Unanswered Question Remains about Sandusky Case

[aurabass]

Unanswered Question Remains About Sandusky Case
by Michael Collins on OpEd News

March 2001: Pennsylvania State University (PSU) assistant football coach Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky engaging in explicit sexual activity with a boy of ten (or so) in the PSU locker room showers. McQueary, a graduate assistant at the time, told the grand jury that he saw Sandusky with Victim 2, "a naked boy, whose age he estimated to be ten-years old, with his hands held up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."

McQueary promptly reported the incident to Joe Paterno, who in turn, informed his superior, athletic director Tim Curley. About ten days later, McQueary attended a meeting with Curley, senior vice president for finance Gary Schulz, and Paterno. McQueary testified that he reported that Sandusky committed anal rape on a boy in the athletic department showers. Curley and Schulz denied ever hearing this. The grand jury that indicted Sandusky noted that "portions of the testimony of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz are not credible" and that both of them made "materially false statements" during previous grand jury hearings.

Curley reported the incident to clinical psychologist, Jack Raykovitz, PhD, the head of Sandusky's Second Mile Foundation for troubled youth. Curley also reported the incident to then PSU president, Graham Spanier. Curley said nothing about anal rape according to Spanier.

The PSU Police function was under vice president Gary Schultz. He claimed that he didn't report McQueary's information to the campus police.

No one involved called the local police. All involved (with the exception of McQueary) are mandatory reporters of child abuse in Pennsylvania. There were no reports to authorities about suspected sexual abuse. According to Spanier, this was just Sandusky "horsing around" with a ten-year old boy in the showers.

The circle of knowledge about Sandusky's deviant behavior was particularly broad for the March 2001 incident. From graduate assistant through legendary coach Paterno right up to the high profile president of the university, many knew that McQueary had seen Sandusky performing a violent sexual act on a ten or eleven-year old in the football team showers.

With so many powerful people knowing so much, how could Sandusky get away with it?

Police, DA's, PSU executives, and many more had heard about Sandusky's behavior since at least 1998. They knew that Sandusky had male children from his foundation with him at public events. Some of them knew that he took them places locally. They knew he seemed shameless doing so.

After reading his article I wrote to Michael Collins in the comment section of his article this is my comment to him with his detailed reply followed by my reply to him
----- Original Message -----
To: Barry Bozeman
From: Michael Collins
Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 3:23:28 AM

Thanks for taking the time to write. A few comments before I respond to what you sent. First, I'm a big believer in the jury system and trial by juries. They do things that are against public perceptions and expectations. When that happes I take note. There was no reason for a jury to go on a witch hunt in PSU's home territory, none. Yet the grand jury findings presented a case that was consistent and compelling. Why? Because they wanted to harm PSU, Coach Paterno, the community? Certainly not. Given the devastating effect that the grand jury report would have on PSU, the findings are credible. As for the trial jury, truly local, their bias toward PSU and the various parties had to be overcome to reach a conviction. It was and that's impressive.

I have nothing against PSU. In fact, I have always believed it to be a first rate school, the graduates I've met and worked with are exceptional, and I've always bein partial to the football program.

----- Original Message -----
To: Michael Collins
From: Barry Bozeman
Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 1:59:30 PM

Tim Curley & Gary Schultz will be found not guilty of perjury and Attorneys Farrell and Roberto show that the decision of 2001 was justified while using Perjury Trial to exonerate Joe and PSU along with Tim and Gary. They will prove the AG and her presentment to have been massively prejudicial while tearing apart the Presentment’s version of Mike’s story using his own testimony in the Perjury hearing.

COMMENT: We will see. The defense was overwhelmed in the JS trial and I see no reason to expect anything different next time

. The limit of Joe’s participation in 2001 was to pass Mike over to Tim & Gary and to tell Tim that he had no reason to believe JS would harm a child from his long experience with him as a coach. If we cannot find fault with this summary of what happened with the 2001 decision? Freeh will not either. The perjury trial of Tim & Gary will show this is very close to the truth.

