Come to think of it, there was another Curley e-mail (to Schultz or Spanier, I think) that had the phrase... "after talking it over with Joe..." and then there is something about deciding not to report Sandusky to the police. Did an elaboration/explanation for that comment come out in Curley's testimony at trial? Paterno's detractors used that as evidence of a Paterno involvement in a cover-up.
This needs to be put to bed once and for all! I know this is long, but please make the effort to comprehend what they say in their own words?
Tim wrote:
"...I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received...."
Breaking it down, had Tim said, I am having trouble with going to
anyone, but the person involved, the narrative put forth by Lyin Louis would hold water. It would mean that Tim was only comfortable going to Sandusky and no one else.
However, what he says means the exact opposite. "I am having trouble going to
everyone, but..." means he doesn't feel right about going to TSM and/or DPW without also adding Sandusky among those to be informed. There was nothing exclusive about what he said. He was simply including Jerry in the loop.
To which Spanier replied:
"This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive....The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
Spanier clearly understood Tim to mean what I'm suggesting. First, he's acknowledging that Tim's proposal would involve an additional step. For the Freeh narrative to make sense, there would have been one less step...not one more. Furthermore, Spanier is acknowledging that what Tim proposed would be an awkward conversation. He then asserts that speaking with Jerry first was both humane and reasonable.
Schultz then adds further confirmation: "Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this...." Bringing Jerry up to speed, rather than going behind his back, is clearly what he's referring to as "upfront".
The misinterpretation of Tim's email (reading "everyone" to mean 'anyone') is the basis for Freeh's conclusions about JVP. Correctly interpreting what Tim wrote, IMO, destroys that narrative!
The decision to involve DPW was always on the table and it was always conditional upon Jerry's behavior going forward.....IF/THEN.
Schultz wrote the following the day he and Tim met with Joe and spoke with Courtney: "-
unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare."
Curley wrote: "...Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation.
If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization.
If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups..."
Spanier wrote: "....The only downside for us is
if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we
then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road...."
Each reference made to involving DPW was dependent upon what Jerry would do, not what he had done.
If you still have doubts as to whether or not they thought Jerry had abused a boy, please read Schultz's note again, but instead of "having a problem", substitute 'sexually abusing a child' For that to be what he meant, he would have been proposing that if Jerry admitted to being a sexual predator, it would not be necessary to involve DPW. However, if Jerry denied abusing a child, they would have to involve the authorities. Clearly, that's asinine!
Now read Schultz's note again and insert "boundary issues" for "a problem". If he admitted his behavior was inappropriate and could be problematic for them, they could work with him. However, if he denied having a problem, they would have no choice but to wash their hands of him to protect the university.
They knew about '98. They knew Jerry had boundary issues. They knew Jerry was a loose cannon and that showering alone with TSM was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Jerry didn't have to be guilty. One angry mom would be all it would take to make them vulnerable in a civil suit.
Finally, please review what Spanier wrote. You can't become what you already are. He's saying that if Jerry doesn't go along with their decision prohibiting him from bringing kids to the facilities, another incident could make their decision look bad. By definition, it means as long as Jerry did go along with the plan, they would not be vulnerable. If they thought a boy had been abused, they would already be vulnerable should the boy/his family report to authorities. Whether Jerry got with the program from that point going forward wouldn't matter one bit. Their vulnerability would be open ended as the party with the deepest pockets.
Thus, Spanier did not think they were vulnerable for not reporting the incident at hand...he did not think any abuse had occurred. However, the potential of a civil suit stemming from a future he said/he said scenario (like '98) would leave them vulnerable. In other words, for them to
become vulnerable, another incident would have to occur.
Schultz spoke to this exact scenario in his notes:
1) Tell J.S. to
avoid bringing children
alone into Lasch Bldg.d
It should be obvious that he would have never used "avoid" if he thought Jerry was abusing kids in their showers. That's just not reasonable. He would have been far more demonstrative. However, the most important word there is "alone". In a he said/he said scenario, the mere accusation of sexual impropriety with a child would almost certainly result in a settlement. The prevention of this possibility was their entire focus.
