tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post3401447195009699589..comments2024-01-30T04:57:48.673-05:00Comments on Second Mile Sandusky Scandal: Did "Missing" Documents from the Schultz File Show DPW's Failure in 1998? (Part 2)Barry Bozemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-39674152489804059692013-05-24T18:22:56.284-04:002013-05-24T18:22:56.284-04:00Ray,
You have support and hopefully will force som...Ray,<br />You have support and hopefully will force some changes. What you do is very much appreciated no matter what is discovered.BSymth409https://www.blogger.com/profile/06752488429258658470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-20422428124359699072013-05-24T16:37:05.951-04:002013-05-24T16:37:05.951-04:00Good response, Mark. I'll add that many belie...Good response, Mark. I'll add that many believe PSU should have not granted Sandusky emeritus status after the 1998 incident. That is, in a word, crazy. Sandusky probably would have sued PSU if they did that. PSU had no basis to do so, considering he was completely cleared in 1998. Also, one of the reasons he got to be emeritus was because PSU coaches are very underpaid compared to their coaching counterparts at other schools, thus PSU makes this up to them at retirement.<br /><br />As I've shown on the blog, there is evidence that DPW got a report of the 2001 incident. It's likely that Schultz contacted CYS to get the ball rolling. I will be writing a blog post on my interpretation of the Schultz file notes. <br /><br />Obviously, a must read :-)<br /><br />Thanks for your support!<br />RayRay Bleharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-42763844036669187362013-05-24T10:49:01.709-04:002013-05-24T10:49:01.709-04:00Well thought out response. Thank you.
[rhetorica...Well thought out response. Thank you.<br /><br />[rhetorical]The toughest thing about assessing participants actions is that given the uncertainty of what was said, known, and speculated in 1998/2001, where does the Schultz response fall on the continuum of options: inadequate, minimum, reasonable, comprehensive, or maximum? [/Rhetorical]<br /><br />What was proved inadequate in 2012 could have been reasonable or comprehensive in 1998. This research helps set that context and I'm trying to grasp the scope of it.psuinstlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08076110081315190089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-82510463746563722692013-05-24T10:26:29.979-04:002013-05-24T10:26:29.979-04:00Obviously I'm not Ray but I'd like to take...Obviously I'm not Ray but I'd like to take a shot at this. Hopefuly Ray will chime in.<br /><br />1. 1998 - Sandusky was still a full member of the football coaching staff at the time so barring him from campus or even from using PSU facilities would have been impractical to say the least. PSU could have barred him from bringing his "guests" into the facilities, which was largely unenforceable, however the U-Park PD (Det. Ronald Schreffler) and the PA-DPW (Jerry Lauro) did advise Sandusky to stop showering with children to which he agreed. In light of the PA-DPW's and Centre County DA's inaction I don't see what more could have been done in 1998.<br />2001 - by 2001 Sandusky had been granted Professor Emeritus status (Signed by Erickson, BTW) such that use of the facilities was one of his priveleges under that agreement. Schultz and the university would first have been required to remove Sandusky's emeritus status before barring him from use of the facitlites and would have been required to show just cause for that move, no small task, or else open the university up to legal action by Sandusky. It would seem that what McQueary told them, whatever it was, did not meet that requirement of just cause in Schultz's and Curley's mind. Again, PSU did demand that Sandusky stop bringing his "guests" into the facilities (again, largely unenforceable) and judging by the timeline of the crimes as laid out by Ray, this time he legitimately complied. So what is "going ballistic?" They did escalate the incident by reporting it to Sandusky's employers at the Second Mile. What more could they have done in going ballistic? Scream at the top of their lungs at Sandusky and Raykovitz? PSU/Schultz could have taken the additional step of reporting the incident to the PA-DPW and, to be frank, there is some evidence that someone (possibly Harmon) DID report the incident to DPW. They could also have opened a criminal investigation, and myabe they should have in perfect retrospect, but that's no small task in itself, could have entailed harrassament, and that tack had already ended in failure under similar circumstances in 1998. <br /><br />2. Hopefully the answer to that has been laid out in my asnwer to #1.mhentzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17177731477541716848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-54260783712433412013-05-24T09:43:22.007-04:002013-05-24T09:43:22.007-04:00Given the detailed information available to Schult...Given the detailed information available to Schultz and the questions asked regarding the DPW/TSM conflict of interest and shoddy investigation, it seems to me that the gateway for University liability passed directly through Schultz. <br /><br />PSU had the opportunity to ensure this was a DPW/Second Mile problem only by (proactively) barring Sandusky from campus in 1998 or (reactively) going ballistic in 2001.<br /><br />I realize these are speculative questions:<br />1. Could Schultz have taken steps to reduce/remove PSU liability in 1998 and 2001?<br />2. What rationale might Schultz have had for taking so little preventive action beyond a few meetings and phone calls?<br /><br />Keep up the outstanding work, Ray.<br />psuinstlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08076110081315190089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-47251413288754090702013-05-23T19:28:40.126-04:002013-05-23T19:28:40.126-04:001. Harmon is a witness for the state and isn't...1. Harmon is a witness for the state and isn't talking.<br /><br />2. At a minimum, TSM was providing counseling and other services for at risk youth, relieving the taxpayer burden, so the state might have had incentive to keep TSM in business. I won't speculate beyond that.Ray Bleharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-59730794105024709932013-05-23T17:06:47.310-04:002013-05-23T17:06:47.310-04:00OK. So PSU takes the fall for Sandusky being free...OK. So PSU takes the fall for Sandusky being free to abuse for so many years. And somehow the blame is focused against PSU football, with very little ire aimed at PSU police.<br /><br /> Two questions (likely addressed here previously... sorry):<br /><br />1. What has Harmon had to say this past ten months: for himself; and about this sole trashing of PSU?<br /><br />2. Exactly what would have been the potential conflicts of interest between DPW and TSM?rdkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11007253694089460950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-78059451230610918182013-05-23T12:30:36.370-04:002013-05-23T12:30:36.370-04:00*standing ovation w/loud applause and loud sound e...*standing ovation w/loud applause and loud sound effects*...WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13564093303697608512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-28593845358359001932013-05-23T11:07:34.857-04:002013-05-23T11:07:34.857-04:00No one has ferreted out and analyzed the facts as ...No one has ferreted out and analyzed the facts as you have Ray. Without your dedication and keen intellect, much of this information would have remained hidden. Thanks again for all you do. Carole Vailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13413452649107579860noreply@blogger.com