The New C/S/S "Smoking Gun"?

[colt21]

1. The cover story to Raykovitz that someone was just "uncomfortable" with Sandusky's conduct. The second, to John McQueary was that the incident had been "investigated."

2. If your belief is based on statute, then cite the part. Are you the one that kept babbling about the "judicial authority" that DPW has, but that is non existent?

3. I said there was a coverup (though not a conspiracy) in 1998. I said that believe that at least one of CSS were involved in it. That is far from saying that they "masterminded" it.



That is simple. The witness reported it up the chain of command. As noted, the cover story was given to people outside of the University.

1. I've said this before IF the story gets to JR it doesn't matter if it was "uncomfortable" or not - they have a procedure to follow and they did not. In other words, there is no "watering down" of any story they were told that should stop them from doing their thing - which they didn't.

2. I am absolutely NOT that poster - besides I don't "Babble"!
I am the poster who is a professional in the field who wrote our company's procedures with the new CPSL law and who knows exactly what role (with regards to that law) that the actors played in 98 and 01/02.
I am also the poster who is trying to have an intelligent conversation with everyone -- even those who disagree with me who are coming from a less knowledgeable perspective - so I try and educate them because that is truly the only way to combat CSA

1. The cover story to Raykovitz that someone was just "uncomfortable" with Sandusky's conduct. The second, to John McQueary was that the incident had been "investigated."

2. If your belief is based on statute, then cite the part. Are you the one that kept babbling about the "judicial authority" that DPW has, but that is non existent?

3. I said there was a coverup (though not a conspiracy) in 1998. I said that believe that at least one of CSS were involved in it. That is far from saying that they "masterminded" it.



That is simple. The witness reported it up the chain of command. As noted, the cover story was given to people outside of the University.

1. The cover story to Raykovitz that someone was just "uncomfortable" with Sandusky's conduct. The second, to John McQueary was that the incident had been "investigated."

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – it does NOT matter what they told JR and TSM – only that they were told. Once they were told they had protocols that they didn’t follow. Just and fyi…..the protocols are NOT “If this level of a story then that level of response” – they are IF (a report) THEN THAT (prescribed action).

2. If your belief is based on statute, then cite the part. Are you the one that kept babbling about the "judicial authority" that DPW has, but that is non existent?

I am absolutely not that poster – I don’t “babble”. Who I am however, is a professional in the field who wrote out new procedures based on the updated CPSL. I also know exactly who was MR’s in this situation and more importantly who was not.

• The only actual MR in 01/02 was JR and TSM. CSS nor DrD (in that particular circumstance) were MR’s

Further, I am a poster who is truly cares about mitigating CSA, therefore, I am always open to listening to others and trying to learn myself. In the cases where others are simply not knowledgeable of a situation that I am I try and educate them – as that is the only way we will have an impact on CSA.

If I can go on a small rant here, I also have tons of experience in sitting on, CREATING, managing and being managed by all kinds of public sector boards and I can also say with 100% certainty that this board, their makeup and how they handled this situation would be the shining example of how NOT to do something in a situation like this. It truly is sad to me.

3. I said there was a coverup (though not a conspiracy) in 1998. I said that believe that at least one of CSS were involved in it. That is far from saying that they "masterminded" it.

Ok you’ve piqued my interest – IF there was a cover-up started in 98 then WHO did mastermind it? That would boggle the mind – but also, again, point the focus AWAY from PSU wouldn’t it?

colt21 said: ↑
Really - what do you call reporting it to outsiders and not telling the witness to clam up ?
Please help me understand that
That is simple. The witness reported it up the chain of command. As noted, the cover story was given to people outside of the University.

See my answer to #1 above……..

 

[interrobang]

Even if Curley told JR that someone was "uncomfortable" with Sandusky's activities, telling Sandusky to "wear a swim suit next time" is still incomprehensible. No matter how you look at it, TSM completely brushed it off.

 

[elvis63]

"e-e-ee-e-ee-ee-e-e"

This is more your speed . I mean when you're not cruising sights of " alternative life styles and genders" of course.

 

[getmyjive11]

That's what Alan Meyers said.....for free!

Nope.

 

[getmyjive11]

Even if Curley told JR that someone was "uncomfortable" with Sandusky's activities, telling Sandusky to "wear a swim suit next time" is still incomprehensible. No matter how you look at it, TSM completely brushed it off.

No arguement there.

 

[dshumbero]

The 2 things I look most forward to if this sees Court,,,

The trial being stopped when Mike messes himself on the stand;

All this irrelevant, bullshit "evidence" of JockstrapJon and his Pitt clown cabal is never brought up.

