And you're a moron, 2 posts.
Ex PSU player Justin Williams with Ziegler
- Thread starter NoBareFeet
- Start date
And you're a moron, 2 posts.
Name-calling is the sure sign of surrender. You're just a silly JoeBot. You are also the type that makes PSU look bad.
It’s the wachhole guy from the old board
How many user names do you think I have?
I post more than enough on the one I do have
- Joe Paterno did cultivate a reputation for doing things “the right way”
- In 2001, he met the minimum obligation (reported up the chain) but didn’t push further, despite having unusual influence.
- He participated in the decision not to report Sandusky
- He held himself out as a moral leader and didn’t act like one when it mattered most
- Therefor he deserves scorn and the hit to his legacy is deserved.
WickyWackyNole is back. He won't be able to resist going into long spiels about Paterno.
That clown was so jealous that one of the posters was a scientist who spent 6 months in Antarctica. Wacky kept trying to tear him down, but just got owned constantly.
That clown was so jealous that one of the posters was a scientist who spent 6 months in Antarctica. Wacky kept trying to tear him down, but just got owned constantly.
I remember he owned you pretty good back then.
The only one who was "pwned" was you Richard.
LOL That guy was a janitor that lived in his mommy's basement. The rest was made up. How could you fall for that?WickyWackyNole is back. He won't be able to resist going into long spiels about Paterno.
That clown was so jealous that one of the posters was a scientist who spent 6 months in Antarctica. Wacky kept trying to tear him down, but just got owned constantly.
Not really. The leaders at Penn State all went to jail and Paterno is disgraced.I must've really got under your skin, emojiimbecile.
Seems people like to ignore 1998.
"
Two evaluations were done:
• Licensed psychologist Alycia Chambers reviewed the case and concluded Sandusky’s behavior fit the profile/pattern of a pedophile/groomer (she flagged it clearly to police). cnn.com
• John Seasock, described in multiple contemporary reports and later analyses as an unlicensed counselor (or uncredentialed/unlicensed psychologist/social service worker contracted for evaluations, not a fully licensed psychologist), interviewed the boy separately. He reached the opposite conclusion: no evidence of sexual abuse, grooming, or inappropriate sexual behavior; the interactions were “typically defined as normal between a healthy adult and a young adolescent male.” He explicitly stated he “hadn’t heard of a 52-year-old becoming a pedophile,” which is the basis for the phrasing in your question (i.e., people don’t start exhibiting pedophilic behavior or become pedophiles at that age). cnn.com
Seasock’s report (along with other factors, including Sandusky’s denial and an apology for poor judgment) contributed to the case being closed with no charges in 1998. Sandusky was later convicted in 2012 on dozens of counts of child sexual abuse involving multiple victims over many years. Critics of the 1998 handling (including analyses of the Freeh Report) have noted that Seasock was unlicensed/less qualified compared to Chambers, went into the interview without full background, and his opinion was given significant weight despite the conflicting licensed psychologist’s assessment. psucollegian.com
This is well-documented in 2012 news coverage (e.g., NBC News release of the police file), court documents, and later reviews of the Sandusky scandal. Seasock was not a licensed psychologist/therapist in the sense required for formal clinical evaluations in that context, which is why he is repeatedly described as unlicensed or uncredentialed in reporting on the case"
Once PSU did this in 1998 they had no other option in 2001. Well they did had an option but......
If they listened to Chalmers in 1998 things might have been settled back then and the scandal wouldn't have been as bad.
can anyone really explain why would you believe report of Seasock over Chalmers? An unlicensed therapist over a PhD.
From Grok AI here is her background;
psiYes, Alycia (or Alycia A.) Chambers held a PhD and was a licensed psychologist in 1998, and she had relevant professional experience dealing with child sexual abuse issues. media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com
PhD and Licensing Status in 1998
• She signed her May 7, 1998, report to Penn State police as “Alycia A. Chambers, PhD” (or Dr. Alycia A. Chambers). media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com
• She was employed as a licensed psychologist at The Highlands (a psychological services provider in State College, PA), where she conducted evaluations and counseling, including for the boy in the 1998 Sandusky incident the day after it was reported. co.centre.pa.us
• Court filings and contemporary news reports from the era (and later) consistently identify her as a licensed psychologist with a PhD. co.centre.pa.us
Experience with Child Sexual Abuse
• In her 1998 report, Chambers explicitly referenced her (and her consultants’) “experience and education” in identifying behaviors that met definitions of a “likely pedophile’s pattern” (grooming via trust-building, gradual physical touch in a “loving/special” relationship context). She consulted with others on the case, indicating established professional networks in this area. cnn.com
• She specialized in clinical psychology and provided therapy/evaluations for children and families, including direct work on suspected abuse cases. She interviewed the child victim promptly, reported to authorities (including the Pennsylvania child abuse line), and followed up on the investigation. psucollegian.com
• Later reflections (e.g., in 2010s interviews) confirm she recognized grooming behaviors based on her training and practice. She continued working in the field post-1998. espn.com
In contrast to the unlicensed counselor John Seasock (who was brought in for a second evaluation and downplayed the concerns), Chambers was the qualified, licensed expert whose assessment aligned with recognized child sexual abuse indicators. Her credentials and role were not in dispute in coverage of the case."
PSU rigged it in 1998, they had no other option other than falling on the sword in 2001.