COMMENT: here's the crux of the problem and the key to the whole situation. Certain classes of professionals are mandated by law to report if there is "reasonable cause to suspect" child abuse. That means what it says. The reporter does not make a judgment, yes nor no, as the criteria to report. The judgement is, is it reasonable to suspect child abuse. The JS shower incident certainly met that criteria. Making a judgment to NOT report was against state code. The administrators would have known that had they sought advice (which I'm sure they did) and Raykovitz knew without any doubt. Nobody reported anything. That's the dog that didn't bark. You must report this type of incident and let the authorities sort it out.

==========
Feb 9 2001 Mike thought 2-3 slapping sounds in the showers ere an adult couple having sex. He expected to see sex when he glanced at JS behind a boy. Shocked it wasn’t adults he slammed his locker, came face to face with the boy who did not show distress, pain or fear and was not protesting or crying out. In confusion Mike fled. The boy did not react like someone being assaulted.

COMMENT: "The boy did not react." Where's that from. Given the earlier incident, which most .involved knew about, and the very odd behavior of an unrelated adult taking a shower with a child, this is highly questionable. The jury foundthe prosecution's case sufficient. I want review the trial transcript to get a picture of what compelled the jury to find JS guilty. But the finding itself is sufficient for me, given it's a home town jury.

=========
At home with his father and Dr. Dranov he’s shaken and thinking "What did I just see?" "What was JS doing with that boy?" "Should I have left the boy with him" and "What should I do now?" His explanation is as muddled and confused as he is. The same is true the next morning when he speaks with Joe. 10 days later in a 10-12 minute meeting with Tim & Gary he is calm but no more explicit or certain. He’s fine with the decision when Tim informs the Second Mile that JS can’t bring boys to PSU. The story ends for a decade.

COMMENT: By PA law, the were required to report this. The laws are there to prevent this very type of incident. They were judge and jury for an individual with whom they had very close personal ties. Raykovitz had his job thanks to JS starting and being the very visible face of the foundation. These were the VERY LAST people in the world you would want judging this. That's why the law says pass along what you suspect, don't engage in street justice.

Tim and Gary go fact finding. Mike may have seen something bad but did he? They decide first to question JS, Dr. Raykovitz, and Joe to get their impressions based on long associations with JS – and then to possibly go to CYS. We know their decision

COMMENT: PSU and alums have every reason to be furious with those involved in failing to report this because it represents massive negligence. It's totally unfair to tar an institution based on the gross incompetence and total indifference to standard,outlined, legally defined procedure that they knew or should have known. These were individual failures. Again, they knew the situation and what they had to do. My point derives from this - there was some other force that allowed JS to swagger around and get away with all of this.

Then in 2010 Mike meets the AG’s investigation. The AG has 5 or 6 victims. Mike hasn’t thought about Feb of 2001 for a decade. The AG assures him his testimony is vital. Mike feels guilty. Was the boy in 2001 being raped? Did JS continue after he left? Could he have saved other boys? Did his decade of inaction lead to JS ruining more lives? What can he do to atone? Tortured by these questions he is a willing instrument of the AG who says his testimony is required to convict JS. He is not aware of the ramifications of his actions for Joe, PSU or the administrators. He does not protest the Presentment. He is vilified by the media. Knowing of other victims he has "enhanced" his memory of what he thinks he should have said and seen.

COMMENT: Need to see what happens at trial.