 

[indynittany]

Nope.

I can link to a signed document proving I'm right. What evidence do you have to argue otherwise?

 

[drblue1977]

1. I've said this before IF the story gets to JR it doesn't matter if it was "uncomfortable" or not - they have a procedure to follow and they did not. In other words, there is no "watering down" of any story they were told that should stop them from doing their thing - which they didn't.

2. I am absolutely NOT that poster - besides I don't "Babble"!
I am the poster who is a professional in the field who wrote our company's procedures with the new CPSL law and who knows exactly what role (with regards to that law) that the actors played in 98 and 01/02.
I am also the post is trying to have an intelligent conversation with everyone -- even those who disagree with me who are coming from a less knowledgeable perspective - so I try and educate them because that is truly the only way to




1. The cover story to Raykovitz that someone was just "uncomfortable" with Sandusky's conduct. The second, to John McQueary was that the incident had been "investigated."

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – it does NOT matter what they told JR and TSM – only that they were told. Once they were told they had protocols that they didn’t follow. Just and fyi…..the protocols are NOT “If this level of a story then that level of response” – they are IF (a report) THEN THAT (prescribed action).

2. If your belief is based on statute, then cite the part. Are you the one that kept babbling about the "judicial authority" that DPW has, but that is non existent?

I am absolutely not that poster – I don’t “babble”. Who I am however, is a professional in the field who wrote out new procedures based on the updated CPSL. I also know exactly who was MR’s in this situation and more importantly who was not.

• The only actual MR in 01/02 was JR and TSM. CSS nor DrD (in that particular circumstance) were MR’s

Further, I am a poster who is truly cares about mitigating CSA, therefore, I am always open to listening to others and trying to learn myself. In the cases where others are simply not knowledgeable of a situation that I am I try and educate them – as that is the only way we will have an impact on CSA.


If I can go on a small rant here, I also have tons of experience in sitting on, CREATING, managing and being managed by all kinds of public sector boards and I can also say with 100% certainty that this board, their makeup and how they handled this situation would be the shining example of how NOT to do something in a situation like this. It truly is sad to me.

3. I said there was a coverup (though not a conspiracy) in 1998. I said that believe that at least one of CSS were involved in it. That is far from saying that they "masterminded" it.

Ok you’ve piqued my interest – IF there was a cover-up started in 98 then WHO did mastermind it? That would boggle the mind – but also, again, point the focus AWAY from PSU wouldn’t it?
colt21 said: ↑
Really - what do you call reporting it to outsiders and not telling the witness to clam up ?
Please help me understand that
That is simple. The witness reported it up the chain of command. As noted, the cover story was given to people outside of the University.

See my answer to #1 above……..

So how is it that JR was not investigated nor charged with FTR/EWOC or even slapped on his ___ __ for not putting in a protection plan if all that was needed would be knowledge of "an incident"? Seems the OAG and powers that be also failed to protect children in their charge (CYS twice) yet there was no big review by the legislature with mass firings due to the laws/procedures that required action and were..........not followed. Seems EWOC in its broadest sense was and still is.............rampant in PA.

 

[colt21]

So how is it that JR was not investigated nor charged with FTR/EWOC or even slapped on his ___ __ for not putting in a protection plan if all that was needed would be knowledge of "an incident"? Seems the OAG and powers that be also failed to protect children in their charge (CYS twice) yet there was no big review by the legislature with mass firings due to the laws/procedures that required action and were..........not followed. Seems EWOC in its broadest sense was and still is.............rampant in PA.

that's a good point and a great question
the only answer that is that, based on the evidence, it appears that the State along with some other power players are in complete cya mode again.

it is unfathomable to m that TSM could actually shred files and slink into the night under the cover of darkness (ie: the state)

 

[Zenophile]

it is unfathomable to m that TSM could actually shred files and slink into the night under the cover of darkness (ie: the state)

And yet it happened (with court approval no less).

 

[marshall23]

And yet it happened (with court approval no less).

Based on the findings of the Federal Investigation just revealed.....one has to question all the "evidence" produced by the OAG and Freeh. I know Ray Blehar and others have had serious concerns about emails etc. The Commonwealth Child Care Agencies have failed the children of Pennsylvania for decades. It appears other government agencies are either incompetent or corrupt. My guess is it is both.

 

[colt21]

And yet it happened (with court approval no less).

There is your cover up right there

no justifiable reason whatsoever -

 

[WeR0206]

Read what a cover up actually is. Understand the difference between active and passive . Then get a few clues .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up

Now I know who you are. Hi IronDoc (from TOS)!

Irondoc is the only other imbecile I've come across to use "it was a passive cover up" angle. What a joke.

Even if it was a passive coverup why would the admins loop in an outside entity they had zero control over that was required to look into any and all incidents no matter how benign? It's completely irrational/illogical.

Also a passive coverup implies that the witness was dissatisfied but placated somehow. MM testified that when TC called him 4 or 5 days later that he expressed no dissatisfaction and never said MORE needed to be done besides TC's action plan (which didn't invovle JS being arrested and questioned by LE mind you). If he wanted Js arrested (as oppposed to admins doing an informal investigation) MM was free to file a written statement to UPPD/PSP/etc. whenever he wanted but never did. Hmmm.

If MM expressed outrage when TC called to follow up then I may buy your story but that never happened. MM was on board with the admins response and they all went on with theie lives until frank porn dog fina came snopping around.

 

[elvis63]

Now I know who you are. Hi IronDoc (from TOS)!

Irondoc is the only other imbecile I've come across to use "it was a passive cover up" angle. What a joke.

Even if it was a passive coverup why would the admins loop in an outside entity they had zero control over that was required to look into any and all incidents no matter how benign? It's completely irrational/illogical.

Also a passive coverup implies that the witness was dissatisfied but placated somehow. MM testified that when TC called him 4 or 5 days later that he expressed no dissatisfaction and never said MORE needed to be done besides TC's action plan (which didn't invovle JS being arrested and questioned by LE mind you). If he wanted Js arrested (as oppposed to admins doing an informal investigation) MM was free to file a written statement to UPPD/PSP/etc. whenever he wanted but never did. Hmmm.

If MM expressed outrage when TC called to follow up then I may buy your story but that never happened. MM was on board with the admins response and they all went on with theie lives until frank porn dog fina came snopping around.

Oh really , maybe that fellow was the only one smart enough to google ? What a thought , to use google to look stuff up.
I'm proud to be the only other fellow to think of googling.
In case you haven't seen, it's reported Curley and Schultz took a deal . Imagine that ?

 

[elvis63]

The 2 things I look most forward to if this sees Court,,,

The trial being stopped when Mike messes himself on the stand;

All this irrelevant, bullshit "evidence" of JockstrapJon and his Pitt clown cabal is never brought up.

You will really need a new hobby soon enough.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Desperate much? 8 days until jury selection, tick tock.

What am I desperate about? No matter what the outcome of the trial, you're still a zero who contributes nothing to this board, or probably to the world in general.

 

[elvis63]

Nice ad hominem , do you do parties?

And what was all that spew that you posted over the weekend? I can't hear it now with the butthurt making so much noise:

 

[Stufftodo]

On April 1, 2011, I received a personal message from Steve Sloane on Facebook. It was unsolicted. At the time I was writing a blog on Ray Gricar at another paper.



In the message, Sloane indicated that he was involved in the 1998 case with Gricar. He stated that it "RG's decision NOT to prosecute if he received help with the problem... "



After the Freeh Report came out, I became worried that the investigators did not know of this. I got in contract with the investigators and turned this information over to them in August 2012.

Not quite a smoking gun, but who did Gricar tell this to.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

On April 1, 2011, I received a personal message from Steve Sloane on Facebook. It was unsolicted. At the time I was writing a blog on Ray Gricar at another paper.



In the message, Sloane indicated that he was involved in the 1998 case with Gricar. He stated that it "RG's decision NOT to prosecute if he received help with the problem... "



After the Freeh Report came out, I became worried that the investigators did not know of this. I got in contract with the investigators and turned this information over to them in August 2012.

Not quite a smoking gun, but who did Gricar tell this to.

Well it does sound awfully familiar to the lines being tossed around after 01.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Nice ad hominem , do you do parties?

And what was all that spew that you posted over the weekend? I can't hear it now with the butthurt making so much noise:

What spew is that? References to you being inbred and stuff like that? Oh I still stand by that.

 

[dshumbero]

On April 1, 2011, I received a personal message from Steve Sloane on Facebook. It was unsolicted. At the time I was writing a blog on Ray Gricar at another paper.



In the message, Sloane indicated that he was involved in the 1998 case with Gricar. He stated that it "RG's decision NOT to prosecute if he received help with the problem... "



After the Freeh Report came out, I became worried that the investigators did not know of this. I got in contract with the investigators and turned this information over to them in August 2012.

