Penn State Sandusky Trial #12 (GUILTY-post verdict discussion)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If one wanted to keep the situation entirely confidential, they might not want Jerry to seek treatment from a therapist outside their "inner circle". If there was a convenient psychiatrist with an interest in keeping things quiet, however, who could also promise to keep Jerry away from young TSM boys, and also had his own position and salary to protect.......well, it just makes me wonder...
Your right! It would take a very immoral psychologist to keep this secret and endanger other little boys, but I will bet my retirement that Sandusky never sought "help". In the fixated pedo's mind, nothing is wrong with "loving" little boys and "showing them affection".

Don't believe the pro-pedophile supporters' statistics that attempt to prove that pedophiles are very unlikely to rape/molest children after release from prison. Their desire to participate in deviant sexual behavior is a life-long problem.

The pro-pedophile (low recidivism) studies are skewed...
-because several studies failed to eliminate incest sickos who were no longer able to rape children because their children became adults while they were in prison.
-because the researchers only calculated the pedophiles' crimes that caused additional incarceration (How many crimes occurred but weren't caught?)
-because they only calculated recidivism within a very short length of time (failed to use long-term studies)
-because some of these studies relied on the pedophiles to honestly answer the researchers' questionnaires (How many do you really think honestly answered when they were asked if they were still raping/molesting children?)
 
Your right! It would take a very immoral psychologist to keep this secret and endanger other little boys, but I will bet my retirement that Sandusky never sought "help". In the fixated pedo's mind, nothing is wrong with "loving" little boys and "showing them affection".


I think licensed psychologist are mandatory reporters, at least as far as the victim is concerned. Dr. Chambers was, and did report it.
 
Jonathan Dranov
As of 2005, Dranov was the Assistant Chief of Medical Staff of Mount Nittany Medical Center.
Dranov is currently a Director of the Foundation that seeks its charitable funding. It is the only hospital where Dranov has admitting privileges..
Joe and Sue Paterno donated $1 MM to the Hospital for its new wing in 2009. The Mount Nittany fundraising foundation, headed by Dr. Jon Dranov and the Paternos, raised $9.7 million total.
John McQueary worked there, retiring sometime after 2007. He was Chief Operating Officer/Administrative Director of the Centre Medical and Surgical Associates, which was associated with the Mt. Nittany Center and has now been absorbed into it.

Let great men guide you, grasshopper.
 
Jonathan Dranov
As of 2005, Dranov was the Assistant Chief of Medical Staff of Mount Nittany Medical Center.
Dranov is currently a Director of the Foundation that seeks its charitable funding. It is the only hospital where Dranov has admitting privileges..
Joe and Sue Paterno donated $1 MM to the Hospital for its new wing in 2009. The Mount Nittany fundraising foundation, headed by Dr. Jon Dranov and the Paternos, raised $9.7 million total.
John McQueary worked there, retiring sometime after 2007. He was Chief Operating Officer/Administrative Director of the Centre Medical and Surgical Associates, which was associated with the Mt. Nittany Center and has now been absorbed into it.

Let great men guide you, grasshopper.

Dr. Dranov's specialty is internal medicine. http://foundation.mountnittany.org/about/board-of-directors

He would not be treating Sandusky for anything related to pedophilia or be qualified to even diagnose a psychological problem. He might have had some experience with it in residency, but not that much.
 
JJ, I was looking at the connection between Dranov and Paterno, not with Sandusky. I don't know how well the media quoted what Dranov told the Grand Jury but what came out initially made McQueary sound really bad. Then, at the trial, Dranov seemed to have shifted emphasis from "He told me three times he didn't see penetration/sex/whatever" to "He was shocked and shaking."
I think Dranov's first story was very cya for himself and Paterno et al, leaving lots of room for doubt. When it became clear that a lot of people wanted Sandusky convicted, Dranov subtly switched gears, but still didn't want to show that he as a doctor should have done more to get the crime reported. I would add Dranov to the stooges and think it was very unfortunate that the McQuearys sought his advice..
I see why you thought I was pursuing psychologists, though.
 
JJ, I was looking at the connection between Dranov and Paterno, not with Sandusky. I don't know how well the media quoted what Dranov told the Grand Jury but what came out initially made McQueary sound really bad. Then, at the trial, Dranov seemed to have shifted emphasis from "He told me three times he didn't see penetration/sex/whatever" to "He was shocked and shaking."
I think Dranov's first story was very cya for himself and Paterno et al, leaving lots of room for doubt. When it became clear that a lot of people wanted Sandusky convicted, Dranov subtly switched gears, but still didn't want to show that he as a doctor should have done more to get the crime reported. I would add Dranov to the stooges and think it was very unfortunate that the McQuearys sought his advice..
I see why you thought I was pursuing psychologists, though.

We don't have Dranov's grand jury testimony, so I'm not sure about that. McQueary, at the preliminary indicated that he was "distraught," and the good doctor confirmed that.

Dr. Dranov was not called at the preliminary hearing for Schultz and Curley.
 
Paterno Email Shows Coach's Influence on Disciplinary Matters

The documents, which The Chronicle acquired from a source close to the Jerry Sandusky investigation, contradict comments made in recent days by Mr. Paterno's representatives suggesting that the coach never used e-mail or played a role in influencing university investigations.

BBM

http://chronicle.com/article/Paterno-E-Mail-Shows-Coachs/132773/
 
wow.....louis freeh is gonna make some penn staters wonder why he was selected.. picking freeh was a turnaround, whether they knew it or not.
 
If one wanted to keep the situation entirely confidential, they might not want Jerry to seek treatment from a therapist outside their "inner circle". If there was a convenient psychiatrist with an interest in keeping things quiet, however, who could also promise to keep Jerry away from young TSM boys, and also had his own position and salary to protect.......well, it just makes me wonder...

Hardymum, your post brings up so many "could have beens." I agree that it would have been ideal to have help for Jerry. But can you imagine the difficulty of keeping him away from young boys. With TSM, he had a compound of fresh candidates at his picking. Besides, treatment wouldn't help if Jerry refused to believe he had a problem to begin with.

I think it would have been very difficult to find the perfect therapist to match up to the goal of keeping Jerry in check and hiding his crimes. Of course that's just the way I see it.

Associates of Jerry at the University, who knew what he was up to, didn't sign up to take turns keeping a close eye on Jerry and stear him away from youngsters. No, it's painful to face, but these guys wanted this kept quiet. I don't believe they were that stupid to think he would stop on his own. But there was a strong compelling urge to hide Jerry's actions and in turn hide what they knew at the time. I suppose their own job and status depended on it. Why or why didn't one, just one of them, step outside the pack and do the right thing? My heart goes out to the victims who could have been protected if just one person acted with courage and followed the moral and legal path.

The outcome in the coming months should be quiet interesting and we may find that perhaps they did try your idea. Jerry may be in jail, but there is way more to come within this case that will further shock and sadden us, I'm sure.

just my O
 
wow.....louis freeh is gonna make some penn staters wonder why he was selected.. picking freeh was a turnaround, whether they knew it or not.

I really hope so. The truth needs to come out, no matter how bad it is. PSU can not move on without it and any sense of a coverup in the Freeh report will just make people think there's still some sort of conspiracy.

I am curious if the NCAA(or the Big Ten) will get involved now. I still don't think they will but more people are starting to think there's something there now they can work with.
 
I'm no expert on NCAA rules, but if JP was pulling the strings so that football players weren't disciplined like other students, I would think that would be a sanction-worthy infraction.
 
I'm no expert on NCAA rules, but if JP was pulling the strings so that football players weren't disciplined like other students, I would think that would be a sanction-worthy infraction.

I think there is something about institutional control and I expect the death penalty.
 
Penn State's internal inquiry nears end, findings expected soon

.........Five people in leadership roles at the university told The Associated Press this week that they had either been told or received indications that findings could be released within weeks, if not sooner, and no later than the end of the month. Trustees could offer an update at the next board meeting July 13 in Scranton.

Recently revealed emails among top school officials about a 2001 molestation allegation also apparently led to another round of interviews............

Two people at the university familiar with the investigations told The Associated Press that athletic department staffers were among those interviewed by Department of Education officials since revelations about the email exchanges. The two people, who were also interviewed by Freeh's team, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the investigations...........

