I think he's referring to the interview Schreffler and Miller conducted with the boy. I'm not sure. JJ has a better grasp on the 98 investigation than me. Perhaps he knows.
The 1998 Investigation
- Thread starter BigCat
- Start date
I think he's referring to the interview Schreffler and Miller conducted with the boy. I'm not sure. JJ has a better grasp on the 98 investigation than me. Perhaps he knows.
Rlaub44
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 585
- Reaction score
- 19
Following up, there were at least two places in Schreffler's police report where there is a summary of interviews he and John Miller from Centre County CYS had with the child, and both indicate that a detailed transcript of the interview is attached to the report. We haven't seen those transcripts, to my knowledge.
Could these transcripts be what Seasock references here?
J. J. in Phila
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,469
- Reaction score
- 3,886
Chambers wasn't a police/C&YS interview; she treating Victim 6. I think they would be those initial interviews by C&YS and the University Police.
Rlaub44
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 585
- Reaction score
- 19
Right, but we have seen Chambers' report, and she didn't indicate that there was another coach present. Also, why would Seasock have seen her report when Lauro hadn't?
I think it must have been Schreffler and Miller's interviews, which we have only seen summarized, though the transcripts were attached to the original police report.
Either that, or Seasock misrepresented the reports.
J. J. in Phila
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,469
- Reaction score
- 3,886
In 1998, there was another victim, B. K. Also, Victim 6 might have identified someone else. I would not be surprised if it was B. K.
Rlaub44
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 585
- Reaction score
- 19
JJ, do you mean you think Seasock was referring to BK having been in the showers as well, or that he read reports of interviews with BK?
It wouldn't make sense for Seasock to state that another coach was present if it was actually another child victim. It also wouldn't fit for him to use information from BK's interview to absolve Sandusky's behavior with Victim 6.
Sorry for persisting on this, but ever since Big Cat posted on this, I can't believe we haven't heard more about it. We potentially had another witness, and we have no idea if they were even interviewed.
I could understand why someone might want to keep the Chambers report from Lauro; however, I don't understand why anyone would want to keep the Seascock report from him (assuming, of course, Lauro is telling the truth). After all, the Seasock report would support a decision to drop the case. One possibility is that someone wanted to keep the information within the Seasock report from Lauro, which may have included a potential witness.
Though, if I'm not mistaken, I thought it was stated in the police report that Lauro reviewed Schreffler's and Miller's notes.
I'm really confused. I hope someone in an official capacity is attempting to untangle this mess.
http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-much-did-jen-harris-settlement-cost.html
I'm not sure on the accuracy of this, but it is an interesting look at 1998 PSU expenses.
"The fiscal year 98-99 was a biggie for uncategorized expenses; these expenses shot up to $5.19 million. This one is a mystery to me. I cannot find any lawsuit settlements for that year. There may have been a suit brought against Penn State outside of the Centre Region which was never reported on here. For example, one possibility is that the spike is associated with the disastrous merger , which Spanier once characterized as "truly a national model", between Penn State Hershey Health Center and the Geisinger Health System which was undone the following year. This is all speculation. If you have any idea what caused this spike leave it in the comments."
Another speculation might be payouts to hush up the Sandusky scandal.
I'm not sure on the accuracy of this, but it is an interesting look at 1998 PSU expenses.
"The fiscal year 98-99 was a biggie for uncategorized expenses; these expenses shot up to $5.19 million. This one is a mystery to me. I cannot find any lawsuit settlements for that year. There may have been a suit brought against Penn State outside of the Centre Region which was never reported on here. For example, one possibility is that the spike is associated with the disastrous merger , which Spanier once characterized as "truly a national model", between Penn State Hershey Health Center and the Geisinger Health System which was undone the following year. This is all speculation. If you have any idea what caused this spike leave it in the comments."
Another speculation might be payouts to hush up the Sandusky scandal.
