Post by aurabass on Jul 8, 2012 15:45:02 GMT -5
Unanswered Question Remains About Sandusky Case
by Michael Collins on OpEd News
----- Original Message -----
To: Barry Bozeman
From: Michael Collins
Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 3:23:28 AM
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.
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.
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.
My reply to Michael will be the first comment below
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."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
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.
----- 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.----- Original Message -----
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.
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