The Freeh report is out on the Penn State abuse investigation.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by KatieG

I understand the slamming of Paterno but why is no discussion of the higher ups, who definitely had a mandate to do something about Sandusky? Spainer, Curly, Shultz? Don't they bear the lion's share of some of the hate? I was appalled when Spainer was offered a cushy government job after all this came out? Who would want to work with him?

Almost no one is defending them. Thus there isn't much to say besides, "That's terrible, get them."

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

It isn't "just a little shell game." It's the entire point that all this misplaced "outrage" began with that far-fetched lie, and widely publicized in the media that garnered this picture of an adult raping a small boy in the showers and subsequently covered up by Paterno in the imaginations of so many dull-minded Americans.

This is really getting frustrating. Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault and felony unlawful contact with a minor for doing exactly what McQueary told Paterno he saw Sandusky doing to that exact same child and which Paterno himself told the grand jury that McQueary told him about when it happened!

Sandusky wasn't convicted of anally raping that child, but of doing "something of a sexual nature" with that child, just like Paterno admitted that McQueary told him. And Paterno did nothing!

[Empress]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Your pain meds are fine, it's Nihiliath who knows nothing about this case. The link he inserted was about Victim 6, it was Victim 4 who didn't like the sanctions. Scroll up, he also incorrectly said that Sandusky was convicted of 45 felonies, in reality about 20 of the convictions were for misdemeanors. Nihiliath also doesn't seem to realize that in regard to Victim 2 (the boy McQueary saw in the shower), Sandusky was convicted of:

Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

Thanks for that, Alt. I've been lurking all through the thread, but that post finally confused me to the point of posting. I appreciate the clarification.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

You continue to say this over and over and over and over and over again. Dozens upon dozens of times over again.

You completely and utterly fail to even attempt to address my counter points.

I've already explained why your counterpoints with regard to Paterno's testimony are immaterial. Paterno knew better than you what he knew, and there's no evidence that he needed time to recall the substance of his conversation with McQueary. The questioner asked if Paterno remembered the conversation and what it was about, Paterno replied affirmatively and said it was about McQueary having seen Sandusky doing "something of a sexual nature" with a young boy. There was no grasping, no stumbling, no rolling his eyes back into his head and thinking for a long time. If McQueary hadn't told him during their meeting, and the Penn State leadership never kept him in "in the loop" as you claim, then what on earth would have ever given Paterno even the suggestion that something sexual was involved, that would cause him to actually remember it that way AND report it to the grand jury?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

First I will say that you cannot possibly be "on public record" of saying anything through someone else. This is called "hearsay." I committed this act of non-logic a post above this one, for two very specific reasons.

1. To prove my point about "hearsay."
2. I have reason to believe that "someone" may step forward and go on the public record some time in the future. I will say no more about this. What I wrote in that post is purely hearsay. Worse than that, it was actually triple hearsay.

Wrong. When an attorney is acting in a capacity as someone's authorized legal representative, they can make public statements on their client's behalf. They can even sign and receive legal documents, and their signature is considered as legally "official" as the original client's. Speaking to the public on behalf of a client is one of the most common functions of legal counsel. Sandusky also spoke to the public through his attorney.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

As for Victim 2's statements through his lawyer; his experience is completely disconnected to what McQueary witnessed, which is in turn, disconnected to what McQueary told 5 other adults.

How do you come to that conclusion (re: victim 2)? His public statement indicated that the shower incident was by far not the only time he was molested by Sandusky; nothing in the statement disputed any of the charges or convictions, or the narrative of the incident.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Most of those "discussions, meetings, questionings, and so forth" took place years down the road, after another incident at CMHS (Central Mountain High School) involving Victim 1 was finally reported to the police. And even then, it took another THREE YEARS for Tom Corbett to FINALLY act!

Wrong; I'm referring to the meetings, emails, and discussions Penn State engaged in immediately subsequent to McQueary's report. These things took place within the days and at most a couple of months after the incident, not years later.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

However, at the time....in 2001....there was most clearly not a whole lot of "discussion and etc." that took place at all:

1. McQueary spoke with his father, and Dr. Dranov at his father's house. How long this discussion took, is anyone's guess. (Dranov testified that he asked Mike three times if he saw a sex act, and three times Mike said "No!")

