MM, Mr. McQueary, Dr. D, JVP, C/S/S, the attorney, Dr. Reyk,) ... every action of every single one of them is 100% consistent with "JS is a strange guy with boundary issues and this situation seems inappapriate and needs to be addressed"... and 100% inconsistent with "JS is an evil pedophile who we caught raping a young boy but we need to cover it up to protect ourselves". Yet people want to believe the latter must be true, because it makes them feel better to tear down JVP, and makes them believe that it is obvious how these guys operate and that they would obviously handle things differently so it could never happen to them (i.e. MSU) because they have integrity and everyone at PSU doesn't.
 
Maybe you should read the Clemente report and educate yourself on how Pillar of the Community Offenders deceive people.

It is completely possible for these people to have attempted to do the right thing, done the legal minimum thing, but still not have made the best choice. We can see it in hindsight. Joe himself said the same.

I have read it. I believe JS deceived people. Even the best of people, the best-intentioned people. They made the best choices given what they knew and believed at the time.

Only hindsight would make them change the courses of action they took... which means they know something more or different than they knew then!!!

JVP's hindsight quote... good grief.
 
And here seems to be the time for me to post the same diatribe that I have posted about 20 times and it has never, ever been contradicted by anyone... has held up for 5 years and new "news" / accusations and court reports and everything else.

EVERY SINGLE action by EVERY SINGLE person involved in 2001 (MM, Mr. McQueary, Dr. D, JVP, C/S/S, the attorney, Dr. Reyk,) ... every action of every single one of them is 100% consistent with "JS is a strange guy with boundary issues and this situation seems inappapriate and needs to be addressed"... and 100% inconsistent with "JS is an evil pedophile who we caught raping a young boy but we need to cover it up to protect ourselves". Yet people want to believe the latter must be true, because it makes them feel better to tear down JVP, and makes them believe that it is obvious how these guys operate and that they would obviously handle things differently so it could never happen to them (i.e. MSU) because they have integrity and everyone at PSU doesn't.

"JS is a strange guy does ..." not sell ratings " JS is an evil pedophile caught raping a child..." certainly does.

So many things went wrong but at the top of my list was the media's reaction to everything...there are no watchdogs calling out inaccuracies or lack of fact checking anymore...

"Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story , unless you can't think of anything better"

Mark Twain
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT