“That’s terrible! Are we mandated reporters and did you know the kid?”
“Yes we are, and no, it was just some random 10 year old.”
“Oh… whew! No responsibility under the law which requires a direct connection to the kids. Moving on…”
“But it was on our campus and in our facilities and by an ex-staff member with a history of allegations of inappropriate behavior and who runs a major charity we support that is targeted at assisting exactly the kind of kid he was raping and…”
Yeah. I did see post #3999. You may note that was the exact post I was quoting. So obviously you aren’t being as clear as you may think you are.
So I’ll ask again. Page 44 of the Freeh report does not contain the information you claimed it did. When asked about this, your answer didn’t contain any information that would allow me to verify your claim. So please provide us with a full quote or some other information that will allow us to verify your claim that, “Sandusky was cleared by the investigator in 1998, who concluded there was no crime and that he was not a pedophile.”
When you claim that the report is different from the PDF, what version of the report are you reading? The report contains chapters, and multiple levels of sub-sections. Please provide that info. Obviously we aren’t going to just take your word for it that, Lauro said what you are claiming. So please either back your claim up or retract it.
F-P, I’m not sure what the point of your references to Seasock’s conclusions is, but here’s a quick recap of what happened and what information was available:
1998 Police Report
2 different kids on multiple occasions
Psychologist Chambers and Multiple Consulted Psychologists
“My consultants agree that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a ‘loving, special’ relationship.”
Counselor (not even a psychologist) Seasock
“no evidence” “not a pedo” etc.
2001 Incident
They review the 1998 police file, which contains Chamber’s info
(and other stuff, read 62 and 63)
Let’s recap again:
Questionable incidents with multiple kids in 1998
Professional psychologist says “pedo” “grooming” etc.
Rape charge in 2001 F-P concludes that is not enough evidence to raise even a suspicion
At this point I’m suspicious you don’t know what “suspicion” means.
Hell, at this point I’m not sure that F-P is even human.
On the off-chance you are human, I think shit stains on three-day old underwear have higher moral standards than you. You’re a sad, pathetic waste of space.
The report and the PDF are the same, but it’s sometimes the case that the PDF reader program has different page numbers than the one printed on the page, because the printed numbers don’t always start from the first page. I thought that might be the problem here, but I see that it’s not - they are the same page numbers.
I’m not sure what game you’re playing, but I suspect most likely you’ve seized on Lauro specifically, so that you can then ignore all the quotes from Seasock that I provided in post #3999. If so you might want to check page 47 of the report which says “Schreffler’s file notes state that Lauro agreed that no sexual assault occurred”. But in any event, I was referring to Seasock’s evaluation.
Can you humor me and expand on your point please? When there are multiple trained professional’s saying one thing, and a counselor saying something different - you seem to think that the counselor should trump the expert opinions - I’m not sure why you think that.
Fair enough. That word may not have been used at the time, but certainly the essence of the eyewitness account was severe enough to raise suspicions when coupled with the prior incidents and the psychologist’s report.
If there is a suspicion then a report is required - but you keep insisting that instead of following the rules, they would have been ok to perform their own investigation.
That is contradictory with thinking that there was suspicion - otherwise the conclusion is pretty clear - they should have reported.
I just saw this comment on espn.com at the bottom of an article about students protecting Paterno’s statue. I think it really puts it in perspective because you know they would call immediately.
Even if were true that Chambers should have outweighed Seasock (which is not at all clear, because Seasock probably had a lot more relevant experience) it’s ridiculous for you to say that you don’t see the point of references to Seasock’s conclusion.
But the bigger point is that Chambers and her colleagues are irrelevant here. We are not discussing Sandusky here. This is something that you and others need to get through your skulls. Use a sledgehammer if necessary. We’re discussing what other people knew of Sandusky’s activity. And to that end, anything that Chambers might have said was irrelevant, because there’s no indication that those people knew anything about it.
Lauro himself said he was not aware of Chambers’ report. To fault other people 3 years later for overlooking Chambers’ report is ridiculous.
The fact is that DPW was given the responsibility of investigating this. And DPW’s guy was - like it or not - Seasock. (Chambers was a private psychologist and not affiliated with DPW.)
The conclusions of DPW were based on Seasock’s conclusions that no sexual abuse had taken place and that Sandusky was not a pedophile. And with the conclusions of the DPW in place, it’s ridiculous to expect anyone else to start digging around to see if maybe some other psychologist out there had a contrary view.
Round and round we go.
I said that after reasonable suspicion exists it is still possible for the suspicion to be cleared up, and then fall below the threshold of reasonable suspicion. I’ve been repeatedly explicit that this did not happen in this incident.
As above.
You pretended that I said that reports of a rape would not trigger reasonable suspicion, when I was very clear that I was assuming that there were no reports of rape, and in addition never said there was no reasonable suspicion.
That’s dishonest. And it’s an acknowledgement that you have a hard time making your case without it.
From all accounts I’ve read, Seasock did not have the relevant training, whereas the psychologists did - but it’s true that Paterno and the admins probably didn’t know who had better credentials.
I wasn’t asking about why you brought up Seasock, I was asking what your overall point was given that there was more information than Seasock’s report but you seemed to focus only on that.
An unbiased analysis would admit that there was competing opinions.
This is where you are mistaken.
Chamber’s comments are in the police report, and the admins reviewed the police report.