2. Mike told Paterno, first over the phone, then at the Paterno home. What he said to Paterno is not proven, except that Mike apparently "downplayed" whatever it was that he saw. Combined, these two discussions probably took all of ten minutes.

3. Paterno notified Curly. This probably took about two minutes.

4. A week later, Curly and Schultz met with McQueary. This, again, probably took all of 10 minutes. (In this meeting, Mike testifies that he thought that Schultz was the police. Both his father, and Dr. Dranov also testified to this as well. A strong indication that Paterno may have been of the same mindset about Schultz. At this point, we can logically conclude that Paterno would have washed his hands of this, and rightly so given the foggy nature of McQueary's allegation at this point in time, and Paterno's understanding of Schultz's position.)

6. A couple of handwritten notes...one by Schultz that was all of about 5 sentences long outlining a plan of action, and another by Spanier that was about 3 sentences long describing "Pandora's box?"

5. Tim Curly maybe met with Paterno and wrote a quick email to Schultz. In that email, CURLY'S the one that came to the "humane" decision, not Paterno.

6. Schultz writes back and confirms this "more humane" approach.

7. Curly meets with Second Mile CEO Jack Raykovitz. This meeting could have taken anywhere between 5 and 20 minutes.

8. They also consulted outside legal council Cynthia Baldwin, who advised them not to do anything about it, due to their probable description of "horseplay."

Firstly, you have absolutely no basis by which to claim, suggest, or speculate that any of these meetings "took 10 minutes at most". They can have taken any amount of time - many more than 10 minutes, or much less. But the length of the discussions are immaterial: the fact that they took place at all is what matters. Penn State had already been aware for years that Sandusky was showering with children and had never seen fit to discuss the situation before, which means that there must've been something different about McQueary's report which prompted them to take action. Other particulars about the subsequent activity - such as contacting PSU's legal counsel to ask (without directly reporting Sandusky) for information on reporting "suspected child abuse", and the fact that in response to Curley's "more humane" suggestion, Spanier went along with it but cautioned that if Sandusky didn't "get the message" then the University might be "vulnerable for not having reported it". If none of them was informed that there was anything sexual going on, 1) why would Spanier be concerned enough about the procedures for reporting suspected child abuse to ask the PSU lawyer for this information, and 2) what was the "it" Spanier was concerned about the University possibly getting in trouble for not reporting? Further, 3) why did Spanier ask the University police chief if information and documents regarding Sandusky's first shower incident (which was an actual abuse report) was still on file? Why did 4) Curley's "humane approach" recommend informing Sandusky that they felt "he has a problem and want to assist [him] on getting professional help"? Help for what? What problem?

None of this makes sense if none of the University officials was aware that anything positively or potentially abusive took place; however, all of it makes perfect sense if they were aware that at least a potential sexual component to Sandusky's behavior had been reported.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

That is it. A couple of pieces of paper with handwritten notes with a total of less than ten sentences, four ten-minute meetings between all of these men (and one woman) (in which all four did not have all of the people present at the same time,) a couple of emails, and probably a less than ten minute meeting with a CEO with a PhD in psychology.

Again, Curley didn't consult with Raykovitz about the incident, nor did he fully explain it. He spoke with him solely to tell him to explain to Sandusky that he had to stop bringing children to take showers with to avoid "publicity issues".

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

It appears that Mike was not very insistent on "a sexual nature" of a man and a boy in a shower room. Further evidenced by participating in later events with the very man whom he saw in that shower with a young boy.

Meaningless; all of them later participated in events with "the very man". It's just as likely that McQueary intentionally avoided Sandusky during these events.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

How in the world this is convincing evidence that Paterno knew all about sexual improprieties because Mike specifically told him so, is beyond me.

Paterno was the one who informed Curley. Curley already knew that Sandusky showered with children; therefore, Paterno's report must have contained more than that in order to prompt Curley to initiate meetings and discussions with the University leadership.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

As for the "sexual nature" testimony of Paterno, again, you continue to ignore the points I have made about the pliability and inaccurate human memory, especially of events that have taken place as long as a decade ago.

The pliability and inaccuracy of memory is mostly only a problem when it comes to specifics, rather than generalities. I explained all of this quite thoroughly with my Challenger example (people may not remember the exact time, date, and appearance of the Challenger's explosion, but everyone remembers the general facts that it was a space shuttle and it blew up during launch). Paterno remembered the generality that the conversation involved Sandusky doing something sexual with a young boy. Over a mere 10-year gap, that's not even close to an incredible recollection. Remember that "after 10 years", Sandusky himself remembered enough about the incident to recall exactly who it was that McQueary saw him with, because in response to the grand jury investigation he made phone calls in 2011 to that victim and left messages in an attempt to influence him. I seem to recall that Sandusky was so confident about his attempt that he announced through his own legal team that he knew "Victim 2" and believed Victim 2 would reject the allegations and defend Sandusky. Nasty surprise - after the conviction, Victim 2 expanded the allegations and publicly released Sandusky's phone messages. Regardless, Sandusky's memory of a 10-year-old event was that spot on. No reason Paterno couldn't have gotten some generalities right.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

You're right. It was Police Chief Harmon that told Sandusky not to shower with kids any longer at Penn State. I retract that point. Raykovitz was not told anything about the '98 investigation. And on that point, Raykovitz can be left off the hook on this one. Raykovitz was still informed about a concern of Sandusky showering with 2M kids on the PSU campus, however.

Only after Curley had put a stop to the showering via his "humane solution" and assured him that nothing wrong had taken place.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

The PhD psychologist apparently did not think it was something to be concerned about, as we are talking about Jerry Sandusky here. A man at the time known to be a very good man who takes very good care of young kids, and provides them with a father figure to look up to and emulate.

I want to ask you: How strange does that last paragraph sound to you? I am curious to know, and would sincerely hope you answer that question honestly.

I don't find it surprising. Sandusky was evidently a personal friend of Raykovitz; Curley had come up to him and explained that a complaint was made but that nothing wrong had happened, and also that Sandusky wasn't doing it anymore. Being his friend, and having nothing more than that information to go on, Raykovitz's lack of action is to be sadly expected. People don't want to believe their friends and heroes are capable of doing bad things, and are very quick to uncritically accept any explanation or dismissal that sounds remotely exculpatory.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Wrong, there were several individuals, not just the DA, who have found there to be a lack of evidence; from the DPW. There was a child psychologist who insisted (and wrote a report) and her staff members at CYS, that Sandusky fit the profile of a pedophile, and displays grooming behavior. The case was later referred to the DPW, where another psychologist came to the opposite conclusion. The first report was not passed on to Jerry Lauro, the man responsible for conducting the investigation in the first place. The DA is hardly the only one involved in any criminal investigation. In fact, the DA from virtually all districts throughout the entire nation, almost always relies on a myriad of other experts in various different fields in order to determine if there is enough evidence to bring a suspect to trial in a criminal proceeding.

The officials at PSU did not have contact with anyone other than the lead investigator during the 1998 case. They did not have access to the opinions of "multiple experts" and nothing they decided can have taken these "experts" findings into account.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

The Second Mile is most certainly a "child welfare organization." It is a non-profit that specifically works with at-risk youth. Jack Raykovitz, the CEO, is a PhD in child psychology. Many of the other staff members, are also inevitably experts in child welfare issues.

There mission statement:

The Second Mile also works closely together with schools, and school guidance counselors. The organization is also specifically concerned about the issues of child abuse.

It was a charitable organization which worked with at-risk youth. Some of these youth had been involved with child welfare services (as distinct from the Second Mile); some of them had not. The Second Mile were not investigators, they did not involve themselves in criminal cases, nor did they do any consulting work for any actual investigators. They were not considered experts in child welfare and abuse.

A PhD in child psychology is an expert in child psychology, not "everything to do with children including child welfare and abuse".

Not that any of this is material.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

There WAS an investigation that cleared Sandusky of any wrongdoing, though.

As for the 2001 incident, whose to say that Curly had that information to even give to Raykovitz?

There was an investigation in 1998, which PSU never informed Raykovitz about. That incident has no bearing on anything Raykovitz was told.

There was an incident in the beginning of 2001 which was never investigated. Curley told Raykovitz that a staff member complained of being "uncomfortable" but that it was determined nothing wrong had happened, and that purely "to avoid publicity issues", Sandusky was being asked not to bring kids to showers any more.

We know that Curley didn't have that information to give to Raykovitz because PSU never took steps to get it. However, that lack of information didn't stop Curley from expressing an opinion to his superiors that Sandusky had a problem which required "professional help"; something he declined to pass on to Raykovitz. He also declined to inform Raykovitz that Sandusky had been investigated early for improprieties with little boys in the shower room.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Furthermore, at least one of the victims themselves are just as disappointed about the rush to judgement and the unjust NCAA sanctions against innocent people.