The NCAA has said it expects the school to provide a more detailed response to its inquiry once Freeh's investigation was complete. The NCAA is examining Penn State's "institutional control" over the events that occurred, along with whether school officials followed policies on honesty and ethical conduct.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...sky-abuse-inquiry.ap/index.html#ixzz1ztFpTi00
 
I think there is something about institutional control and I expect the death penalty.

Yes, but I always thought "institutional control" meant control--or lack thereof--of the players. I'm not sure the NCAA could cite LOIC due to the Sandusky debacle.

I don't know, though.
 
Before Gricar disappeared in 2005, AG Corbett had worked with him on a huge narcotics case. Corbett knew Gricar personally and knew him at least from 1998 (see below link). After Gricar disappeared, AG Corbett would have been very interested to know info surrounding Gricar's disappearance. AG Corbett would have been informed from detectives about various things r/t missing DA Gricar's life and one of those would have been that Gricar had reviewed an allegation that "famous" Sandusky was a pedophile. Another thing that Corbett would have learned from detectives in 2005 was that Gricar didn’t prosecute Sandusky. Corbett may/may not have read the 1998 report, but he heard about Sandusky from detectives investigation Gricar's disappearance. (mo link, just common sense)

Gricar and Corbett had issues in 1998 which would have also led Corbett to have an interest in Gricar disappearance (leading to knowledge in 2005 of Sandusky's pedophilia).
http://www.wjactv.com/videos/news/sandusky-scandal-sheds-new-light-on-link-between/vFXfR/

$640,000 may be small change in relation to Corbett's total campaign donations, but angering the Sheetz family, numerous pro athlete millionaires, and other extremely wealthy PA individuals that served on the TSM's BOC would be a politically fatal mistake. Do you remember the allegations about the TSM board members which occurred on this forum for weeks? (none from me) The generous benefactors of TSM somehow escaped being implicated as Sandusky enablers by the general public.

Corbett, a politically savvy man, knew that prosecuting Jerry could bring investigations upon TSM, its administration, and its wealthy BOC members. (This occurred with the Milton Hershey School pedophile investigations occurring around the same time.) With an investigation, the top admins, and its generous BOC could have their reputations smeared even if illegal behavior was not identified. Angry philanthropists are dangerous political enemies and a savvy man with higher political aspirations would want to avoid this. Yes, Bonusgate was his main platform, but I think there were personal aspiration reasons why Corbett didn't move on Sandusky.

It is my wish that they KEEP digging, because the answer to Mr. Gricar's disappearance. jmo
 
Earlier in the week I speculated that the Paternos and their acolytes leaked the emails snippets as a form of damage control, and then they turned around and condemned the leaks in an effort to seize the narrative and make JoePa the victim.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. For what it's worth, the below story is consistent with that theory.

JMO

Report to shed light on PSU scandal

This week, the Paterno family defended the coach's reputation and questioned the motives of the people leaking the material, which they say is out of context and designed to put the coach in the worst light. In a statement released Monday, Wick Sollers, a Paterno family attorney said: "With the leaking of selective emails over the last few days, it is clear that someone in a position of authority is not interested in a fair or thorough investigation." The Paterno family has called on the attorney general and Freeh to release all emails and records to allow the public to see all the evidence.

A source who has reviewed all the early 2001 emails said the few that have been leaked "are definitely out of context. We think the one that was released was the worst one for everybody."

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8136890/penn-state-abuse-report-expected-very-tough-joe-paterno-according-sources
 
It also notes: "...in the course of their employment... ." This wasn't in the course of employment. Dr. Danov was not in contact with children in this case.
That’s debatable. There are unclear areas in PA’s code and in the mandated reporter training classes. If you are a mandated reporter and you attended a mandated reporter training class, you left with knowledge that you would be held legally responsible for not reporting child abuse regardless of whether that knowledge came to you while you where practicing your profession or not.


The CPSL does not require the child come directly before the mandated reporter in order for there to be an obligation to report.
http://www.pcar.org/sites/default/files/Mandated Reporter Training Curriculum.pdf

A mandated reporter need not make a first-hand observation of the suspected child abuse victim. Second-hand reports of abuse must be reported to the proper authorities if the mandated reporter has “reasonable cause to suspect” that child abuse has occurred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
2,241
Total visitors
2,411

Forum statistics

Threads
589,978
Messages
17,928,611
Members
228,028
Latest member
Kac1991
Back
Top