Thought this was an interesting read

[Truthtelling]

There are a lot of assumptions there that are not backed up by hard evidence and some of those memories were lost in the mists of time. There's a huge question as to what MM actually said to whom and when.

The most damning testimony (hard evidence) came from Paterno himself and MM was consistent throughout with all juries believing him.

 

[Truthtelling]

The Second Mile's Involvement & Investigation Findings

The Second Mile, founded by Jerry Sandusky in 1977 as a non-profit to support at-risk youth, was the primary vehicle Sandusky used to identify, access, and groom his victims.

And Sandusky used his access to PSU as well to assist in the grooming.

Were They Investigated?

Yes. The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, the state grand jury, and later independent investigators heavily scrutinized the charity. Investigators subpoenaed travel records, expense reports, and rosters of children participating in the programs.

Both the FBI and Justice Department looked into the Second Mile and found nothing as the article linked shows.

Key Findings & Outcomes:

• Failure to Act on Early Warnings: Longtime CEO Jack Raykovitz and members of The Second Mile board were warned about Sandusky's behavior. In 2001, after Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley told Raykovitz about Mike McQueary’s locker room shower report, the charity’s leadership dismissed it as a "non-incident". Raykovitz merely instructed Sandusky to "wear shorts in the shower in the future".

Tim Curley himself in that report to Raykovitz said the incident was fully investigated and nothing improper was found. Raykovitz was never told anything reportable by Curley. "It's a big nothing burger," said John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who just got through reviewing the documents. "There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed."
Most of the notes in the released files appear to be FBI interviews conducted in 2012 with Second Mile board members in both the State College office and other regional offices. The interviews described how Second Mile board members reacted to the Sandusky revelations dating back to as early as 2010 and 2011.
"Not a single person admitted to knowing about Sandusky's crimes prior to the presentment," Snedden said.

• Missing Records: Investigators discovered that critical Second Mile records spanning the years 2000 to 2003—the peak of some of the alleged abuse periods—were missing.
• Systemic Failure of Oversight: The charity lacked the safeguards to prevent a founder from operating with unrestricted, unsupervised access to vulnerable children, even after multiple institutions (including Penn State police and local agencies) had flagged him in 1998 .

TSM was never shown the report from 1998 given to PSU by Dr. Alicia Chambers that indicated Sandusky was a P3do. Curley and Schultz knew of it however.

• Dissolution: In May 2012, facing mounting litigation and a destroyed reputation, The Second Mile petitioned to transfer its remaining programs and assets to Arrow Child & Family Ministries and ultimately dissolved, placing its remaining funds into escrow with the Pennsylvania Attorney General to resolve victims' claims.

Justice was done.

The Case for Scapegoating (The Paterno Family & Alumni Trustee Perspective)

Supporters, family members, and several Penn State alumni trustees have strongly argued that the Board of Trustees used Paterno to shield themselves and the university from broader legal and financial destruction.

The BOT faced no such jeopardy since Spanier had lied and withheld information from the BOT prior to Sandusky's arrest. Joe never spoke to any BOT members about his 2011 GJ testimony.

• The "Rush to Judgment": The Board of Trustees fired Paterno via a phone call on November 9, 2011, amid massive media pressure and campus riots. Critics argue this was a knee-jerk reaction to appease public outrage rather than a fact-based decision.

This was poorly done and the BOT apologized for it later. The campus police were scared that if the BOT went to Paterno's house it might not be safe due to student unrest.

• A Failing Grade for the Freeh Report: In 2019, a leaked internal review compiled by seven Penn State trustees heavily criticized the Freeh Report as "biased," "rife with flaws," and "fatally compromised" by collusion with the NCAA and the Attorney General’s office. The review concluded there was no definitive evidence proving Paterno actively covered up Sandusky's crimes.

The problem with the Alumni Report is that these trustees weren't approaching the question as disinterested outsiders. They were alumni-elected trustees who had already become prominent critics of Freeh; some were elected amid an alumni movement seeking repudiation of Freeh and rehabilitation of Paterno's reputation. It was essentially a brief for the anti-Freeh position. The Philadelphia Inquirer described it as largely consolidating arguments Penn State defenders had made for years, supplemented by material from Freeh's files that the trustees believed supported those arguments. Even the name of their report shows their bias. Furthermore the University strongly stated that the Alumni Trustee report was just an opinion of those seven trustees and not of the University. After the Alumni Trustees leaked the report the University condemned it.

• Institutional Deflection: Supporters point out that Sandusky was actually retired from Penn State during the bulk of the abuse and was operating primarily through The Second Mile. They argue that local police, state child welfare agencies, and the charity itself had far more direct responsibility and detailed files on Sandusky than Paterno ever did, yet Penn State bore the entire brunt of the public fallout.

But Paterno and CSS knew about the 2001 incident of sexual molestation and those other agencies did not.

Board of Trustees & The Second Mile: Conflicts of Interest

The overlap between the Penn State Board of Trustees and The Second Mile is a central pillar of the "cover-up of the cover-up" theory championed by Paterno's defenders and skeptical alumni.

• Shared Leadership and Suite Partners: Several highly influential figures moved in the same social, philanthropic, and professional circles. For example, Trustee Ira Lubert, who chaired the Board committee that oversaw Penn State’s massive settlement negotiations with victims, was a close friend of former Second Mile Board Chair Bob Poole. State records also showed Lubert was a part-owner of a summer camp that Second Mile children visited.

Joe Paterno himself was on the board and according to Sue gave money to the Second Mile. Further, the BOT did not investigate the scandal. Freeh and other Law Enforcement agencies did.

• The Controversial Liability Releases: When Penn State eventually settled with 35+ victims (paying out over $109 million), the settlement agreements contained a highly unusual clause. The agreements required the victims to release not just Penn State, but also The Second Mile and anyone connected to it from future lawsuits.

That protected the Paterno's as well.

• The Backlash: Outside legal experts noted that it is incredibly rare for a defending organization (Penn State) to insist on legal immunity for an entirely separate entity (The Second Mile). Dissenting trustees openly alleged this was done specifically to protect powerful board members who had deep ties to the charity. While university mediators claimed this was simply a standard legal maneuver to prevent circular "third-party" lawsuits, it remains one of the most suspicious elements of the financial settlement process for those who believe Paterno was thrown under the bus.

Since no evidence of wrongdoing was found by Federal Investigations in 2012 then no BOT members were ever in jeopardy. This is a fictious connection. Joe was as involved in TSM as any BOT member.

 

[SkiSkiSki]

And Sandusky used his access to PSU as well to assist in the grooming.

Both the FBI and Justice Department looked into the Second Mile and found nothing as the article linked shows.

Tim Curley himself in that report to Raykovitz said the incident was fully investigated and nothing improper was found. Raykovitz was never told anything reportable by Curley. "It's a big nothing burger," said John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who just got through reviewing the documents. "There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed."
Most of the notes in the released files appear to be FBI interviews conducted in 2012 with Second Mile board members in both the State College office and other regional offices. The interviews described how Second Mile board members reacted to the Sandusky revelations dating back to as early as 2010 and 2011.
"Not a single person admitted to knowing about Sandusky's crimes prior to the presentment," Snedden said.

TSM was never shown the report from 1998 given to PSU by Dr. Alicia Chambers that indicated Sandusky was a P3do. Curley and Schultz knew of it however.

Justice was done.

The BOT faced no such jeopardy since Spanier had lied and withheld information from the BOT prior to Sandusky's arrest. Joe never spoke to any BOT members about his 2011 GJ testimony.

This was poorly done and the BOT apologized for it later. The campus police were scared that if the BOT went to Paterno's house it might not be safe due to student unrest.

The problem with the Alumni Report is that these trustees weren't approaching the question as disinterested outsiders. They were alumni-elected trustees who had already become prominent critics of Freeh; some were elected amid an alumni movement seeking repudiation of Freeh and rehabilitation of Paterno's reputation. It was essentially a brief for the anti-Freeh position. The Philadelphia Inquirer described it as largely consolidating arguments Penn State defenders had made for years, supplemented by material from Freeh's files that the trustees believed supported those arguments. Even the name of their report shows their bias. Furthermore the University strongly stated that the Alumni Trustee report was just an opinion of those seven trustees and not of the University. After the Alumni Trustees leaked the report the University condemned it.

But Paterno and CSS knew about the 2001 incident of sexual molestation and those other agencies did not.