Not quite a smoking gun, but who did Gricar tell this to.

What happened to the blog, Jockstrap? Gricar must have told LE who decided you were a mental case, Jacobs.

 

[Stufftodo]

What happened to the blog, Jockstrap? Gricar must have told LE who decided you were a mental case, Jacobs.

Too bad the CDT ended all blogs. This would have made a GREAT entry.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Too bad the CDT ended all blogs. This would have made a GREAT entry.

You could include the part about Jonny Jacobs and his proclivity for playing with matches.

 

[dshumbero]

Too bad the CDT ended all blogs. This would have made a GREAT entry.

Just yours after they found out what a nutcase you are.

 

[coveydidnt]

The dreams are yours, dude. 5 years and counting. Hardly any charges left. No plea deal and no flips.

I'm the one dreaming?

I sure hope it happens, for everybody's sake, but I'll be shocked if it actually does. The game of chicken will go on. The prosecutor has no other choice.

I'm confused now. You had me convinced and now it seems like you were all bluster.

I'm also confused by what happened to the forged emails that were supposed to be a get out of jail free card.

 

[coveydidnt]

I don't think they will either, but after they are exonerated, I think that it is likely that they will say that don't believe Jerry's trial was fair. When they are exonerated, it will give Sandusky's PCRA a boost as one of the PCRA issues is that Curley and Schultz were charged so that they wouldn't be able to testify in Sandusky's trial and impeach McQueary. Even Judge Cleland conceeded the problem with going ahead with the trial before the issues of Curley and Schultz's culpability had been resolved.

For sure, Steve, this line of thought is thoroughly debunked. I don't think they will have much to say that will exonerate Ol Jer.

 

[elvis63]

I'm confused now. You had me convinced and now it seems like you were all bluster.

I'm also confused by what happened to the forged emails that were supposed to be a get out of jail free card.

He was always bluster with no substance , he couldn't buy a clue in the game aisles at Walmart .

 

[LaJolla Lion]

For sure, Steve, this line of thought is thoroughly debunked. I don't think they will have much to say that will exonerate Ol Jer.

Yeah...I don't see how Steve is going to spin this one as a win for Jer Bear, but I imagine the spin from that camp will be coming shortly. State held a gun to their heads I imagine.

 

[francofan]

For sure, Steve, this line of thought is thoroughly debunked. I don't think they will have much to say that will exonerate Ol Jer.

I don't think it will help Sandusky's PCRA, but I don't think it will necessarily hurt it either. I would have liked to hear what Curley and Schultz thought in 2001 and what they think now. I don't think we will hear much from them before their sentencing. It is not clear to me that they will testify against Spanier if Spanier's trial goes on as planned. The question I have is why the OAG was willing to drop all of the felony charges. I can't say that I blame Curley and Schultz for pleaing to a misdemeanor when facing felony charges that could result in hard time and loss of pension benefits. Let's see how this plays out in terms of whether Spanier is offered the same deal, which I doubt; and if it goes to trial, what Curley and Schultz have to say, if anything, and what the disposition is in the case against Spanier.

 

[coveydidnt]

I don't think it will help Sandusky's PCRA, but I don't think it will necessarily hurt it either. I would have liked to hear what Curley and Schultz thought in 2001 and what they think now. I don't think we will hear much from them before their sentencing. It is not clear to me that they will testify against Spanier if Spanier's trial goes on as planned. The question I have is why the OAG was willing to drop all of the felony charges. I can't say that I blame Curley and Schultz for pleaing to a misdemeanor when facing felony charges that could result in hard time and loss of pension benefits. Let's see how this plays out in terms of whether Spanier is offered the same deal, which I doubt; and if it goes to trial, what Curley and Schultz have to say, if anything, and what the disposition is in the case against Spanier.

Ol Jer's PCRA is off topic here, but as I have always & patiently tried to explain to you, C, S, & S and what they knew or didn't have nothing to do whatsoever with Jers PCRA. Becuase he wasn't really convicted of anything with respect to V2, and even if those were thrown out entirely (they won't be now), there are plenty of other Victims.

On the fllp side, their actions & plea also has little to do with Joe, as I have also always contended. CS & S may well have done whatever without involving or informing Joe, or even misinforming Joe.

If you're interested in Joe's part here, these pleas become interesting only in that they if they kept Joe out of the loop, mis-informed Joe, or otherwise shielded him, they will not be able to take the 5th in the Paterno vs. NCAA trial. We will (assuming THAT ONE goes to trial) hear what they have to say about what they think Joe knew.