J. J. in Phila
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,469
- Reaction score
- 3,886
Lauro was someone that they could have no influence over. He didn't work for Penn State, he wasn't elected by Centre County, he wasn't even an alumi. Keeping stuff from him would make sense. Maybe he'd check Seasock's credentials and see that he wasn't a psychologist.
Hi all! I've been pulled in so many directions that I haven't had a chance to catch up or post. Forgive me if the following has already been discussed, although I have yet to see any mention of it anywhere.
For reference purposes I am posting the following links...
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Chambers_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
A few things to note...
There is a "Received" stamp on Seasock's report that indicates it was received May 20 1998. On Chambers' report... no such stamp is visible, although there is a redaction over the "COPY" stamp. By comparing the length of the stamp on Seasock's report with this redaction on Chambers' report... I believe that the redaction is the "Received" stamp info.
Additionally... on Seasock's report there is fax info that states "May-21-1998 Thu 9:00 Children & Youth Service". There is NO fax info on Chambers' report.
Furthermore... the Chambers report is dated May 7, 1998 and was picked up by Schreffler May 8, 1998. Chambers contacted Childline on May 4, 1998 to initiate the process. Assuming she was following procedures...
Within 48 hours of reporting to ChildLine, a required reporter shall make a written report on forms provided by the Department to the county agency in the county where the suspected child abuse occurred.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/s3490.18.html
This would suggest that there were 2 REPORTS from Chambers... one as a follow-up to her Childline call on specific forms and one that Schreffler picked up.
It has bothered me for some time that Seasock interviewed Victim 6 on 5/8/98 (according to his report) and yet it took so long for the report to be "Received" and faxed (according to the info on his report). We're talking about kids who are in potential danger?!
And then I discovered this...
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/s3490.67.html
Was the delay in the Seasock report a way of counting down the clock so that the investigation could be closed?
I have MUCH more to say about Seasock regarding all of this and will post about it once I've put it together in a cohesive manner. Suffice it to say that had the following procedures (using the definitions provided) been followed as they should have been... charges would have been filed against Sandusky in 1998!
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/subchapatoc.html
*BTW J.J. in Phila... you had made mention of "neutrality" in a former post and I assume this was in reference to my comments regarding Raykovitz. I took no offense and you are correct that neutrality is needed. So that you have some understanding of my obvious emotion... it has nothing to do with Raykovitz or anyone else as a personal matter. I am entirely removed from all of this in the sense that I have no ties to PSU... nor connections with any of the people involved in any aspect of the Sandusky scandal. My frustration... and yes, disgust... is the result of my knowledge that there are members of the "mental health" field who are actively protecting pedophiles and even promoting pedophilia as acceptable sexual expression! Father Benedict Groeschel is the most recent example of this... and sadly, just the tip of the iceberg! Anyone who is delving into matters concerning pedophilia should familiarize themselves with the Rind et al controversy...
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/cont.html
Groeschel is being defended by people who are attributing his comments to his declining health and failing mind. NONSENSE... he just let the proverbial cat out of the bag! There are plenty of others in the field who share his sentiments... and their ranks have been growing for quite some time!
For reference purposes I am posting the following links...
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Chambers_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
A few things to note...
There is a "Received" stamp on Seasock's report that indicates it was received May 20 1998. On Chambers' report... no such stamp is visible, although there is a redaction over the "COPY" stamp. By comparing the length of the stamp on Seasock's report with this redaction on Chambers' report... I believe that the redaction is the "Received" stamp info.
Additionally... on Seasock's report there is fax info that states "May-21-1998 Thu 9:00 Children & Youth Service". There is NO fax info on Chambers' report.
Furthermore... the Chambers report is dated May 7, 1998 and was picked up by Schreffler May 8, 1998. Chambers contacted Childline on May 4, 1998 to initiate the process. Assuming she was following procedures...