Joe Paterno himself was on the board and according to Sue gave money to the Second Mile. Further, the BOT did not investigate the scandal. Freeh and other Law Enforcement agencies did.

That protected the Paterno's as well.

Since no evidence of wrongdoing was found by Federal Investigations in 2012 then no BOT members were ever in jeopardy. This is a fictious connection. Joe was as involved in TSM as any BOT member.

Your response relies heavily on misattributions of federal authority, conflation between honorary figureheads and fiduciary board members, and an omission of sworn trial disclosures and court discovery from Corman v. NCAA.

Citing John Snedden as proof that the 'FBI and DOJ investigated and found nothing' misrepresents Snedden’s actual assignment. Snedden was an investigator for the Federal Investigative Services conducting a personnel security clearance review for Graham Spanier’s federal advisory role, not a DOJ prosecutor or criminal grand jury lead auditing The Second Mile. Furthermore, the PA Attorney General's Office—not the federal DOJ—held primary jurisdiction over the criminal charges. Snedden’s personal evaluation of witness credibility was part of an internal clearance file that the federal government declined to submit into the state criminal proceedings.

The claim that Curley reported the matter was 'fully investigated' collapses under the trial record in Commonwealth v. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Curley and Schultz admitted under oath that no police report was taken, no investigator was dispatched, and the victim was never identified or contacted. Raykovitz was a licensed psychologist and head of a licensed youth organization; receiving a report that Sandusky was showering with a Second Mile child at night in a university locker room warranted immediate reporting to DPW. Directing Sandusky to 'wear shorts' was an administrative containment measure, not the action of an executive who was told 'nothing improper occurred.

Pointing out that Curley and Schultz knew about the 1998 investigation highlights why blaming Joe Paterno for institutional concealment is unsupportable. Paterno was never briefed on the 1998 investigation by university police, DA Ray Gricar, or Schultz. When McQueary approached Paterno in 2001, Paterno handled it as an isolated first-time report and escalated it directly to Curley and Schultz—the very administrator who supervised campus police and already possessed the 1998 file.

Dismissing criticism of the Freeh Report as 'alumni bias' ignores the sworn testimony and discovery unsealed in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court during Corman v. NCAA. The unsealed records revealed that Freeh's investigators regularly collaborated with NCAA officials prior to the report's release. Internal NCAA emails proved that executives recognized their lack of regulatory authority and utilized Freeh's narrative assertions to bypass normal investigative protocols. The subsequent settlement of that lawsuit forced the NCAA to overturn its own sanctions and reinstate Paterno’s career record.

Equating Joe Paterno’s position with that of governing Board members is factually inaccurate. Paterno was listed on The Second Mile’s honorary board—a standard promotional roster featuring public figures such as Cal Ripken Jr., Arnold Palmer, and Mark Wahlberg, none of whom had legal oversight, operational access, or voting rights. In stark contrast, individuals like Bob Poole served as Chairman of the governing Board of Directors, while Trustee Ira Lubert held direct business partnerships with Poole and co-owned recreational properties utilized by the charity.

The settlement release did not protect the Paternos; the Paterno estate was never a party to those settlement agreements, nor did the Paterno family request third-party immunity from university payouts. While mediator Kenneth Feinberg cited circular indemnification as the rationale, legal scholars noted that Penn State paying over $100 million of university funds to secure universal liability releases for an outside charity—and its individual officers—was an unprecedented move that insulated Second Mile leadership from discovery and open-court civil depositions.

Get your facts straight before you bring your bull$h!t "truth" around here.

 

[Thorndike2021]

It was a diversion by the powers that be on the BoT to divert attention away from the Second Mile that so many of their family members were involved in. The fvckers got away with it. There is a special place in hell for the Surmas.

Of course you're correct about the events of 2011 and beyond.

But I was referring specifically to the recent re-emergence of the Paterno 'brand' into a 'family history', Success with Honor posters, and so forth. Call me cynical but that's how it appears to me. Let the alumni back into the football program, keep some 'old money' happier and pray for major donations for facilities and NIL, etc.

 

[Marshall2323]

I believe that Sandusky's last season on the coaching staff was 1999, so maybe Joe forced him out after hearing things. Also, if Joe did report the rumors to the chain of command, then what more was he supposed to have done? Was he expected to put together a posse and make a citizen's arrest?

Joe and Jerry were never "buddies." Before Jerry became DC Joe was widely regarded as a defensive genius. In coaching circles the narrative in the 70s was you didn't want to play PSU in a bowl or after a bye. Because if he had time to scheme he was tough to beat. Joe was an innovative coach early on who devised a split 4 defense with roots in the old split 6. It got more LB types on the field as the game of football was becoming more pass oriented.
When Jerry came along, Joe was comfortable letting Jerry take all the credit for the success of the defense. For his part, Jerry believed the accolades and became increasingly possessive about the defense and thought and acted like he owned it. This problem was compounded by the fact that unlike Joe, Jerry wasn't fond of long hours and dedication to his job. Eventually Joe realized this and the fact that it began to feel the schism on the staff ( offense/defense) had to be addressed. This was the primary reason Joe told Jerry that he didn't support him to ascend to the HC position. By that time things were pretty bitter and hostile ( Joe kept it professional...Jerry not so much). Jerry had a few "benefactors " on the BOT who didn't care what anyone said, they insisted on his emeritus deal. Another reason the trustees covered their butts when the scandal hit.

 

[Marshall2323]

Of course you're correct about the events of 2011 and beyond.

But I was referring specifically to the recent re-emergence of the Paterno 'brand' into a 'family history', Success with Honor posters, and so forth. Call me cynical but that's how it appears to me. Let the alumni back into the football program, keep some 'old money' happier and pray for major donations for facilities and NIL, etc.

Bingo

 

[Truthtelling]

Your response relies heavily on misattributions of federal authority, conflation between honorary figureheads and fiduciary board members, and an omission of sworn trial disclosures and court discovery from Corman v. NCAA.

Not at all. You are somewhat confused but I will help you

Citing John Snedden as proof that the 'FBI and DOJ investigated and found nothing' misrepresents Snedden’s actual assignment. Snedden was an investigator for the Federal Investigative Services conducting a personnel security clearance review for Graham Spanier’s federal advisory role, not a DOJ prosecutor or criminal grand jury lead auditing The Second Mile. Furthermore, the PA Attorney General's Office—not the federal DOJ—held primary jurisdiction over the criminal charges. Snedden’s personal evaluation of witness credibility was part of an internal clearance file that the federal government declined to submit into the state criminal proceedings.

If you read the link I provided which was an article written by one of your own Joebots Ralph Cipriano, Ryan Bagwell, another JoeBot, obtained through FOIA a Federal Investigation of the Second Mile by the FBI and the US Attorney. Snedden read it and was a part of the article. Nothing was found worthy of filing charges and the Fed was looking for interstate issues as the article says. Reread this and then comment.

Penn State Confidential: U.S. Attorney, FBI Investigated Second Mile Charity And Came Up With A Big "Nothing Burger"

By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net For years, Penn State alumni have clamored for a federal investigation of The Second Mile charity fo...

www.bigtrial.net

The claim that Curley reported the matter was 'fully investigated' collapses under the trial record in Commonwealth v. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Curley and Schultz admitted under oath that no police report was taken, no investigator was dispatched, and the victim was never identified or contacted. Raykovitz was a licensed psychologist and head of a licensed youth organization; receiving a report that Sandusky was showering with a Second Mile child at night in a university locker room warranted immediate reporting to DPW. Directing Sandusky to 'wear shorts' was an administrative containment measure, not the action of an executive who was told 'nothing improper occurred.

Curley cleared Raykovitz in his testimony during Spanier's trial, what I quoted is what he said. The proof of this is that Raykovitz was never charged with failure to report as a mandated reporter by State Law Enforcement because he was never told anything actionable. Telling Sandusky to "wear shorts" was simply some advice to avoid alarming others. Like leaving a door open when interviewing a female by a male superior. Speaking of licensed psychologists, have you read the report by Alicia Chambers that warned PSU of Sandusky in 1998?

Pointing out that Curley and Schultz knew about the 1998 investigation highlights why blaming Joe Paterno for institutional concealment is unsupportable. Paterno was never briefed on the 1998 investigation by university police, DA Ray Gricar, or Schultz.

He was briefed by Curley (trial testimony) and it strains credulity that Joe's key assistant would be interviewed by police while an employee and Joe not know about it and follow it closely as the record shows Joe did.