I've just read that link, it is a rather short article and contains no opinions by the victim regarding any rush to judgment or the NCAA sanctions.

NCAA sanctions were a penalty imposed by a private group upon another group which agreed to the penalty. The NCAA is not part of the justice system; it had no privileged access to the victims and had no reason to consult them. I suspect that, between them, the various victims of Sandusky intend to deservedly extract a sum of money from PSU that exceeds the NCAA's fine.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

As SI tries to repair some of the damaged image they received for participating in their rush to judgement without admitting to their contribution of this gross negligence, they are now pointing out that nobody has ever listened to what the VICTIMS want! That has been one of the biggest sources of outrage from those who cannot believe the national narrative and the NCAA's unjust sanctions of PSU. The NCAA and the nation at large are all punishing completely innocent people with exactly zero culpability in what has transpired, all without ever so much as consulting any of the victims about how they feel about the whole thing.

The victims made impact statements prior to Sandusky's sentencing. Remember that Sandusky's family, who also had zero culpability in what he did, are "punished" by his incarceration - but innocent people experiencing needless hardships is what always happens when people like Sandusky do what they do.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

This is really getting frustrating. Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault and felony unlawful contact with a minor for doing exactly what McQueary told Paterno he saw Sandusky doing to that exact same child and which Paterno himself told the grand jury that McQueary told him about when it happened!

Sandusky wasn't convicted of anally raping that child, but of doing "something of a sexual nature" with that child, just like Paterno admitted that McQueary told him. And Paterno did nothing!

To put it bluntly, Nihilianth's argument seems to be that since there was some uncertainty, based on what McQueary saw and described, as to whether Sandusky's penis was buried in the boy's anus, or merely rubbing against his buttocks, there was no need to get the police involved.

[Kilaak Kommander]

Originally Posted by CORed

To put it bluntly, Nihilianth's argument seems to be that since there was some uncertainty, based on what McQueary saw and described, as to whether Sandusky's penis was buried in the boy's anus, or merely rubbing against his buttocks, there was no need to get the police involved.

To be equally blunt, the issue is whether or not he saw penetration. He didn't, but it's not as meaningful as Nihilanth is making out.

Think about it. If you walk in on most sexual situations, are you likely to actually see penetration? They say that what makes porn porn is the camera angles. They do everything possible to make sure that you see penetration, no matter how outlandish. It's telling that conventional movies often depict more realistic sex scenes than pornography. Two people in bed under the sheets, no X rating required.

To put it in perspective with the Sandusky case, consider this scenario. You come home to find your significant other naked in bed with another person with their bodies pressed together, and you can hear skin slapping against skin. However, they are under the sheets. Would you be able to testify under oath that you witnessed penetration? No. Would you be any less upset? No. Would you strongly believe that something sexual was taking place? Yes. Would your significant other look like a fool if they waved a finger in your face saying "ha ha, you didn't see penetration, I win"? Certainly.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Furthermore, at least one of the victims themselves are just as disappointed about the rush to judgement and the unjust NCAA sanctions against innocent people.

Um...that article doesn't say a single thing about a victim being "disappointed about the rush to judgement and the unjust NCAA sanctions against innocent people". In fact, it's all about how one of the victims is suing Penn State and Second Mile, because he blames those two organizations for pretty much sanctioning Sandusky's sexual abuse of him:

Quote:

The man, who was called Victim 6 in court papers, sued Tuesday in federal court in Philadelphia, claiming that Sandusky's behavior was "ratified" by The Second Mile charity and Penn State and that the organizations acted with reckless indifference to his rights. He's seeking at least $75,000 in damages.

Which would seem to directly contradict your claims.

[trustbutverify]

It's really depressing how easily sports partisanship can compel people to hide from reasonable conclusions concerning all sorts of henious crimes.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

It's really depressing how easily sports partisanship can compel people to hide from reasonable conclusions concerning all sorts of henious crimes.