Within 48 hours of reporting to ChildLine, a required reporter shall make a written report on forms provided by the Department to the county agency in the county where the suspected child abuse occurred.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/s3490.18.html
This would suggest that there were 2 REPORTS from Chambers... one as a follow-up to her Childline call on specific forms and one that Schreffler picked up.
It has bothered me for some time that Seasock interviewed Victim 6 on 5/8/98 (according to his report) and yet it took so long for the report to be "Received" and faxed (according to the info on his report). We're talking about kids who are in potential danger?!
And then I discovered this...
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/s3490.67.html
Was the delay in the Seasock report a way of counting down the clock so that the investigation could be closed?
I have MUCH more to say about Seasock regarding all of this and will post about it once I've put it together in a cohesive manner. Suffice it to say that had the following procedures (using the definitions provided) been followed as they should have been... charges would have been filed against Sandusky in 1998!
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/subchapatoc.html
*BTW J.J. in Phila... you had made mention of "neutrality" in a former post and I assume this was in reference to my comments regarding Raykovitz. I took no offense and you are correct that neutrality is needed. So that you have some understanding of my obvious emotion... it has nothing to do with Raykovitz or anyone else as a personal matter. I am entirely removed from all of this in the sense that I have no ties to PSU... nor connections with any of the people involved in any aspect of the Sandusky scandal. My frustration... and yes, disgust... is the result of my knowledge that there are members of the "mental health" field who are actively protecting pedophiles and even promoting pedophilia as acceptable sexual expression! Father Benedict Groeschel is the most recent example of this... and sadly, just the tip of the iceberg! Anyone who is delving into matters concerning pedophilia should familiarize themselves with the Rind et al controversy...
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/cont.html
Groeschel is being defended by people who are attributing his comments to his declining health and failing mind. NONSENSE... he just let the proverbial cat out of the bag! There are plenty of others in the field who share his sentiments... and their ranks have been growing for quite some time!
J. J. in Phila
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,469
- Reaction score
- 3,886
Chambers would just have file a form, not do full report. She must have thought it was quite serious to do an entire report.
As for Dr. Raykovitz, I'm just saying that we have limited data. I don't think he knew about 1998, and that might have prompted questions in 2001 if he did.
As for Dr. Raykovitz, I'm just saying that we have limited data. I don't think he knew about 1998, and that might have prompted questions in 2001 if he did.
She most definitely thought it was quite serious. She discussed this in an interview at the following link...
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.UEUEeY4vV77
From everything that I've seen... she was meticulous in keeping records and following procedure and was doing everything possible to alert authorities of the "gravity" of the situation. She even used this word in her cover letter.
In reading the article... one of the colleagues that she consulted with had ties to SM. Who was this colleague? Did this colleague contact anyone at SM? Could this colleague have been Raykovitz or have contacted him?
This 1998 incident occurred in the evening of May 3 and was reported to Chambers early in the morning on May 4. On that day... Chambers 1) advised the mother to contact authorities, 2) had an emergency session with victim 6 and his mother, and 3) contacted Childline. On May 4 the mother of victim 6 contacted Schreffler.
According to her report... the mother stated on May 4 that she had spoken with a policeman's wife and had names of police to contact. Whose wife did she speak with... and what police department?
On May 6, 10, and 11 (at least) Sandusky was attempting to reach victim 6 by phone. This began 2 days after the ball got rolling on the investigation... and already MANY people knew about it. On May 13 Sandusky appeared at the home of victim 6 and wanted to talk to him. This was 2 days after the mother of victim 6 contacted Seasock and Schreffler to express concern about Sandusky calling her son. Seasock attempted to dismiss her concerns by stating that "it was customary for Second Mile to call kids once a week to see how the kids were doing". The mother of victim 6 informed him that her daughter, also with SM, was not called weekly... and also reported this conversation with Seasock to Schreffler.