When McQueary approached Paterno in 2001, Paterno handled it as an isolated first-time report and escalated it directly to Curley and Schultz—the very administrator who supervised campus police and already possessed the 1998 file.

Your assertion is not supported by the record and Joe was told about the 1998 incident as Curley testified in Spanier's trial.

Dismissing criticism of the Freeh Report as 'alumni bias' ignores the sworn testimony and discovery unsealed in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court during Corman v. NCAA. The unsealed records revealed that Freeh's investigators regularly collaborated with NCAA officials prior to the report's release. Internal NCAA emails proved that executives recognized their lack of regulatory authority and utilized Freeh's narrative assertions to bypass normal investigative protocols.

Incorrect. Freeh said when he was hired that he would coordinate with other agencies and institutions. The NCAA trained Freeh's folks how to look for LOIC and was completely proper in the investigation. The alumni bias can be seen in the title of it.

"Report to the Board of Trustees of the Pennsylvania State University on the Freeh Report's Flawed Methodology & Conclusions"
It was a biased POS. there was nothing objective about it.

The subsequent settlement of that lawsuit forced the NCAA to overturn its own sanctions and reinstate Paterno’s career record.

Only some of the sanctions were overturned and PSU still had to pay the fine. The court never ruled on the Freeh report and the NCAA agreed to restore the wins. They were not forced. The suit by the Paterno's was withdraw voluntarily by them.

Equating Joe Paterno’s position with that of governing Board members is factually inaccurate. Paterno was listed on The Second Mile’s honorary board—a standard promotional roster featuring public figures such as Cal Ripken Jr., Arnold Palmer, and Mark Wahlberg, none of whom had legal oversight, operational access, or voting rights. In stark contrast, individuals like Bob Poole served as Chairman of the governing Board of Directors, while Trustee Ira Lubert held direct business partnerships with Poole and co-owned recreational properties utilized by the charity.

Joe Paterno was much more than a figurehead with TSM. He donated money to the organization and maintained extensive business ties with top board members of The Second Mile, the youth charity founded by his assistant, Jerry Sandusky. Joe was very deeply involved with TSM and it''s other board members

• • $125 Million Retirement Community: Around 2002, Paterno and three co-investors—including longtime Second Mile board chairman Robert Poole—secured financing to construct a luxury retirement community on Penn State property.
  • Golf Resort, Inn, and Restaurant: The same investment group partnered on developing a local golf resort, alongside a nearby restaurant and inn. [1, 2]

Additional Business Partnerships
Paterno also entered into smaller commercial enterprises with current and former leaders of Sandusky's charity:

• • A bottled-water company
  • A coaching website
  • A chain of convenience stores

The settlement release did not protect the Paternos; the Paterno estate was never a party to those settlement agreements, nor did the Paterno family request third-party immunity from university payouts. While mediator Kenneth Feinberg cited circular indemnification as the rationale, legal scholars noted that Penn State paying over $100 million of university funds to secure universal liability releases for an outside charity—and its individual officers—was an unprecedented move that insulated Second Mile leadership from discovery and open-court civil depositions.

It did protect the Paternos and had they not obtained such release undoubtedly the Paterno family would have been sued by the victims. The settlement headed that off.

Get your facts straight before you bring your bull$h!t "truth" around here.

quod erat demonstrandum and, oh yeah, GFY.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

Joe and Jerry were never "buddies." Before Jerry became DC Joe was widely regarded as a defensive genius. In coaching circles the narrative in the 70s was you didn't want to play PSU in a bowl or after a bye. Because if he had time to scheme he was tough to beat. Joe was an innovative coach early on who devised a split 4 defense with roots in the old split 6. It got more LB types on the field as the game of football was becoming more pass oriented.
When Jerry came along, Joe was comfortable letting Jerry take all the credit for the success of the defense. For his part, Jerry believed the accolades and became increasingly possessive about the defense and thought and acted like he owned it. This problem was compounded by the fact that unlike Joe, Jerry wasn't fond of long hours and dedication to his job. Eventually Joe realized this and the fact that it began to feel the schism on the staff ( offense/defense) had to be addressed. This was the primary reason Joe told Jerry that he didn't support him to ascend to the HC position. By that time things were pretty bitter and hostile ( Joe kept it professional...Jerry not so much). Jerry had a few "benefactors " on the BOT who didn't care what anyone said, they insisted on his emeritus deal. Another reason the trustees covered their butts when the scandal hit.

Can't argue with that.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

Not at all. You are somewhat confused but I will help you

If you read the link I provided which was an article written by one of your own Joebots Ralph Cipriano, Ryan Bagwell, another JoeBot, obtained through FOIA a Federal Investigation of the Second Mile by the FBI and the US Attorney. Snedden read it and was a part of the article. Nothing was found worthy of filing charges and the Fed was looking for interstate issues as the article says. Reread this and then comment.

Penn State Confidential: U.S. Attorney, FBI Investigated Second Mile Charity And Came Up With A Big "Nothing Burger"

By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net For years, Penn State alumni have clamored for a federal investigation of The Second Mile charity fo...

www.bigtrial.net

Curley cleared Raykovitz in his testimony during Spanier's trial, what I quoted is what he said. The proof of this is that Raykovitz was never charged with failure to report as a mandated reporter by State Law Enforcement because he was never told anything actionable. Telling Sandusky to "wear shorts" was simply some advice to avoid alarming others. Like leaving a door open when interviewing a female by a male superior. Speaking of licensed psychologists, have you read the report by Alicia Chambers that warned PSU of Sandusky in 1998?

He was briefed by Curley (trial testimony) and it strains credulity that Joe's key assistant would be interviewed by police while an employee and Joe not know about it and follow it closely as the record shows Joe did.

Your assertion is not supported by the record and Joe was told about the 1998 incident as Curley testified in Spanier's trial.

Incorrect. Freeh said when he was hired that he would coordinate with other agencies and institutions. The NCAA trained Freeh's folks how to look for LOIC and was completely proper in the investigation. The alumni bias can be seen in the title of it.

"Report to the Board of Trustees of the Pennsylvania State University on the Freeh Report's Flawed Methodology & Conclusions"
It was a biased POS. there was nothing objective about it.

Only some of the sanctions were overturned and PSU still had to pay the fine. The court never ruled on the Freeh report and the NCAA agreed to restore the wins. They were not forced. The suit by the Paterno's was withdraw voluntarily by them.

Joe Paterno was much more than a figurehead with TSM. He donated money to the organization and maintained extensive business ties with top board members of The Second Mile, the youth charity founded by his assistant, Jerry Sandusky. Joe was very deeply involved with TSM and it''s other board members

• • $125 Million Retirement Community: Around 2002, Paterno and three co-investors—including longtime Second Mile board chairman Robert Poole—secured financing to construct a luxury retirement community on Penn State property.
  • Golf Resort, Inn, and Restaurant: The same investment group partnered on developing a local golf resort, alongside a nearby restaurant and inn. [1, 2]

Additional Business Partnerships
Paterno also entered into smaller commercial enterprises with current and former leaders of Sandusky's charity:

• • A bottled-water company
  • A coaching website
  • A chain of convenience stores

It did protect the Paternos and had they not obtained such release undoubtedly the Paterno family would have been sued by the victims. The settlement headed that off.

quod erat demonstrandum and, oh yeah, GFY.

Get lost Chief A$$iehola!!!

 

[Truthtelling]

Joe and Jerry were never "buddies." Before Jerry became DC Joe was widely regarded as a defensive genius. In coaching circles the narrative in the 70s was you didn't want to play PSU in a bowl or after a bye. Because if he had time to scheme he was tough to beat. Joe was an innovative coach early on who devised a split 4 defense with roots in the old split 6. It got more LB types on the field as the game of football was becoming more pass oriented.
When Jerry came along, Joe was comfortable letting Jerry take all the credit for the success of the defense. For his part, Jerry believed the accolades and became increasingly possessive about the defense and thought and acted like he owned it. This problem was compounded by the fact that unlike Joe, Jerry wasn't fond of long hours and dedication to his job. Eventually Joe realized this and the fact that it began to feel the schism on the staff ( offense/defense) had to be addressed. This was the primary reason Joe told Jerry that he didn't support him to ascend to the HC position. By that time things were pretty bitter and hostile ( Joe kept it professional...Jerry not so much). Jerry had a few "benefactors " on the BOT who didn't care what anyone said, they insisted on his emeritus deal. Another reason the trustees covered their butts when the scandal hit.