Agreed. I am a huge life time San Francisco Giants Fan who bleeds Orange and Black, but I readily admit that Barry Bonds is a scumbag who should not be in the Hall Of Fame,and I get in yelling matches with other Giants fans who give him a pass because he played for the Giants all his career.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Agreed. I am a huge life time San Francisco Giants Fan who bleeds Orange and Black, but I readily admit that Barry Bonds is a scumbag who should not be in the Hall Of Fame,and I get in yelling matches with other Giants fans who give him a pass because he played for the Giants all his career.

I never saw anything of Bonds to suggest he was/is a "scumbag." I saw a lot of media complain about him, but the only teammate who ever did was Jeff Kent, but he didn't get along with anyone (see his Houston days)

Bonds never had altercations with fans, and whenever I saw him at the park, he was never rude or anything. As far as interactions with fans, I actually word worse stories about Kirby Puckett. But Kirby smiled nice with the media and called Jim Kaat "Kitty" so everyone loved him.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

It's really depressing how easily sports partisanship can compel people to hide from reasonable conclusions concerning all sorts of henious crimes.

...and in turn view the actions and motives of others through a sports-partisanship-based filter. I still don't know whether to laugh or cry at the suggestion by some that the whole scandal was manufactured or exaggerated by Penn State's football rivals (or fans of their football rivals) in order to get rid of Penn State as a competitive football threat.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I've already explained why your counterpoints with regard to Paterno's testimony are immaterial. Paterno knew better than you what he knew, and there's no evidence that he needed time to recall the substance of his conversation with McQueary. The questioner asked if Paterno remembered the conversation and what it was about, Paterno replied affirmatively and said it was about McQueary having seen Sandusky doing "something of a sexual nature" with a young boy. There was no grasping, no stumbling, no rolling his eyes back into his head and thinking for a long time. If McQueary hadn't told him during their meeting, and the Penn State leadership never kept him in "in the loop" as you claim, then what on earth would have ever given Paterno even the suggestion that something sexual was involved, that would cause him to actually remember it that way AND report it to the grand jury?

I only have time to address this one point:

You are saying 1.5+ 1 = 2, and giving no evidence for this.
I am saying 1+1=2, and here's why.
You are not refuting my statement.
Saying the same thing over and over again, is not a refutation.

I mentioned about human memory and the unreliability and pliability of human memory.

You just come back with: "But he says he remembers"?

An argument that does not make.

You continually fail to provide any sources which shows why we should think Paterno's memory of a quick, and decidedly vague, conversation from 10 years ago, should be taken at face-value. Epsecially in light of the fact that there are five other men who say something completely different happened.

I think you need to take up a course or two about human psychology and the workings of the human brain, it's memory, and the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. Where you have two different witnesses, you generally end uip with two different stories. Where you have three different witnesses, you generally wind up with three different stories. And etc.

Now, let the: "But Paterno says he remembers, so he must remember!" "argument" commence some more, without addressing my argument!

ETA: When you say "there was no stumbling, no eye rolling" and etc, I think you are proven to be a liar in this case. First, you were not even there. How do you know he never rolled his eyes? Second, when you read the transcript, the stumbling is right there, in black-and-white. He did NOT just come out and say "it was a sexual nature." He clearly stumbled around while murmuring those words.

Read the transcript.

As for the "suggestion," that's easy: He had an attorney. A different one from Curly/Schultz/Spanier's. He also listened to the testimony before it wasw his turn to speak. He likely, he was being probed by the AG before the hearing!

Quote:

Wrong. When an attorney is acting in a capacity as someone's authorized legal representative, they can make public statements on their client's behalf. They can even sign and receive legal documents, and their signature is considered as legally "official" as the original client's. Speaking to the public on behalf of a client is one of the most common functions of legal counsel. Sandusky also spoke to the public through his attorney.



How do you come to that conclusion (re: victim 2)? His public statement indicated that the shower incident was by far not the only time he was molested by Sandusky; nothing in the statement disputed any of the charges or convictions, or the narrative of the incident.



Wrong; I'm referring to the meetings, emails, and discussions Penn State engaged in immediately subsequent to McQueary's report. These things took place within the days and at most a couple of months after the incident, not years later.