We've got a mother who is doing everything possible to protect her child and alert authorities... a therapist who is doing everything possible to protect a child and alert authorities... and investigators from BOTH PSU and the state of PA who have knowledge that a "potential" pedophile is repeatedly attempting to contact a "potential" victim... and they're not IMMEDIATELY intervening to ensure the safety of the child and make sure that the "potential" pedophile is not attempting to influence or threaten him?!
Apparently not if it's Sandusky.
I need to make a correction to my last post. While viewing the video at the link above I noticed the shot of Chambers' report. There is no redaction over the "COPY" stamp and you can see Chambers' phone and extension numbers. This means that there was NO "Received" stamp OR fax info on the Chambers report... while both are present on the Seasock report. We know that the Seasock report was faxed to CYS on May 21. What we don't know is who "Received" it on May 20 and who faxed it on May 21.
It makes no sense to me that University Police would attempt to hide the Chambers report since Schreffler made detailed notes about picking it up from Chambers and attaching it to his report. He also pressed Seasock pretty hard with regard to his conclusions... and made a point of documenting this.
Now... take a look at the following article and make sure to also read the comments... including those by Carpenter John...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/roy-gricar_b_1675075.html
Those are the only 2 comments that this poster has made on Huffington Post. Could this be John Seasock? This should be easy for anyone investigating to find out.
Whoever it is... they have a strong opinion about Harmon.
Correction: Sandusky also called to speak with victim 6 on May 12 and informed his mother that he had driven by a ball field that night to locate him. Sandusky was stalking that kid!
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46843083/ns/today-today_people/#.UEUEeY4vV77
From everything that I've seen... she was meticulous in keeping records and following procedure and was doing everything possible to alert authorities of the "gravity" of the situation. She even used this word in her cover letter.
In reading the article... one of the colleagues that she consulted with had ties to SM. Who was this colleague? Did this colleague contact anyone at SM? Could this colleague have been Raykovitz or have contacted him?
This 1998 incident occurred in the evening of May 3 and was reported to Chambers early in the morning on May 4. On that day... Chambers 1) advised the mother to contact authorities, 2) had an emergency session with victim 6 and his mother, and 3) contacted Childline. On May 4 the mother of victim 6 contacted Schreffler.
According to her report... the mother stated on May 4 that she had spoken with a policeman's wife and had names of police to contact. Whose wife did she speak with... and what police department?
On May 6, 10, and 11 (at least) Sandusky was attempting to reach victim 6 by phone. This began 2 days after the ball got rolling on the investigation... and already MANY people knew about it. On May 13 Sandusky appeared at the home of victim 6 and wanted to talk to him. This was 2 days after the mother of victim 6 contacted Seasock and Schreffler to express concern about Sandusky calling her son. Seasock attempted to dismiss her concerns by stating that "it was customary for Second Mile to call kids once a week to see how the kids were doing". The mother of victim 6 informed him that her daughter, also with SM, was not called weekly... and also reported this conversation with Seasock to Schreffler.
We've got a mother who is doing everything possible to protect her child and alert authorities... a therapist who is doing everything possible to protect a child and alert authorities... and investigators from BOTH PSU and the state of PA who have knowledge that a "potential" pedophile is repeatedly attempting to contact a "potential" victim... and they're not IMMEDIATELY intervening to ensure the safety of the child and make sure that the "potential" pedophile is not attempting to influence or threaten him?!
Apparently not if it's Sandusky.
I need to make a correction to my last post. While viewing the video at the link above I noticed the shot of Chambers' report. There is no redaction over the "COPY" stamp and you can see Chambers' phone and extension numbers. This means that there was NO "Received" stamp OR fax info on the Chambers report... while both are present on the Seasock report. We know that the Seasock report was faxed to CYS on May 21. What we don't know is who "Received" it on May 20 and who faxed it on May 21.
It makes no sense to me that University Police would attempt to hide the Chambers report since Schreffler made detailed notes about picking it up from Chambers and attaching it to his report. He also pressed Seasock pretty hard with regard to his conclusions... and made a point of documenting this.