Nevertheless, Jerry was part of the Penn State Football "Family" and Joe told him he could coach as long as Joe was there. If all of the D was due to Joe then why keep Jerry around? It's just a JoeBot way of diminishing the clout that Jerry had in State College and the school after the scandal but it's not true.

 

[Marshall2323]

Nevertheless, Jerry was part of the Penn State Football "Family" and Joe told him he could coach as long as Joe was there. If all of the D was due to Joe then why keep Jerry around? It's just a JoeBot way of diminishing the clout that Jerry had in State College and the school after the scandal but it's not true.

Without the program Joe built, no one would have heard of Jerry.

 

[Truthtelling]

Without the program Joe built, no one would have heard of Jerry.

So, Jerry just sat around and did nothing? I think not. You disown him now because he brought you shame, took down Joe and with it, the moral superiority that Penn Staters had for years prior. Jerry ruined that. I can understand why you would wish to diminish him today. Football coaches make poor gods.

 

[Marshall2323]

So, Jerry just sat around and did nothing? I think not. You disown him now because he brought you shame and took down Joe and with it, the moral superiority that Penn Staters had for years prior. Jerry ruined that. I can understand why you would wish to diminish him today. Football coaches make poor gods.

Football coaches make poor Gods? I assume you are referring to Sandusky.

 

[lion4ever76]

Folks, don't be stupid arguing over who did this and who did that. The real question is what was the coverup? What was going on here?

 

[Truthtelling]

Football coaches make poor Gods? I assume you are referring to Sandusky.

Well there you have it. As I have heard said, if Joe Paterno was god then Sandusky was jesus. For JoeBots.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

Well there you have it. As I have heard said, if Joe Paterno was god then Sandusky was jesus. For JoeBots.

U U mommy is waiting with them for you.

 

[SkiSkiSki]

Not at all. You are somewhat confused but I will help you

................................................

quod erat demonstrandum and, oh yeah, GFY.

Let’s skip the condescending tone for a moment and look strictly at the public record, trial transcripts, and Pennsylvania corporate law. You’re relying on selective blog posts and conflating commercial real estate ventures with corporate governance. Let’s break down the facts.

The Federal "Nothing Burger" and Snedden's Actual Role

You are pointing to Ryan Bagwell’s FOIA-acquired files to claim a comprehensive FBI/DOJ investigation cleared The Second Mile (TSM).

• The Reality of the FOIA Files: The documents Bagwell obtained were heavily redacted FBI "302" interview memos from 2012. These were not a targeted audit or forensic investigation of TSM’s institutional complicity. They were interviews conducted as part of the broader federal investigation into Sandusky's interstate travel (which led to his federal indictment).
• The "Nothing Burger" Quote: The quote you attribute to John Snedden ("It’s a big nothing burger") was his assessment of the administrative files he was cleared to review for Spanier’s background check, not a formal declaration by the DOJ.
• The Jurisdictional Boundary: The federal government did not prosecute TSM because the federal criminal code in 2011/2012 lacked a broad "failure to report" or "corporate negligence" statute for non-profits. The criminal prosecution was strictly state-level (run by the PA Attorney General). The absence of federal charges against a local charity does not mean they "found nothing improper"; it means there was no federal jurisdictional hook to prosecute the entity as a whole.

Curley’s Testimony & Raykovitz’s Mandated Reporter Status

You claim Curley "cleared" Raykovitz in Spanier’s trial and that Raykovitz was never charged because he "was never told anything actionable."

• The Trial Record: In the 2017 trial of Graham Spanier, Tim Curley testified that he told Raykovitz about Mike McQueary’s report of a locker room incident. Curley testified that he told Raykovitz he was "comfortable" with how Penn State was handling it, but he did not testify that he told Raykovitz it was "fully investigated."
• The Law on Mandated Reporting: Under the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) in 2001, "mandated reporters" were only legally required to report abuse if they came into contact with the child in the course of their professional duties or employment. Because Raykovitz did not personally witness the locker room incident and it occurred on Penn State property (not directly within a TSM program), prosecutors faced a major hurdle under the highly restrictive 2001 PA reporting statutes. This is why Raykovitz was not criminally charged—it was a loophole in the 2001 PA law, not because advising Sandusky to "wear shorts in the shower" was considered appropriate professional conduct.

The 1998 Chambers Report & Curley's "Briefing" Claim

You claim that Curley testified he "briefed" Paterno on the 1998 investigation, and that "it strains credulity" that Joe wouldn't know.

• What Curley Actually Testified: During his sworn testimony, Curley explicitly stated he did not give Paterno details about the 1998 police investigation regarding Sandusky. Under oath, Curley affirmed that he merely told Paterno in 1998 that Sandusky was retiring and that there had been an "issue" that was resolved by the authorities, without detailing the allegations of sexual contact.
• The 1998 Police Files: The 1998 investigation was handled by the DPW, the Centre County DA (Ray Gricar), and University Police Director Tom Harmon. The DA declined to charge. Joe Paterno was the football coach—he had zero administrative or legal authority over the university police or county prosecutors, and they had no legal right or reason to share confidential juvenile investigation records with him.

The Freeh Report & Corman v. NCAA

You claim the NCAA "completely properly" worked with Freeh and that the court "never ruled" on the Freeh Report.

• The Judicial Record (Corman v. NCAA): You are factually incorrect. The litigation led by PA State Senator Jake Corman forced the NCAA to turn over internal emails that devastated the credibility of the Freeh Report.
• Direct Coordination: The unsealed emails showed that Louis Freeh’s team was actively feeding information to the NCAA during the active investigation to help the NCAA draft its "Consent Decree" and justify bypassing its own multi-year infractions process.
• The NCAA's Capitulation: You claim the NCAA wasn't "forced" to restore the wins. In litigation, when a party completely surrenders their primary penalty (restoring 111 wins, returning the $60 million fine to be spent strictly inside PA, and repealing the postseason bans) in exchange for the lawsuit being dropped, it is a total legal surrender. The NCAA settled because their internal emails proved they used Freeh's report as a pretext, violating their own constitution.

Board Governance vs. Private Business Partnerships

Your list of private real estate deals (the Village at Penn State, a golf resort, etc.) completely conflates personal commercial investing with corporate governance. Under Pennsylvania law, these two concepts are entirely separate:

• Fiduciary Board Members (e.g., Bob Poole, Ira Lubert):
  • Legal Relationship: They served as official officers of the corporation (The Second Mile) or the University Board of Trustees.
  • Liability & Access: They held direct legal and fiduciary responsibility for operations. They had access to internal corporate files, budgets, staff warnings, and insurance policies.
• Commercial Co-Investors (e.g., Joe Paterno):
  • Legal Relationship: Private investor, donor, and honorary figurehead.
  • Liability & Access: Zero legal authority. Co-investing in a local retirement community or a bottled-water company with Bob Poole did not grant Paterno access to TSM's internal HR complaints, payroll records, or staff-level abuse warnings.

The Bottom Line: Having a shared commercial investment with a businessman who happens to run a charity does not make you a custodian of that charity's internal operational secrets. Paterno's business partnerships did not give him legal access to TSM's internal files, victim rosters, or the direct warnings that TSM executives received and suppressed.

The Liability Releases Protected the Paternos?

You claim the Penn State settlement releases protected the Paternos from being sued by victims. This is legally impossible.

• No Legal Standing: A settlement agreement between Penn State University and a third-party victim cannot bind or release liabilities for a completely separate estate (the Paterno family) unless that estate is explicitly named as a released party and contributes to the settlement.
• The Paternos Were Not Released: The Penn State settlement agreements released PSU and its "current and former trustees, officers, and employees." However, the Paternos were already involved in active, separate litigation against the university and the NCAA.
• Why TSM Was Released: The highly unusual aspect of the release was that Penn State insisted on releasing The Second Mile (an entirely separate, outside 501(c)(3) corporation) and its board members. Legal experts pointed out that this protected the wealthy, politically connected board members of TSM (some of whom sat on PSU's board) from being dragged into depositions where they would have to explain under oath why they ignored warnings about Sandusky for decades.

To close, the record shows that:

1. The federal review was a background check on Graham Spanier, not an audit clearing TSM.
2. Tim Curley testified he did not brief Paterno on the details of 1998.
3. Joe Paterno's private business investments with Bob Poole did not give him corporate governance or legal access to TSM’s internal reporting files.
4. The NCAA surrendered and restored Paterno's wins because court discovery exposed the Freeh Report's collaborative and flawed nature.