Firstly, you have absolutely no basis by which to claim, suggest, or speculate that any of these meetings "took 10 minutes at most". They can have taken any amount of time - many more than 10 minutes, or much less. But the length of the discussions are immaterial: the fact that they took place at all is what matters. Penn State had already been aware for years that Sandusky was showering with children and had never seen fit to discuss the situation before, which means that there must've been something different about McQueary's report which prompted them to take action. Other particulars about the subsequent activity - such as contacting PSU's legal counsel to ask (without directly reporting Sandusky) for information on reporting "suspected child abuse", and the fact that in response to Curley's "more humane" suggestion, Spanier went along with it but cautioned that if Sandusky didn't "get the message" then the University might be "vulnerable for not having reported it". If none of them was informed that there was anything sexual going on, 1) why would Spanier be concerned enough about the procedures for reporting suspected child abuse to ask the PSU lawyer for this information, and 2) what was the "it" Spanier was concerned about the University possibly getting in trouble for not reporting? Further, 3) why did Spanier ask the University police chief if information and documents regarding Sandusky's first shower incident (which was an actual abuse report) was still on file? Why did 4) Curley's "humane approach" recommend informing Sandusky that they felt "he has a problem and want to assist [him] on getting professional help"? Help for what? What problem?

None of this makes sense if none of the University officials was aware that anything positively or potentially abusive took place; however, all of it makes perfect sense if they were aware that at least a potential sexual component to Sandusky's behavior had been reported.



Again, Curley didn't consult with Raykovitz about the incident, nor did he fully explain it. He spoke with him solely to tell him to explain to Sandusky that he had to stop bringing children to take showers with to avoid "publicity issues".



Meaningless; all of them later participated in events with "the very man". It's just as likely that McQueary intentionally avoided Sandusky during these events.



Paterno was the one who informed Curley. Curley already knew that Sandusky showered with children; therefore, Paterno's report must have contained more than that in order to prompt Curley to initiate meetings and discussions with the University leadership.



The pliability and inaccuracy of memory is mostly only a problem when it comes to specifics, rather than generalities. I explained all of this quite thoroughly with my Challenger example (people may not remember the exact time, date, and appearance of the Challenger's explosion, but everyone remembers the general facts that it was a space shuttle and it blew up during launch). Paterno remembered the generality that the conversation involved Sandusky doing something sexual with a young boy. Over a mere 10-year gap, that's not even close to an incredible recollection. Remember that "after 10 years", Sandusky himself remembered enough about the incident to recall exactly who it was that McQueary saw him with, because in response to the grand jury investigation he made phone calls in 2011 to that victim and left messages in an attempt to influence him. I seem to recall that Sandusky was so confident about his attempt that he announced through his own legal team that he knew "Victim 2" and believed Victim 2 would reject the allegations and defend Sandusky. Nasty surprise - after the conviction, Victim 2 expanded the allegations and publicly released Sandusky's phone messages. Regardless, Sandusky's memory of a 10-year-old event was that spot on. No reason Paterno couldn't have gotten some generalities right.



Only after Curley had put a stop to the showering via his "humane solution" and assured him that nothing wrong had taken place.



I don't find it surprising. Sandusky was evidently a personal friend of Raykovitz; Curley had come up to him and explained that a complaint was made but that nothing wrong had happened, and also that Sandusky wasn't doing it anymore. Being his friend, and having nothing more than that information to go on, Raykovitz's lack of action is to be sadly expected. People don't want to believe their friends and heroes are capable of doing bad things, and are very quick to uncritically accept any explanation or dismissal that sounds remotely exculpatory.



The officials at PSU did not have contact with anyone other than the lead investigator during the 1998 case. They did not have access to the opinions of "multiple experts" and nothing they decided can have taken these "experts" findings into account.





It was a charitable organization which worked with at-risk youth. Some of these youth had been involved with child welfare services (as distinct from the Second Mile); some of them had not. The Second Mile were not investigators, they did not involve themselves in criminal cases, nor did they do any consulting work for any actual investigators. They were not considered experts in child welfare and abuse.

A PhD in child psychology is an expert in child psychology, not "everything to do with children including child welfare and abuse".

Not that any of this is material.



There was an investigation in 1998, which PSU never informed Raykovitz about. That incident has no bearing on anything Raykovitz was told.

There was an incident in the beginning of 2001 which was never investigated. Curley told Raykovitz that a staff member complained of being "uncomfortable" but that it was determined nothing wrong had happened, and that purely "to avoid publicity issues", Sandusky was being asked not to bring kids to showers any more.