Now... take a look at the following article and make sure to also read the comments... including those by Carpenter John...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/roy-gricar_b_1675075.html
Those are the only 2 comments that this poster has made on Huffington Post. Could this be John Seasock? This should be easy for anyone investigating to find out.
Whoever it is... they have a strong opinion about Harmon.
Correction: Sandusky also called to speak with victim 6 on May 12 and informed his mother that he had driven by a ball field that night to locate him. Sandusky was stalking that kid!
Some observations regarding the police report...
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf
I know others have already commented about the missing pages 23-24.
I also noticed that the first 8 pages of the faxed report are numbered at the bottom of each page. These follow a chronological order of events. Then things start to get weird... the next 4 pages are not numbered at the bottom... and it is on the second of these 4 pages that there is a real mix of chronology and things get very complicated. Schreffler was also very precise about including names (bold, caps) in his report as he knew them. On May 8 at 11:55 am he receives a call from Lauro who states that his supervisor has given the instruction to proceed with the appointment with "the psychologist". At this point there is no mention of Seasock... and there is considerable confusion between Lauro, Miller, Schreffler, and the mother of victim 6... and regarding whether or not the meeting will take place at all or be delayed. Ultimately the appointment was made for 2pm.
Victim 6 had his appointment with Seasock 1-1/2 hours after Chambers' report was picked up by Schreffler.
Schreffler only begins to refer to SEASOCK in his report after speaking with Miller on May 9 when he identifies "the psychologist" by name.
This suggests to me that the decision to use Seasock for the interview was made at the last minute and very likely after the Chambers report was received. It also begs several questions...
Who was Lauro's supervisor that gave the go-ahead for the appointment?
Who decided to use Seasock for the interview... and when was this decision made?
On May 8, Miller informed Schreffler that he was not involved in the investigation other than to arrange the appointment for victim 6. Certainly Lauro, Scheffler or Seasock himself could have contacted the mother of victim 6 regarding the appointment. Additionally, on May 9 Miller informed Schreffler that he had a discussion with Seasock. Furthermore, he does not give Scheffler Seasock's contact information. Instead he continues to be the go-between and contacts Seasock to have him call Schreffler.
It had already been established that there was a conflict of interest between CYS and SM, which is why Lauro was brought in. So why does Miller continue to be involved? And why is Miller acting as a gatekeeper regarding Seasock? He was clearly doing more than setting up an appointment for victim 6.
Back to the police report... following the unnumbered pages there are 2 numbered pages. This is where there is mention of Gricar and Ralston... and ends with INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE.
Then we have the final page that is also unnumbered and is marked CASE CLOSED. We now know that Harmon (neighbor and fellow parishioner of Sandusky) ordered Schreffler to close the case, omit labeling it as a "criminal entry", and not to report the matter to PSU Human Resources.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf
I know others have already commented about the missing pages 23-24.
I also noticed that the first 8 pages of the faxed report are numbered at the bottom of each page. These follow a chronological order of events. Then things start to get weird... the next 4 pages are not numbered at the bottom... and it is on the second of these 4 pages that there is a real mix of chronology and things get very complicated. Schreffler was also very precise about including names (bold, caps) in his report as he knew them. On May 8 at 11:55 am he receives a call from Lauro who states that his supervisor has given the instruction to proceed with the appointment with "the psychologist". At this point there is no mention of Seasock... and there is considerable confusion between Lauro, Miller, Schreffler, and the mother of victim 6... and regarding whether or not the meeting will take place at all or be delayed. Ultimately the appointment was made for 2pm.
Victim 6 had his appointment with Seasock 1-1/2 hours after Chambers' report was picked up by Schreffler.
Schreffler only begins to refer to SEASOCK in his report after speaking with Miller on May 9 when he identifies "the psychologist" by name.