The facts remain on the side of the trial records, not the blog comments.

Oh yeah, matrem tuam pedicavi, patre tuo spectante et masturbante.

 

[m.knox]

A licensed PhD Psychologist named Alicia Chambers did give Penn State a report in 1998 in which she said Sandusky was a likely pedo.

And didn't someone within that same organization counter / reverse her findings?

 

[m.knox]

And didn't someone within that same organization counter / reverse her findings?

I love Google's AI Overview. Makes things so easy.

In the 1998 investigation into Jerry Sandusky, psychologist Dr. John Seasock counteracted and essentially neutralized the findings of Dr. Alycia Chambers. [1, 2, 3]

• Dr. Alycia Chambers' Findings: After evaluating an 11-year-old boy who had showered with Sandusky on the Penn State campus, Dr. Chambers concluded that Sandusky's behavior was overwhelmingly consistent with a grooming pattern and classified him as a "likely pedophile." [1, 2, 3]
• The "Reversal": To get a second opinion, a subsequent evaluation was arranged with Dr. John Seasock. Dr. Seasock concluded that there was no evidence of grooming or inappropriate sexual behavior. [1, 2]

Because of Dr. Seasock’s conflicting report—and because the victim's mother and the child initially did not view the incident as abusive—Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar ultimately decided not to press criminal charges against Sandusky in 1998.

 

[Truthtelling]

@SkiSkiSki SKi

You're mixing some accurate facts with conclusions the evidence doesn't establish.

First, you've conflated two separate federal inquiries. John Snedden's 2012 investigation was indeed a federal background/security-clearance investigation of Graham Spanier. But that's not the investigation Snedden was describing when he called the Second Mile files a "big nothing burger." Years later, after Ryan Bagwell obtained roughly 1,000 pages from a separate, closed federal investigation involving The Second Mile, Snedden reviewed those records and said: "There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed." So saying the "nothing burger" comment referred merely to files Snedden reviewed for Spanier's background check is simply mixing up two different sets of records.

Nor does the jurisdiction argument prove what you claim. Certainly, no federal prosecution does not by itself prove that TSM did nothing wrong. But neither can you simply declare that federal investigators discovered wrongdoing and declined prosecution solely because they lacked a statutory hook. Where is the evidence that federal investigators actually reached that conclusion? That's an inference, not a finding. Further, the findings of the Fed were given to the OAG who did........nothing.

Second, you're misstating the Raykovitz testimony. Raykovitz testified at Spanier's trial that Curley told him the 2001 incident "had been investigated and nothing inappropriate was found." That's considerably more exculpatory than your characterization that Curley merely told Raykovitz he was "comfortable" with Penn State's handling of it. Curley disputed portions of Raykovitz's recollection, but that makes this a testimonial conflict—not proof that Raykovitz was knowingly sitting on a report of child molestation.

More importantly, Raykovitz testified that Curley described someone being uncomfortable seeing Sandusky showering with a young male. McQueary testified that he conveyed sexual abuse to Paterno, Curley and Schultz, while Curley and Schultz denied receiving it in those terms. That conflict was litigated. You can't silently substitute what McQueary says he reported for what Raykovitz says Curley actually told him.

Third, you're understating the 1998 evidence involving Paterno. Whatever Curley remembered nineteen years later about the details he gave Paterno, the contemporaneous emails are considerably harder to explain away. Curley wrote "I have touched base with Coach. Keep us posted" during the investigation and subsequently wrote that "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Curley identified "Coach" as Paterno at Spanier's trial. Those emails establish that Paterno knew enough about the matter to be kept apprised of its progress. The claim isn't that University Police owed Paterno confidential police files. The issue is what Curley told him and why Paterno was "anxious" to know the investigation's status.

Third, you're making a leap when you say the litigation judicially established that the Freeh Report was flawed or collusive. It didn't. The case never produced a merits judgment invalidating Freeh's factual findings. The parties settled before the scheduled trial. The NCAA agreed to restore the wins and keep the $60 million in Pennsylvania. A settlement does not transform the plaintiffs' allegations into judicial findings.

That's an important distinction: Corman badly damaged the credibility of the NCAA's sanctioning process. It did not constitute a judicial exoneration of Paterno or a judicial rejection of the Freeh Report.

Fourth, nobody needs to argue that Paterno's investments with Second Mile-connected businessmen gave him legal access to TSM personnel files. That's a straw man. The relevant question is whether the relationships demonstrate how closely interconnected the Penn State/Second Mile social and business circles were and whether that bears on the plausibility of claims about who knew what. You cannot make the relationships disappear by pointing out that a limited partnership doesn't create corporate inspection rights.

Finally, your categorical statement that a Penn State settlement could not possibly release claims against Paterno because his estate wasn't a contracting party misunderstands releases. A settling plaintiff can agree with Defendant A to relinquish claims against nonparty B. Indeed, contemporary reporting on the Penn State settlements says precisely that the claimants were required to release not only Penn State but The Second Mile and people connected with the released organizations. The unusual breadth of those releases itself became controversial.

Whether a particular release covered Paterno or his estate therefore depends on the actual definition of "Released Parties" in that settlement, not on the proposition that a settlement can never release a nonparty. It can.

And there's an irony in your argument about The Second Mile. You insist that absence of federal charges doesn't prove innocence, yet you then treat absence of charges against Raykovitz as something that can be completely explained by your preferred interpretation of the reporting statute. Neither inference follows automatically. We should look at what investigators actually found and what witnesses actually testified. Raykovitz was never given actionable information by Curley or he too, would have been charged with failure to report.

Curley's contemporaneous emails establish Paterno's awareness of the 1998 matter at more than a cursory level. Raykovitz testified that Curley told him the 2001 matter had been investigated and nothing inappropriate found. Corman produced no judicial finding invalidating Freeh. And the Second Mile federal investigation and Snedden's Spanier security-clearance investigation were two different things.

One last point: the Latin obscenity at the end doesn't strengthen any of this. It just makes a supposedly evidence-based argument end with an moronic insult. Inscitia tua ab immaturitate tua ostenditur.

PS. In your dreams

 

[Truthtelling]

I love Google's AI Overview. Makes things so easy.

In the 1998 investigation into Jerry Sandusky, psychologist Dr. John Seasock counteracted and essentially neutralized the findings of Dr. Alycia Chambers. [1, 2, 3]

• Dr. Alycia Chambers' Findings: After evaluating an 11-year-old boy who had showered with Sandusky on the Penn State campus, Dr. Chambers concluded that Sandusky's behavior was overwhelmingly consistent with a grooming pattern and classified him as a "likely pedophile." [1, 2, 3]
• The "Reversal": To get a second opinion, a subsequent evaluation was arranged with Dr. John Seasock. Dr. Seasock concluded that there was no evidence of grooming or inappropriate sexual behavior. [1, 2]

Because of Dr. Seasock’s conflicting report—and because the victim's mother and the child initially did not view the incident as abusive—Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar ultimately decided not to press criminal charges against Sandusky in 1998.

At the time Seasock was not licensed, a PHd and had not worked with the child as Chambers had and was a counselor not a psychologist. His "opinion" later rewarded by more work with PSU, was inferior to hers. Gricar decided not to press charges as GOV Corbett later explained, it's hard to get a pillar of the community with with such a charge based on one incident with no third party witness.

 

[m.knox]

At the time Seasock was not licensed, a PHd and had not worked with the child as Chambers had and was a counselor not a psychologist. His "opinion" later rewarded by more work with PSU, was inferior to hers. Gricar decided not to press charges as GOV Corbett later explained, it's hard to get a pillar of the community with with such a charge based on one incident with no third party witness.

Do you think Seasock, with the benefit of hindsight, wish he had done more?

 

[Truthtelling]

To close, the record shows that:

1. The federal review was a background check on Graham Spanier, not an audit clearing TSM.
2. Tim Curley testified he did not brief Paterno on the details of 1998.
3. Joe Paterno's private business investments with Bob Poole did not give him corporate governance or legal access to TSM’s internal reporting files.
4. The NCAA surrendered and restored Paterno's wins because court discovery exposed the Freeh Report's collaborative and flawed nature.

No. Your four-point “bottom line” is BS.

1. You are conflating two different federal matters.

Snedden conducted a federal security/background investigation involving Graham Spanier. But that is not the same thing as the separate federal investigation of The Second Mile whose closed files Ryan Bagwell later obtained through FOIA.