Joe, Tim, Gary and Dr. Spanier took the report of inappropriate activity by Mike seriously in 2001. Tim questions JS who says he did grab the boy from behind to stop him from falling. Tim asks Joe about JS and his 30 year coaching experience..Tim gets Dr. Raykovitz’s opinion as a psychologist.. This isn’t about a cover up. It’s fact finding from the men who would know JS best. They get attorneys advice and make a rational decision. They are convinced JS was not doing something criminal. Being in a shower in contact with a boy was not criminal in 1998 so how could it be in 2001

COMMENT: Raykovitz' opinion as a psychologist should not have been offered. He had a pre-eexisting relationship with JS, which would color his findings. In addition, he had an obligation to report this, which he didn't do. The attorney was counsel to the 2nd Mile (as I recall) but, in any case, should have pointed out a) get on the phone and report this right now and b) don't rely on Raykovitz (for the reasons mentioned - he broke the rules of his profession on reporting - any decent lawyer would point this out).

If you cannot find any fault with this summary you should make it the subject of your next article in order to balance your coverage with some fairness.

COMMENT: I find some of it interesting and thank you again. The main fault is <em>the dog that didn't bark.</em> Report what you're supposed to report; don't circumvent the system and play judge and jury; don't get professional opinion from people with dual loyalties - Raykovitz and the PSU counsel; and place loyalty to protecting the public and the institution (PSU) at the top of the list, not a buddy.

Take care, Mike

My reply to Michael will be the first comment below

[aurabass]

Thank you, I appreciate your long considered reply to my comment on your article. Since you greatest objection to my reply to you was about the “failure to report” let me address that in as much detail as I can. I have written a couple of pieces on this aspect that can be read HERE 3 Hour Meeting with Lawyers During Sandusky Decision Revealed

This story is interesting since it reveals that it was a very serious decision considering what little they were told by McQueary and how concerned they were with doing the right thing for PSU. My take is that they determined Mike's brief observation and suspicion insufficient evidence of a crime.

2001 PSU Officials Discussed Sandusky With Lawyers For 3 Hours Top Pennsylvania State University officials held a three-hour meeting to discuss Jerry Sandusky in 2001 over concerns about the former coach's behavior with a boy in the football showers. A law-firm billing record from that conversation describes a "report of suspected child abuse," according to a person with knowledge of an independent investigation into the matter.

Now we can blame the PSU lawyers for the decision that what Mike McQueary told the administrator was insufficient to make a report outside of The Second Mile and Penn State can't we? IF the attorneys for PSU did not think it was required then my guess is they had good reason. Lawyers are notorious for erring on the side of caution. Could the liability of reporting JS on vague assumptions by a grad student be more problematic than not?

This revelation puts an entirely new spin on the diligence of the PSU administrators I think. If Penn State attorneys thought their actions legally responsible then why should they be questioned?

The Law in PA is rather ambiguous in 2001
§ 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.
(a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

I realize this is code for licensed agencies but the language is almost identical to the reporting law that is more difficult to find and copy. The language on who is mandated is quite similar. It's basically aimed at those who work with kids.

It appears to me that the law on mandatory reporting is designed to cover those who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children. And it appears that the attorneys who billed PSU for 3 hours of research came to the same conclusion.

It is my opinion and supposition that Tim Curley in speaking with Dr. Raykovitz at the Second Mile had 2 intentions. One to get Dr. Raykovitz take on Jerry Sandusky as one who was working closely with him for years, as a Psychologist, and as the person with the staff and need to know who would be most effective and most concerned with finding out if JS was a danger to the children his organization was responsible for helping. And secondly to hand the McQueary report over to the party who’s organization was mandated by law to report suspected child abuse. There is no question that Raykovitz and the Second Mile fit the description “those who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children.”

Does it not seem odd to you that the Grand Jury testimonies of Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were the only one’s read into the record along with actual testimony from Mike McQueary, Harmon, John McQueary, and Agent Sassano, BUT the testimonies of Dr. Dranov and Dr. Raykovitz were not. In fact if you read the transcript of the Perjury Hearing it is obvious that prosecutors want anything Dr. Dranov might have said to Mike or John McQueary kept out ot the record.