This suggests to me that the decision to use Seasock for the interview was made at the last minute and very likely after the Chambers report was received. It also begs several questions...
Who was Lauro's supervisor that gave the go-ahead for the appointment?
Who decided to use Seasock for the interview... and when was this decision made?
On May 8, Miller informed Schreffler that he was not involved in the investigation other than to arrange the appointment for victim 6. Certainly Lauro, Scheffler or Seasock himself could have contacted the mother of victim 6 regarding the appointment. Additionally, on May 9 Miller informed Schreffler that he had a discussion with Seasock. Furthermore, he does not give Scheffler Seasock's contact information. Instead he continues to be the go-between and contacts Seasock to have him call Schreffler.
It had already been established that there was a conflict of interest between CYS and SM, which is why Lauro was brought in. So why does Miller continue to be involved? And why is Miller acting as a gatekeeper regarding Seasock? He was clearly doing more than setting up an appointment for victim 6.
Back to the police report... following the unnumbered pages there are 2 numbered pages. This is where there is mention of Gricar and Ralston... and ends with INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE.
Then we have the final page that is also unnumbered and is marked CASE CLOSED. We now know that Harmon (neighbor and fellow parishioner of Sandusky) ordered Schreffler to close the case, omit labeling it as a "criminal entry", and not to report the matter to PSU Human Resources.
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 104
Thanks, Julien, for your last 2 posts...from what you have put together it seems that, although it was said the case was turned over to Lauro at DPW because of the CPS county conflict with TMS/JS, the powers that be managed to have CPS involved after all in arranging the Seasock evaluation of the boy and having it accepted and the Chambers report ignored, and running interference around Lauro. I smell a cover up but it is not clear if it was coming from Harmon/campus police or higher in PSU or maybe both since Harmon was reporting to Schultz. They certainly were all glad to 'get it behind us'.....
J. J. in Phila
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,469
- Reaction score
- 3,886
That might have been just to set up the appointment. Making a referral and setting up an appointment isn't a conflict of interest.
It was apparently not required to turn this over to HR.
If the e-mails are correct, Harmon, was getting his reports from Schreffler.
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 104
The 1998 case concerned a PSU employee, offenses committed in a campus facility and was investigated by the campus police; charges were recommended and considered but for whatever reasons were not filed. This was required to be reported under the Clery Act and possibly Title IX....so that much at least was covered up.
J. J. in Phila
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,469
- Reaction score
- 3,886
Agreed, but the Clery Act violations seem to have been habitual. Phillips wasn't reported, even though he was arrested and tried (and acquitted).
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 104
That really makes it a worse offense! The school was breaking a basic federal law and from what I've read, they didn't even have a plan....I personally hold Spanier responsible for that lack of systemic procedures.
Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 104
Not Julien but will put my 2 cents worth in here anyway....
CPS should not have been involved AT ALL with all their contracts and associations with JS due to referring children to his agency and certifying him as a foster parent...yes, making a referral/appointment seems fairly innocent at first sight, until you find out they made the referral for one of their own contracted counselors who also worked for SM and was not really qualified as a psychologist to begin with. The only reason to do this was to get somebody to give a different opinion than Chambers had which supported charging JS with abuse. Even Scheffler realized Seasock's opinion was off the wall and that he did not have all the information he needed. When confronted with the info, he gave defensive excuses for JS instead of looking at the info objectively.
I don't know why a criminal investigation of an employee would not be required to be turned over to HR, it certainly has been in the state agencies where I have worked. In fact, the agency IG [Inspector General] would also be doing their own investigation on the employee. I knew a guy who was fired due to an IG investigation altho no criminal charges were made. This certainly should have been put on JS's personnel record.
Well, Scheffler may have been giving the reports/emails to Harmon but Harmon was the boss and he told Scheffler what to do, I think in conjunction with Schultz, cover up the file and go on their merry way, leaving JS to do as he liked with little kids for another 10+ years.