Those files comprised roughly 1,000 pages from a federal investigation of TSM, including numerous FBI interviews of Second Mile personnel and board members. After reviewing those records, Snedden described that investigation—not his Spanier background investigation—as a “big nothing burger,” adding: “There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed.”

You cannot turn a separate federal investigation of TSM into merely “a background check on Graham Spanier.” They were different investigations.

2. You're cherry-picking Curley's 1998 testimony.

Curley also authenticated his own contemporaneous emails:

“I have touched base with coach. Keep us posted.”

And later:

“Coach is anxious to hear where it stands.”

At Spanier's trial Curley testified that “Coach” meant Joe Paterno.

So the relevant question isn't whether Curley gave Paterno a comprehensive police briefing. Nobody needs to prove that. The documentary record establishes that Curley discussed the matter with Paterno at more than a cursory level and that Paterno wanted to know how it was progressing.

You can't make those contemporaneous emails disappear by saying Curley didn't give Paterno “the details.”

3. Correct—but irrelevant.

Of course Paterno's investments with Bob Poole didn't make Paterno a TSM director or give him a statutory right to inspect TSM's corporate records. I don't know anyone seriously arguing otherwise.

The relevance of those relationships is social and factual, not corporate-law governance: they demonstrate that these weren't isolated people occupying completely separate worlds. There were overlapping Penn State, Second Mile, philanthropic, social and business relationships.

Does corporate law prove that Poole didn't tell Paterno anything about Sandusky? No.

So citing Pennsylvania corporate law answers a question nobody asked.

4. This is where you turn a plausible interpretation into a nonexistent judicial finding.

Yes, the NCAA and Pennsylvania settled and restored the 111 wins.

But no court found that the Freeh Report was false.

No court found that Paterno was exonerated.

No court found that NCAA-Freeh collaboration corrupted Freeh's factual findings.

And no court ordered the NCAA to restore Paterno's victories because Freeh had been discredited.

The parties settled. The NCAA restored the victories as part of that negotiated settlement. Indeed, the settlement expressly preserved the NCAA's position that it had acted in good faith and possessed a legitimate interest in the Sandusky matter.

Jake Corman called it an NCAA “surrender.” That's Corman's characterization as the victorious plaintiff—not a judicial finding.

There's no reason to embellish it into a court determination that the Freeh Report was “collaborative and flawed.”

So your four “facts” actually reduce to this:

1. There was a separate federal investigation of TSM that produced no charges; don't confuse it with Snedden's Spanier investigation.
2. Curley didn't say he gave Paterno every detail in 1998, but his contemporaneous emails establish that he discussed the matter with Paterno and that Paterno was “anxious” for updates.
3. Paterno's business relationships gave him no corporate rights over TSM—something that neither proves nor disproves what information may have passed through those relationships.
4. Corman did not judicially invalidate Freeh or exonerate Paterno.

That's the actual record. It is considerably more complicated than your four-point declaration suggests.

 

[Truthtelling]

Do you think Seasock, with the benefit of hindsight, wish he had done more?

Not with all the work he got later from PSU. I guess the convictions of Sandusky and CSS was embarrassing.

 

[m.knox]

Not with all the work he got later from PSU. I guess the convictions of Sandusky and CSS was embarrassing.

So he had no regard for the children. Did anyone from CYS think they should have done more?

 

[SkiSkiSki]

@SkiSkiSki SKi

You're mixing some accurate facts with conclusions the evidence doesn't establish.

.........

One last point: the Latin obscenity at the end doesn't strengthen any of this. It just makes a supposedly evidence-based argument end with an moronic insult. Inscitia tua ab immaturitate tua ostenditur.

You've made some fair points regarding settlement mechanics, but your conclusions rely on a selective reading of trial transcripts and corporate law.

First, regarding Snedden and the FOIA files: the 1,000 pages of FBI records represent closed federal files, not a joint clearance. The lack of federal charges simply reflects a lack of federal jurisdiction; the FBI investigated interstate trafficking, not state-level child welfare or failure-to-report violations. The OAG did not prosecute the corporate entity of The Second Mile (TSM) because the charity dissolved itself in 2012, rendering corporate prosecution moot. An unprosecuted, dissolved charity is not an exonerated one.

Second, on Raykovitz's testimony: Curley disputed Raykovitz’s claim under oath, testifying he only told him they were "handling it." Even if Raykovitz’s memory is accurate, receiving a report of an adult showering with a boy required a licensed child-welfare professional to report it to authorities. His instruction to Sandusky to "wear shorts" proves he recognized the behavior was highly inappropriate and chose administrative containment over a legal report.

Third, regarding the 1998 emails: there is a massive logical leap between a head coach wanting to know the status of an investigation involving his top assistant and that coach knowing the specific sexual nature of the allegations. Curley testified under oath that he did not tell Paterno the details of the 1998 allegations—only that there was an "issue" being looked into by authorities. Wanting to know where an investigation stands is standard for a head coach, not proof of complicity.

Fourth, on the Corman litigation: while a settlement is not a final merits judgment, the unsealed discovery remains a matter of public record. The unsealed emails proved NCAA executives knew they lacked the authority to sanction Penn State, explicitly calling their threats a "bluff" and using the Freeh Report as administrative leverage. The NCAA surrendered and restored Paterno's wins because their internal coordination with Freeh’s team collapsed under judicial scrutiny.

Fifth, regarding private business deals: this is simply guilt by association. Investing in a local retirement community or water company with Bob Poole does not grant corporate governance or access to TSM’s confidential operational records, HR warnings, or employee files.

Sixth, on the settlement releases: the Paterno estate was never a party to these settlements and was actively suing Penn State at the time. Releasing TSM and its officers from liability protected wealthy, politically connected board members from being dragged into depositions where they would have to explain decades of oversight failure under oath. That is where the actual conflict of interest lies.

When we look at the sworn testimonies of the people actually in the room: Curley testified under oath he did not tell Paterno the details of 1998; Schultz and Curley testified they did not conduct an actual investigation in 2001; and the NCAA restored Paterno's wins because their own emails proved the sanctions process was a sham.

You started the Latin remarks after your GFY comment. It is your immaturity that started it, not mine.

I will not be going back and forth on this thread further. Your approach throughout this discussion has suffered from three fundamental errors: you substitute "social circles" for actual documented knowledge; you rely on semantic technicalities to bypass major legal surrenders; and you ignore direct, sworn trial testimonies that do not fit your narrative.

The record shows what it shows, and the readers of this thread can judge for themselves.

Adios.

 

[Truthtelling]

@SkiSkiSki

You're now making a more nuanced argument after being refuted, but several of your conclusions still aren't what “the record shows.” They are your opinions for what the record shows.

1. The federal investigation

Three JoeBot writers, Ciprano, Bagwell and Snedden have stated there was no wrongdoing found at TSM. You may believe what you wish however, The point was that you originally conflated Snedden's Spanier background investigation with the separate federal investigation of TSM.

Now you acknowledge the separate FBI/USAO investigation existed. Good.

But you've simply replaced one unsupported assertion with another: that it produced no charges because there was “a lack of federal jurisdiction” and that Pennsylvania didn't prosecute TSM because its dissolution made prosecution “moot.”

What is your source for either prosecutorial decision?

The approximately 1,000 pages Bagwell obtained came from a separate, closed federal investigation involving The Second Mile. Snedden (a JoeBot writer) reviewed those records and concluded: “There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed.”

That isn't a judicial exoneration of TSM. But neither is your explanation—that investigators found misconduct but lacked jurisdiction—a finding contained in those records. If you have a DOJ statement saying that, produce it.

Likewise, show me the OAG statement saying it would have prosecuted TSM but dissolution rendered prosecution moot. Otherwise you're assigning motives to prosecutors that they themselves did not state.

2. Raykovitz

This is where your legal argument becomes particularly shaky.

Raykovitz testified under oath that Curley told him the matter “had been investigated and nothing inappropriate was found.” He also testified that Curley did not tell him Sandusky and the boy were naked, did not tell him about skin-to-skin contact, did not tell him about rhythmic slapping sounds and described the boy as a teenager.

And your statement that merely hearing that an adult had showered with a boy automatically triggered Raykovitz's statutory reporting obligation needs considerably more legal analysis than you're giving it.

The 2001 Pennsylvania statute required reasonable suspicion that “a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity” was an abused child. Pennsylvania courts construed that language much more narrowly than the modern reporting law.

The obvious question therefore is: Did the unidentified child ever “come before” Raykovitz in his professional or official capacity?