Therefore, they were aware of Chamber’s comments.
Again, this is where your information is incomplete resulting in an erroneous conclusion.
It’s true Lauro didn’t have the report, but Chamber’s comments were in the police report,and again, the admins reviewed the police report (see page 62 and 63 of Freeh report).
I understand your logic here, but again, you are omitting the fact that Chamber’s comments were in the police report that the admins reviewed.
Yes you have stated that can happen.
Our point was that they should have reported the incident.
What is your point?
I didn’t pretend anything. You are making an assumption about my motives. I didn’t remember that you were operating on the assumption that there was no report of rape.
So, having said that, replace “rape” with a lesser charge of sexual misconduct (or whatever term matches what McQueary probably told Paterno) and you still get a reasonable suspicion and a requirement to report.
Aside from the lack of reporting, there is also the issue of not caring enough to try to find the child.
At this point I don’t know what your point is about the whole deal - you seem to be defending Paterno and the admins decision to not report it. Is this correct? You don’t feel that any of them did anything wrong by not reporting and not trying to protect the victim?
I’m curious about these “all accounts”. I looked around a bit and almost all acounts I’ve read in the media assume that Seasock was a psychologist (and this is also how he was referred to in internal PSU communications relating to the incident). I saw one online source which claimed that Seasock was only a counselor, and they said that in general counselors have less training than psychologists. (I’m assuming that’s accurate.) Which “all accounts” are you referring to that address Seasock’s training in particular?
Seasock’s opinion was more relevant, for reasons given.
You keep repeating this but it’s an assertion that has no basis, other than your conflation of two separate items. There is no indication anywhere that anyone “reviewed the police report”.
What there is is a note from Schultz (Exhibit 5C) documenting his discussion with Curley (“Talked w TMC”). The first bullet point under that was “reviewed 1998 history”. All that means is that he discussed the 1998 incident with Curley. Separately, there is an email (5D) from Tom Harmon (Police Director) to Schultz referring to the police report, saying “I checked and the incident is documented in our imaged archives”.
While it’s possible that someone looked at the police report, it’s likely that they would have focused on the police conclusion rather than reading through the entire file to see if someone along the way had a dissenting opinion.
[In addition to this, IMO Chambers’ statements look a lot more conclusatory years later when looking back at the incident based on what is known now than they did at the time. When a psychologist says, in the context of initially reporting an incident to the police, that “the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern …”, it’s probably not intended as and does not have the connotation of “in our opinion this guy is a pedophile” but rather “in our opinion there’s good reason to suspect that this guy is a pedophile, and this needs to be investigated”. There’s no doubt that Chambers contradicted Seasock (who said it didn’t fit the pattern), but that doesn’t mean that Chambers expressed any certainty on the matter. And since Seasock’s assessment was complemented by police interviews who failed to find anything further, it’s likely that Chambers’ assessment would have been interpreted at the time as a valid cause for suspicion that failed to pan out, even if someone was aware of her assessment. That’s what I think, but even if this were not the case, there’s no reason to assume that anyone was aware of her comments altogether, as above.]
Well at this time, my point is that you shouldn’t be claiming that I’ve said that the items you enumerate would not give rise to reasonable suspicion when I’ve said no such thing.
Hard to imagine, because that’s been my central premise throughout this thread, beginning from my first post, and we’ve had lengthy exchanges about it. At the least, it was reckless disregard for the truth.
That’s fine, but you said rape for a reason.
This constant weaseling back-and-forth about this issue is one of the notable aspects of this thread. The significance of whether it was or wasn’t rape keeps changing back and forth. Whenever you bring up the issue of “why are you so confident that McQueary said rape?” people say “well, let’s say it wasn’t rape, that’s still enough that they should have done more”. But these same people are the ones screaming rape RAPE RAPE !!! in every other post. And there’s a reason for that. All child sex abuse is bad, but there are degrees of bad, and there’s a huge difference between a guy rubbing up against a kid and actually raping the kid. Everyone understands that, and that’s why they keep harping about the rape angle - because it resonates. It’s only when you pin them down that they back off and start weaseling about other sex abuse being no fun either.
And so too you, RaftPeople. You were trying to make your point that my position was completely unreasonable, and to that end you exagerated and distorted in both directions. On the other hand you pretended that I had said that a report of rape was what I was discussing, so as to exagarate the extent to which I was ostensibly dismissing reasonable suspicion, and on the other hand, you exagerated the extent to which I had downplayed the suspicion.
As I said, if you felt you had a case, you wouldn’t have had to resort to this.
No, I think they did. I originally thought Paterno was on solid grounds, but that was based on the notion that he was not at all involved in the decision-making as he claimed. It’s clear from the Freeh report that this was not true. (I’ve posted this earlier.)
It’s a difference of degree. I think these guys can be faulted, but I don’t think they are nearly as evil as people are making them. Specifically, I don’t believe they knowingly covered up for a child molestor.
They clearly made a mistake because the wrong things influenced their decision. A correct reading of the situation would have been to focus on the potential victims and act from that position, whereas they appear to have been concerned much more with their friend and/or a scandal.
Well that happens to be what the conversation was about at the time, but I did say that they possibly didn’t have to report it if the kid convincingly confirmed that nothing happened - which didn’t happen. But in this I can see where you may have overlooked the inference.