None of the other ******** matters. Nothing Ziegler said mattters. None of the billshit theories matter. They knew he was a problem in 1998 and got some clown to say he was not a problem ignoring a well credentialed PhD psychologist who works in the field of abuse.
It's like comparing and unlicensed massage therapist, someone who failed out of school after a few weeks to a PhD physical therapist with advanced credentials, who is working with a D1 or nfl team. Their gap education and credentials is that far apart.
Thank you Joeballsack for a nic switch and patent BS.
Again, they covered it up in 1998 that sealed their faith.
However I'm surprised you're still at this , maybe you need some professional help?
Bet you're Candace Owens fan? You love stupid conspiracies.
It's a pretty bad cover up if it makes it all the way to the District Attorney and he ultimately decides there isn't enough there to move forward.
Really? When you only have the Seasock report to rely on, well that changes things:
Quick Summary on the Reports
• Alycia Chambers report (licensed psychologist, first evaluation ~May 4–7, 1998): Concluded Sandusky’s behavior (showering with the boy, etc.) showed classic grooming signs consistent with a pedophile. She gave a written copy to University Police Det. Ron Schreffler. cbsnews.com psucollegian.com
• John Seasock report (counselor with CYS/DPW, second evaluation ~May 8–9, 1998): Found no evidence of grooming or sexual abuse. This came in right before the case closed. cbsnews.com
Gricar decided not to prosecute in late May/early June 1998. A well-placed source who reviewed the file stated that Seasock’s report (the more favorable/exculpatory one for Sandusky) was the key reason Gricar declined charges. The timing supports this. pennlive.com bleacherreport.com
Did Gricar Have the Chambers Report?
• The Chambers report was in the University Police file (given to Schreffler), so it was part of the broader investigation materials available to law enforcement. pennlive.com
• However, it was not effectively shared with everyone. DPW investigator Jerry Lauro (handling the child welfare side) said he never saw it and only learned of the conflicting psych reports years later. He said it would have changed his decision to close the case. pennlive.com
• Gricar oversaw the criminal side and worked with the police file. There are no detailed public notes from him on exactly what he reviewed, but the available evidence points to the Seasock report carrying the most weight in the final no-prosecution decision. The file overall was described as thin/repetitious. yardbirdbooks.com
This 1998 case was later labeled “unfounded.” Gricar disappeared in 2005 (declared dead but body never found), and while some speculated a link, investigators found no evidence connecting it to Sandusky. cbsnews.com
Later reviews (grand jury, Freeh Report context, media) highlighted communication breakdowns between police, CYS/DPW, and prosecutors as a major issue. If you have more specifics or want details on a particular aspect (e.g., timelines, Freeh Report excerpts, or Lauro/Schreffler statements), let me know!"
Again, this was from a Grok AI search. So answer this question, why even have a man like John Seasock do an evaluation and why not make damn sure Gricar got the Chalmers report?
The answer is obvious , to influence him not to pursue the case. You people obsess over 2001 and MM when it's very obvious what happened in 1998.
Who commissioned Seasock? Here you go:
"
John Seasock was commissioned (or procured) for the second evaluation by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW), at the request of Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS). scribd.com
Context in the 1998 Investigation
• Seasock worked with (or had a contract/affiliation with) Centre County CYS. cbsnews.com
• Because CYS had a close relationship with Sandusky’s Second Mile charity (creating a potential conflict), the state DPW brought in investigator Jerry Lauro for an independent child abuse investigation.
• As part of that process, CYS/DPW arranged the second psychological evaluation of the boy (Victim 6) after the initial one by Alycia Chambers. Seasock conducted a one-hour interview and produced his report around May 8–9, 1998. pennlive.com psucollegian.com
Seasock did not review Chambers’ earlier report or full prior details before his evaluation. His conclusions (no grooming or sexual abuse found) contrasted with hers and contributed to the case being closed shortly afterward. cbsnews.com
This arrangement was part of standard (though flawed, per later critiques) procedures separating criminal (police/DA) and child protective services tracks. The mother of the boy reportedly believed Seasock was a paid CYS consultant when she took her son to see him. pennlive.com
If you need more on timelines, the full chain of custody for reports, or related documents, let me know!"
So this is adequate child protection? And again why was the Chalmers report shoved to the side? It's obvious why it was.
TL;DR
Again, keeping things simple...if I'm trying to cover up a crime, letting it end up on the DA's desk is a pretty bad method of getting the job done.
Are you saying it was PSU, the DA, TSM, CYS, and or DPW that was involved in the cover up?
Quite right! And this explains why they covered it up in 2001. Had it gotten out (and it would have) no record for Joe, and end of the road for CSS. So, to jail and disgrace they went. Keep in mind also that Gricar was an elected official and Sandusky was a local legend. Trying a case with just one incident and not having the Chambers report would have disinclined many a DA to try it. That would not have been the case in 2001. But Ray never was told of that was he?
Last edited:
The real cover up was in 2001 which was necessary to save their jobs because they blew it in 1998. Sandusky should have never had access to that campus with children ever again. They (CSS+JoePa) looked the other way and so had to cover up 2001. That cost them their freedom and reputations.
In 2001 it was Joe and CSS. Those others didn't know about 2001.
Maybe you can get to Antarctica on a cruise, assuming you can afford it. It certainly won't be on a scientific expedition.