According to Raykovitz, he didn't even know whether the child was a Second Mile participant.

Maybe there is a persuasive argument that Raykovitz nevertheless should have reported what he heard. Morally, I certainly think he should have asked far more questions. But saying the 2001 statute unquestionably required him to report an unidentified child whom he had never met is not established merely by calling him a mandated reporter. On the other hand Curley knew far more than what he told Raykovitz. He withheld it and went to jail for his trouble.

And telling Sandusky to wear shorts proves Raykovitz thought showering naked with boys was inappropriate. It doesn't prove he knew sexual abuse had occurred—particularly if his testimony that Curley told him an investigation found “nothing inappropriate” is true.

3. Paterno and 1998

The emails prove Paterno knew the details of the 1998 allegation. Otherwise he wouldn't have been "anxious" and wanting an update.

But you've moved the goalposts.

The original proposition was that Paterno essentially knew nothing about 1998. The contemporaneous record disproves that. Curley wrote:

“I have touched base with coach. Keep us posted.”

Then:

“Coach is anxious to hear where it stands.”

And Curley subsequently testified that “Coach” meant Paterno.

So the reasonable conclusion is limited but important: Paterno knew there was an investigation involving Sandusky and wanted to know its disposition.

That's considerably different from saying either “Paterno knew nothing about 1998”.

4. Corman and the NCAA

Again, you're converting chronology into causation.

Your sentence—

“The NCAA surrendered and restored Paterno's wins because their internal coordination with Freeh's team collapsed under judicial scrutiny.”

—is your inference, not something established by a judicial finding.

In fact, the settlement itself said Penn State acknowledged the NCAA's “legitimate and good faith interest and concern regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter.” The NCAA publicly said it settled in part because continued litigation would delay distribution of the $60 million.

There is a difference between saying:

“Damaging discovery preceded a settlement in which the NCAA abandoned major sanctions”

and:

“The discovery proved the process was a sham, therefore the NCAA was forced to surrender.”

The first is fact. The second is an interpretation of why a litigant settled.

Ironically, you're accusing me of relying on “semantic technicalities” while insisting that your preferred interpretation of a settlement be treated as though it were a court's merits judgment.

It wasn't.

5. Poole and the business relationships

Again you're rebutting something I haven't claimed.

I haven't said investing with Bob Poole gave Paterno “corporate governance” over TSM or access to personnel files.

It obviously didn't.

The relationships establish relationships. Nothing more.

They don't prove Poole told Paterno anything about Sandusky. They also don't prove that he didn't. It does show the incestuous relationships between TSM Board Members like Paterno.

So we can dispense with this one.

6. The releases

You're again confusing being a party to a settlement with being a released third party.

A person does not have to be a party to a settlement to receive the benefit of a release negotiated between other parties. The operative question is the language defining the released parties.

So saying “the Paterno estate wasn't a party” doesn't answer whether a particular claimant released claims against Paterno, former PSU employees, TSM personnel or anybody else included within the agreement's definition.

And then you make another unsupported leap:

TSM was released to protect wealthy board members from depositions about what they knew.

No, TSM was released because if the victims had sued TSM directly their (TSM's) insurance company would have sued PSU and the Paterno's because they had knowledge of and failed to stop Sandusky's predations. Further, as my link showed the FEDs DID interview board members of TSM and found nothing.

I can certainly understand your reluctance to carry on this debate as you've found I know my stuff and are beating you badly.

I accept your surrender. For the record, it was you that started the insulting with

"Get your facts straight before you bring your bull$h!t "truth" around here."

I just give as good as I get as you found out. Folks like me come on here to shine light in an otherwise JoeBot stronghold. You can never say you weren't given the truth.

 

[Truthtelling]

So he had no regard for the children. Did anyone from CYS think they should have done more?

Don't know what he thought of the children. I think he was unduly impressed with Sandusky's crafted reputation.

 

[m.knox]

Don't know what he thought of the children. I think he was unduly impressed with Sandusky's crafted reputation.

Sounds like he and CYS are moral failures.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

You're now making a more nuanced argument after being refuted, but several of your conclusions still aren't what “the record shows.” They are your opinions for what the record shows.

1. The federal investigation

Three JoeBot writers, Ciprano, Bagwell and Snedden have stated there was no wrongdoing found at TSM. You may believe what you wish however, The point was that you originally conflated Snedden's Spanier background investigation with the separate federal investigation of TSM.

Now you acknowledge the separate FBI/USAO investigation existed. Good.

But you've simply replaced one unsupported assertion with another: that it produced no charges because there was “a lack of federal jurisdiction” and that Pennsylvania didn't prosecute TSM because its dissolution made prosecution “moot.”

What is your source for either prosecutorial decision?

The approximately 1,000 pages Bagwell obtained came from a separate, closed federal investigation involving The Second Mile. Snedden (a JoeBot writer) reviewed those records and concluded: “There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed.”

That isn't a judicial exoneration of TSM. But neither is your explanation—that investigators found misconduct but lacked jurisdiction—a finding contained in those records. If you have a DOJ statement saying that, produce it.

Likewise, show me the OAG statement saying it would have prosecuted TSM but dissolution rendered prosecution moot. Otherwise you're assigning motives to prosecutors that they themselves did not state.

2. Raykovitz

This is where your legal argument becomes particularly shaky.

Raykovitz testified under oath that Curley told him the matter “had been investigated and nothing inappropriate was found.” He also testified that Curley did not tell him Sandusky and the boy were naked, did not tell him about skin-to-skin contact, did not tell him about rhythmic slapping sounds and described the boy as a teenager.

And your statement that merely hearing that an adult had showered with a boy automatically triggered Raykovitz's statutory reporting obligation needs considerably more legal analysis than you're giving it.

The 2001 Pennsylvania statute required reasonable suspicion that “a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity” was an abused child. Pennsylvania courts construed that language much more narrowly than the modern reporting law.

The obvious question therefore is: Did the unidentified child ever “come before” Raykovitz in his professional or official capacity?

According to Raykovitz, he didn't even know whether the child was a Second Mile participant.

Maybe there is a persuasive argument that Raykovitz nevertheless should have reported what he heard. Morally, I certainly think he should have asked far more questions. But saying the 2001 statute unquestionably required him to report an unidentified child whom he had never met is not established merely by calling him a mandated reporter. On the other hand Curley knew far more than what he told Raykovitz. He withheld it and went to jail for his trouble.

And telling Sandusky to wear shorts proves Raykovitz thought showering naked with boys was inappropriate. It doesn't prove he knew sexual abuse had occurred—particularly if his testimony that Curley told him an investigation found “nothing inappropriate” is true.

3. Paterno and 1998

The emails prove Paterno knew the details of the 1998 allegation. Otherwise he wouldn't have been "anxious" and wanting an update.

But you've moved the goalposts.

The original proposition was that Paterno essentially knew nothing about 1998. The contemporaneous record disproves that. Curley wrote:

“I have touched base with coach. Keep us posted.”

Then:

“Coach is anxious to hear where it stands.”

And Curley subsequently testified that “Coach” meant Paterno.

So the reasonable conclusion is limited but important: Paterno knew there was an investigation involving Sandusky and wanted to know its disposition.

That's considerably different from saying either “Paterno knew nothing about 1998”.

4. Corman and the NCAA

Again, you're converting chronology into causation.

Your sentence—


—is your inference, not something established by a judicial finding.

In fact, the settlement itself said Penn State acknowledged the NCAA's “legitimate and good faith interest and concern regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter.” The NCAA publicly said it settled in part because continued litigation would delay distribution of the $60 million.

There is a difference between saying:

“Damaging discovery preceded a settlement in which the NCAA abandoned major sanctions”

and:

“The discovery proved the process was a sham, therefore the NCAA was forced to surrender.”

The first is fact. The second is an interpretation of why a litigant settled.

Ironically, you're accusing me of relying on “semantic technicalities” while insisting that your preferred interpretation of a settlement be treated as though it were a court's merits judgment.

It wasn't.

5. Poole and the business relationships

Again you're rebutting something I haven't claimed.

I haven't said investing with Bob Poole gave Paterno “corporate governance” over TSM or access to personnel files.

It obviously didn't.

The relationships establish relationships. Nothing more.

They don't prove Poole told Paterno anything about Sandusky. They also don't prove that he didn't. It does show the incestuous relationships between TSM Board Members like Paterno.

So we can dispense with this one.

6. The releases

You're again confusing being a party to a settlement with being a released third party.