We know that Curley didn't have that information to give to Raykovitz because PSU never took steps to get it. However, that lack of information didn't stop Curley from expressing an opinion to his superiors that Sandusky had a problem which required "professional help"; something he declined to pass on to Raykovitz. He also declined to inform Raykovitz that Sandusky had been investigated early for improprieties with little boys in the shower room.





I've just read that link, it is a rather short article and contains no opinions by the victim regarding any rush to judgment or the NCAA sanctions.

NCAA sanctions were a penalty imposed by a private group upon another group which agreed to the penalty. The NCAA is not part of the justice system; it had no privileged access to the victims and had no reason to consult them. I suspect that, between them, the various victims of Sandusky intend to deservedly extract a sum of money from PSU that exceeds the NCAA's fine.



The victims made impact statements prior to Sandusky's sentencing. Remember that Sandusky's family, who also had zero culpability in what he did, are "punished" by his incarceration - but innocent people experiencing needless hardships is what always happens when people like Sandusky do what they do.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I only have time to address this one point:

You are saying 1.5+ 1 = 2, and giving no evidence for this.
I am saying 1+1=2, and here's why.
You are not refuting my statement.
Saying the same thing over and over again, is not a refutation.

I mentioned about human memory and the unreliability and pliability of human memory.

You just come back with: "But he says he remembers"?

An argument that does not make.

You continually fail to provide any sources which shows why we should think Paterno's memory of a quick, and decidedly vague, conversation from 10 years ago, should be taken at face-value. Epsecially in light of the fact that there are five other men who say something completely different happened.

I think you need to take up a course or two about human psychology and the workings of the human brain, it's memory, and the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. Where you have two different witnesses, you generally end uip with two different stories. Where you have three different witnesses, you generally wind up with three different stories. And etc.

Now, let the: "But Paterno says he remembers, so he must remember!" "argument" commence some more, without addressing my argument!

ETA: When you say "there was no stumbling, no eye rolling" and etc, I think you are proven to be a liar in this case. First, you were not even there. How do you know he never rolled his eyes? Second, when you read the transcript, the stumbling is right there, in black-and-white. He did NOT just come out and say "it was a sexual nature." He clearly stumbled around while murmuring those words.

Read the transcript.

As for the "suggestion," that's easy: He had an attorney. A different one from Curly/Schultz/Spanier's. He also listened to the testimony before it wasw his turn to speak. He likely, he was being probed by the AG before the hearing!

So you're back to the "My hero lied under oath because he was a blithering idiot who didn't know what he was talking about." argument?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

I only have time to address this one point:

You are saying 1.5+ 1 = 2, and giving no evidence for this.
I am saying 1+1=2, and here's why.
You are not refuting my statement.
Saying the same thing over and over again, is not a refutation.

I mentioned about human memory and the unreliability and pliability of human memory.

You just come back with: "But he says he remembers"?

An argument that does not make.

You continually fail to provide any sources which shows why we should think Paterno's memory of a quick, and decidedly vague, conversation from 10 years ago, should be taken at face-value. Epsecially in light of the fact that there are five other men who say something completely different happened.

I think you need to take up a course or two about human psychology and the workings of the human brain, it's memory, and the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. Where you have two different witnesses, you generally end uip with two different stories. Where you have three different witnesses, you generally wind up with three different stories. And etc.

Now, let the: "But Paterno says he remembers, so he must remember!" "argument" commence some more, without addressing my argument!

ETA: When you say "there was no stumbling, no eye rolling" and etc, I think you are proven to be a liar in this case. First, you were not even there. How do you know he never rolled his eyes? Second, when you read the transcript, the stumbling is right there, in black-and-white. He did NOT just come out and say "it was a sexual nature." He clearly stumbled around while murmuring those words.

Read the transcript.

As for the "suggestion," that's easy: He had an attorney. A different one from Curly/Schultz/Spanier's. He also listened to the testimony before it wasw his turn to speak. He likely, he was being probed by the AG before the hearing!

I'll wait until you've found the time to address the rest of the post before addressing this in turn.

[KatieG]

Twist and spin. This guy is awful! Blame the victim. Way to go, NBC.

http://gawker.com/5992210/the-today-...-state-truther

In July 2012, he published a 4,800 word screed attacking the media's coverage of former Penn State Coach Joe Paterno in which he acknowledges Sandusky "engaged in illegal behavior" but also asserts his opinion that witness Mike McQueary saw "botched 'grooming'" in Penn State's shower and not a sexual assault.