Why do we know so much about the Grand Jury testimony of Tim and Gary and Joe but nothing about the testimony of Dr. Raykovitz? My guess is that Raykovitz was asked by Tim if he had any reason to believe JS was a pedophile in 2001, He had access to the kids and their parents or foster parents and he had the staff of child specialists who would have a much better handle on behavior during or after abuse. Curley ran a football program, Schultz the physical campus, Paterno was already 75 and a coach, but the Raykovitz’s 233,000 a year salaries depended on The Second Mile and they had every reason to make certain that JS did not screw that up.

So certainly as a psychologist alone Raykovitz judgment would not be objective but in the interest of self-preservation it would be incumbent on him to make certain 2nd Mile kids were safe.

Now it seems that perhaps the 2001 decision was a good one for quite some time. We only have Victim 5 who claimed an incident in Aug of 2001 at PSU but JS was found not-guilty of the indecent assault charge related to that date and victim. He was also found not-guilty of the indecent assault charge related to victim 6 – the 1998 incident in which JS was “cleared” in the minds of Schultz and others.

You say “I'm a big believer in the jury system and trial by juries”? well then rely on their verdicts. They did not believe Mike McQueary’s claim that he witnessed anal intercourse :
Did the verdicts on victim 2 in the JS trial mean the jury found Mike's 'intercourse story' credible OR did the not guilty verdict on the charge of deviate sexual intercourse mean the jury did not believe him? The latter is true of course. They voted Not Guilty on intercourse.
Count 7 - not guilty Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
Count 8 - guilty Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
Count 9 - guilty Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
Count 10-guilty Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
Count 11-guilty Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)
The verdicts on the actual victims that testified were enough to put JS away forever. His testimony was not that important. But now he is lauded as courageous and has a civil case as a whistle-blower

And the jury did not believe victims 5 and 6 were indecently assaulted. The did believe in the pattern of grooming that is implied by the Unlawful Contact, Corruption, and Endangering charges because they believed that JS was grooming his victims. But that was not the decision of the investigation of victim 6 in 1998 and the 2001 incident seems identical. In 1998 the boy claimed he was not molested. In 2001 there is no victim available and a decade or more later he still has not been found.

So it seems most of the media spurred on by the LIE in the Presentment “Mike SAW anal intercourse and reported THAT to Joe, Tim and Gary” which set the Media Narrative is ready to start from that presumption. My point is that if you reject that as a starting place and instead start with the presumption that Joe, Tim and Gary are good responsible citizens who would never knowingly ignore a predator you can begin to see how the Grad Assistant’s muddled and confused account of 2 second glances and visualizations of a sex act based on 3 slapping sounds might strike them against a State College “saint” who devoted his life to helping kids.

I’m certain Mike was not sure what he saw. That he thought he was going to see two adults having sex and when it turned out to be JS and a boy in that shower he was shocked and confused. When he saw them face to face and the boy did not show pain, distress or fear he was baffled and he fled to call his father and he was satisfied with the decision made by those men for a decade until the AG told him he could have stopped a child rapist and he needed to make sure he did that now because he was their best hope.

Perhaps it would be much easier to continue this conversation by email. I would very much like to do that. [e-mail] is mine and The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal is my weblog

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply.
This is an important discussion and it seems you have an open mind. I've spent 8 months hanging on every detail of this story because I was injured and could not get out of the house. I am a University of Tennessee graduate 66 years of age with no love for PSU or Joe Paterno. I'm simply a progressive liberal and friend of Al Gore's who sees this as an injustice done by Corbett and Kelly and I think I have plenty of evidence for that position.
Barry Bozeman
knoxville22.blogspot.com/
rushlimbaughtomy.blogspot.com/
bozemangene.blogspot.com/

[mariospants]

One thing that kind of makes me wonder why it was never asked (referring to McQuery's testimony: media.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/other/Curley-Schultz-Hearing-Transcript.pdf)

When Sandusky and the child turned to face him "and look him in the eye" during the third "peek" at what was going on (right after Michael had slammed his locker shut) why didn't the grand jury ask him about the state of arousal of Sandusky? It seems like a really key piece of evidence both as to the nature of the charges against Sandusky as well as how it informed McQuery's testimony to Schultz and Curley.