A person does not have to be a party to a settlement to receive the benefit of a release negotiated between other parties. The operative question is the language defining the released parties.

So saying “the Paterno estate wasn't a party” doesn't answer whether a particular claimant released claims against Paterno, former PSU employees, TSM personnel or anybody else included within the agreement's definition.

And then you make another unsupported leap:


No, TSM was released because if the victims had sued TSM directly their (TSM's) insurance company would have sued PSU and the Paterno's because they had knowledge of and failed to stop Sandusky's predations. Further, as my link showed the FEDs DID interview board members of TSM and found nothing.

I can certainly understand your reluctance to carry on this debate as you've found I know my stuff and are beating you badly.

I accept your surrender. For the record, it was you that started the insulting with

"Get your facts straight before you bring your bull$h!t "truth" around here." I just give as good as I get as you found out. Folks like me come on here to shine light in an otherwise JoeBot stronghold. You can never say you weren't given the truth.

🫟.....

 

[Truthtelling]

Sounds like he and CYS are moral failures.

CYS didn't know about 2001. Plus 1998 was prolly not enough to prosecute Sandusky then as I've discussed before, BUT it was more than enough to ban him and kids from campus AND put in safeguards to keep him out. Had they done that they wouldn't have been faced with 2001 which sent three of them to jail. However, Sandusky was a much beloved figure at PSU.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

CYS didn't know about 2001. Plus 1998 was prolly not enough to prosecute Sandusky then as I've discussed before, BUT it was more than enough to ban him and kids from campus AND put in safeguards to keep him out. Had they done that they wouldn't have been faced with 2001 which sent three of them to jail. However, Sandusky was a much beloved figure at PSU.

🫟 ......

 

[m.knox]

CYS didn't know about 2001. Plus 1998 was prolly not enough to prosecute Sandusky then as I've discussed before, BUT it was more than enough to ban him and kids from campus AND put in safeguards to keep him out. Had they done that they wouldn't have been faced with 2001 which sent three of them to jail. However, Sandusky was a much beloved figure at PSU.

Alicia Chambers had him pegged. You go to Las Vegas, win a bunch of money then lose it... "They had it (him) and lost it (him)." Had they followed her findings, a different outcome may have occurred in 2001.

Did Raykovitz ever say that with the benefit of hindsight, he should have done more?

 

[Truthtelling]

Alicia Chambers had him pegged. You go to Las Vegas, win a bunch of money then lose it... "They had it (him) and lost it (him)." Had they followed her findings, a different outcome may have occurred in 2001.

Did Raykovitz ever say that with the benefit of hindsight, he should have done more?

Right you are but Jerry was part of the "family" and had to be protected. Raykovitz was never told anything actionable. I believe this was a gambit by Curley. Go to Raykovitz so he could say he told someone outside PSU then tell him nothing so he wouldn't report it. Backfired and kids paid.

 

[m.knox]

Right you are but Jerry was part of the "family" and had to be protected. Raykovitz was never told anything actionable. I believe this was a gambit by Curley. Go to Raykovitz so he could say he told someone outside PSU then tell him nothing so he wouldn't report it. Backfired and kids paid.

So no one else offered the fact that with the benefit of hindsight, they would have done things differently.

Sure did backfire, and kids did pay. Hard to believe the local government was so inept. Say?

 

[Truthtelling]

So no one else offered the fact that with the benefit of hindsight, they would have done things differently.

Sure did backfire, and kids did pay. Hard to believe the local government was so inept. Say?

I think Schultz and Curley did. Didn't say it the same way. But they were the most to blame...after Sandusky. Spanier was complicit and Joe just unconscionably put it out of his mind. As for the local government. PSU was a big fish in a small pond. Cross it at your peril. Those were ingredients for disaster. I wonder if people will learn from it.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

@SkiSkiSki SKi

You're mixing some accurate facts with conclusions the evidence doesn't establish.

First, you've conflated two separate federal inquiries. John Snedden's 2012 investigation was indeed a federal background/security-clearance investigation of Graham Spanier. But that's not the investigation Snedden was describing when he called the Second Mile files a "big nothing burger." Years later, after Ryan Bagwell obtained roughly 1,000 pages from a separate, closed federal investigation involving The Second Mile, Snedden reviewed those records and said: "There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed." So saying the "nothing burger" comment referred merely to files Snedden reviewed for Spanier's background check is simply mixing up two different sets of records.

Nor does the jurisdiction argument prove what you claim. Certainly, no federal prosecution does not by itself prove that TSM did nothing wrong. But neither can you simply declare that federal investigators discovered wrongdoing and declined prosecution solely because they lacked a statutory hook. Where is the evidence that federal investigators actually reached that conclusion? That's an inference, not a finding. Further, the findings of the Fed were given to the OAG who did........nothing.

Second, you're misstating the Raykovitz testimony. Raykovitz testified at Spanier's trial that Curley told him the 2001 incident "had been investigated and nothing inappropriate was found." That's considerably more exculpatory than your characterization that Curley merely told Raykovitz he was "comfortable" with Penn State's handling of it. Curley disputed portions of Raykovitz's recollection, but that makes this a testimonial conflict—not proof that Raykovitz was knowingly sitting on a report of child molestation.

More importantly, Raykovitz testified that Curley described someone being uncomfortable seeing Sandusky showering with a young male. McQueary testified that he conveyed sexual abuse to Paterno, Curley and Schultz, while Curley and Schultz denied receiving it in those terms. That conflict was litigated. You can't silently substitute what McQueary says he reported for what Raykovitz says Curley actually told him.

Third, you're understating the 1998 evidence involving Paterno. Whatever Curley remembered nineteen years later about the details he gave Paterno, the contemporaneous emails are considerably harder to explain away. Curley wrote "I have touched base with Coach. Keep us posted" during the investigation and subsequently wrote that "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Curley identified "Coach" as Paterno at Spanier's trial. Those emails establish that Paterno knew enough about the matter to be kept apprised of its progress. The claim isn't that University Police owed Paterno confidential police files. The issue is what Curley told him and why Paterno was "anxious" to know the investigation's status.

Third, you're making a leap when you say the litigation judicially established that the Freeh Report was flawed or collusive. It didn't. The case never produced a merits judgment invalidating Freeh's factual findings. The parties settled before the scheduled trial. The NCAA agreed to restore the wins and keep the $60 million in Pennsylvania. A settlement does not transform the plaintiffs' allegations into judicial findings.

That's an important distinction: Corman badly damaged the credibility of the NCAA's sanctioning process. It did not constitute a judicial exoneration of Paterno or a judicial rejection of the Freeh Report.

Fourth, nobody needs to argue that Paterno's investments with Second Mile-connected businessmen gave him legal access to TSM personnel files. That's a straw man. The relevant question is whether the relationships demonstrate how closely interconnected the Penn State/Second Mile social and business circles were and whether that bears on the plausibility of claims about who knew what. You cannot make the relationships disappear by pointing out that a limited partnership doesn't create corporate inspection rights.

Finally, your categorical statement that a Penn State settlement could not possibly release claims against Paterno because his estate wasn't a contracting party misunderstands releases. A settling plaintiff can agree with Defendant A to relinquish claims against nonparty B. Indeed, contemporary reporting on the Penn State settlements says precisely that the claimants were required to release not only Penn State but The Second Mile and people connected with the released organizations. The unusual breadth of those releases itself became controversial.

Whether a particular release covered Paterno or his estate therefore depends on the actual definition of "Released Parties" in that settlement, not on the proposition that a settlement can never release a nonparty. It can.

And there's an irony in your argument about The Second Mile. You insist that absence of federal charges doesn't prove innocence, yet you then treat absence of charges against Raykovitz as something that can be completely explained by your preferred interpretation of the reporting statute. Neither inference follows automatically. We should look at what investigators actually found and what witnesses actually testified. Raykovitz was never given actionable information by Curley or he too, would have been charged with failure to report.

Curley's contemporaneous emails establish Paterno's awareness of the 1998 matter at more than a cursory level. Raykovitz testified that Curley told him the 2001 matter had been investigated and nothing inappropriate found. Corman produced no judicial finding invalidating Freeh. And the Second Mile federal investigation and Snedden's Spanier security-clearance investigation were two different things.

One last point: the Latin obscenity at the end doesn't strengthen any of this. It just makes a supposedly evidence-based argument end with an moronic insult. Inscitia tua ab immaturitate tua ostenditur.

PS. In your dreams

Pure BS.