From the description, he slammed the locker shut, walked a couple of yards and basically was right there in the shower area with them. If - and I'm sorry if this sounds a little explicit - Sandusky wasn't aroused (i.e. had an erection or was losing an erection) then how could anal sex have taken place? At that point, McQuery would have had all he'd need to make the connection between what looks like "they're in a very sexual oriented -- a very sexual position" and "they were having some kind of intercourse".

From my mind, that's a super-key piece of evidence, as - up until that moment - it's hardly clear what's going on in that shower room. Add to that the fact that Michael didn't hear any noise from the child (counter to the assertion by the victim in court who said that he screamed in the basement due to the abuse) and you have a pretty inconclusive bit of evidence to hang actual intercourse on (even though I believe the jury convicted him on this count!).

[btd121]

I don't believe the jury did convict on the anal intercourse count. That was one of the few they didn't convict. It is pretty clear Sandusky was doing his usual grooming, possibly fondling, but there is no way a 6'5 man was standing and raping a young boy. Physically impossible, especially for an ex football player with bad knees. Also impossible to hear "slapping" sounds coming from intercourse, unless those were the quietest showers ever. Pretty clear if MM did hear slapping, Jerry was messing around and slapping the kid on the stomach or something.

[aurabass]

Btd is correct. Sandusky was found not guilty of the deviate sexual intercourse charge and guilty only of what I call the grooming charges that stem from being in the shower with a boy for the purpose of arousing his own sexual desire. This is of course a disbelief that Sandusky was actually involved in an overt sex act but was doing the grooming established as a pattern by each of the 8 victims who actually testified.

Did the verdicts on victim 2 in the JS trial mean the jury found Mike's 'intercourse story' credible OR did the not guilty verdict on the charge of deviate sexual intercourse mean the jury did not believe him? The latter is true of course. They voted Not Guilty on intercourse.
Count 7 - not guilty Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
Count 8 - guilty Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
Count 9 - guilty Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
Count 10 - guilty Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
Count 11 - guilty Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

Read more: notpsu.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1#ixzz20STio4A6

[Mariospants]

OK, it wasn't clear with the "Victim X" and number of charges what was what. The lack of anything but a vague "grooming" charge in this incident lends credence to the assertion that McQueary's testimony may not have been all that indemnifying when he presented it to the senior staff.

You can ruin a guy's reputation with just the suggestion of impropriety, and in this case, you're talking about someone you know well and who is well known, so of course you're not going to go running around making accusations and calling the police into it. If McQueary had said "they were totally having sex and I literally saw Sandusky's erect penis in contact with the child", that would be a completely different story and I firmly believe that had he actually witnessed something like that, then obviously the senior staff would have escalated it.

[aurabass]

Well they have ruined reputations with the media frenzy calling Joe Paterno a LIAR and Penn State administrators callous pedophile enablers.

They are demonstrably wrong as can be shown by any credible view of he evidence. But the Media Narrative has been established so they all run with the same old shit.

[jz]

I have deep concerns about Spanier. Take a look at a quote from an article he wrote in 1975:

"In his 1975 article, “Mate Swapping: Perceptions, Value Orientations, and Participation in a Midwestern Community,” for Archives of Sexual Behavior,” Spanier wrote: “An individual’s behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as deviant…. Mate swapping, then, can be viewed as either deviant or normal behavior, depending on who is viewing it and from what perspective it is being viewed.”

That raises flags in my mind about how Spanierviews deviant acts..that quote speaks VOLUMES.

Also, Spanier's long time friend, Ronald Roskens, was fired due to " private reasons" The reasons were rumoured to have been orgies and boys caught on surveillnace film at his house. Also, Roskens was connected to Larry E. King, of the Franklin Case in Nebraska.

The connections keep popping up...very disturbing

[aurabass]

That is interesting jz - strange comment from Spanier