Well it's never happened to me, or anyone else I know who posts here. I guess you just didn't graduate with the right kind of degree.
Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.
- Thread starter OXLion
- Start date
Given that we don't know anything at this time beyond what was memorialized in those emails, it's possible that Curley didn't know the nature of the investigation, correct. That said, given the context of the emails I find it highly unlikely that Curley wasn't at the very least made aware of the reason why his defensive coordinator was undergoing a criminal investigation. While we don't know in what fashion he was made aware, he knew the day after the report was filed by the boy's mother that there was some kind of accusation of abuse against Jerry involving two boys that police were investigating. I don't think it's a leap to suggest that Curley, as an intelligent man, knew that there are a limited amount of potential crimes that fit in that category. We also know that under oath in 2011 he testifed that the 1998 incident was never brought to his attention.
But anything beyond that is speculation.
I think we can all agree that of all the admins Schutlz knew the most detail about '98. And what Schultz knew about '98 was provided to him by Harmon. Harmon told Schultz that LE determined nothing criminal happened. So what exactly is the big deal about PSU folks "knowing" about 1998? What they knew, if anything, was that it was investigated and closed as "nothing to see here" by the experts.
I can't believe MM didnt make some sort of written or recorced official statement on the record to someone in 2001. I would have insisted on it to protect my own a$$. That's why it's hard to believe the 2010 version of his story.
I agree with you that Schultz appears to have been the main conduit between the police department and Old Main. That said, the only information we have is what's memorialized in emails, so it's impossible to say with certainty beyond that.
And largely I agree with you that it doesn't appear to be a huge issue whether or not they were aware of 1998. But if everything occurred above board in 1998, why would you say under oath in 2011 that you were never informed of the 1998 incident? Why the change to use strange, vague language throughout the 2001 emails ("his organization", "the subject we discussed", "the individual", "his guests", "the first situation", etc.) when in 1998 they referred to all of those things specifically by name - except when referring to who is presumably Joe? And what do we make of the October 1998 meeting at the football building with the Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, Gricar, and Fran Ganter?
That is where you would be wrong.
According the STD, Gricar held a tête-à-tête with Schultz and Curley, DPW, CYS and all the other actors from 1998 and told them he would not press charges so long as the PSU boys kept Sandusky under control. You see, Ray knew the importance of football to the local community and if anything untoward were to have been leaked about Sandusky, Penn State Success With Honor would have been known to be a complete lie. So, we can see that C&S knew exactly what had happened, and were immediately part of the conspiracy and cover-up from day one.
< end of sarcasm >
I have never argued that that Paterno's testimony was altered or even read incorrectly (although the wording of what was read sounds very odd). I will tell you from being on juries that having testimony read to you that is not subject to cross examination is very low on the list of convincing evidence.
It wouldn't be inexplicable at all. The OAG knows what they are going to say because they've said it at least twice, including once during a federal investigation. They can't contradict the federal investigation. Therefore, if they testify, it will be for Spanier not the OAG.
Um, because they were asked about something that occurred 12+ years in the past (in which they were told was no big deal at the time). That's why things such as SOL exist. But the state couldn't be bothered with trivial things such as the constitution and SOL, etc. apparently.
Re: their use of "code" language, others have discussed this before and it's pretty S.O.P. for higher ups/HR to do that re: any person/incident.
IMO their testimony in 2011 would have been different if they knew the scope of what they were there to testify about beforehand. Thanks Cynthia. Getting hit with questions about an incident 10 years ago cold are hard to answer.
You realize that it is Spanier that is asking PSU for the missing emails not the other way around. Which means that Spanier either knows there is exculpatory information in there, or at very least knows that their isn't evidence against him.
Guess again though. Or maybe go spend some energy railing against Michigan State.
I wonder when and what charges would have been dropped if the OAG wasn't spending the citizen's money on their prosecution?
I believe all attys for all defendants and for prosecution have all the discovery information and are very well aware of what evidence is there, or not there.
I understand the argument that Curley might have legitimately forgotten in 2011 that he was informed and requested multiple updates about Jerry being investigated by university police for an allegation of some kind of potentially criminal conduct between him and two boys on university property in 1998. I don't think I agree, but I can understand the argument.
As for the 2001 emails, if it was SOP to use that kind of language, why didn't they follow that SOP in 1998 when they referred specifically to Jerry, DPW, university police, the boys, etc.? Or that same year when discussing Jerry's retirement over email? What changed between 1998 when they were comfortable discussing it openly (with the exception of the 1998 emails that discuss Paterno, where the language shifts to "the individual" instead of Jerry) and 2001 where nobody - even Harmon referring to "the former coach" - referred to anything or anybody in specific terms?
I'm not saying I know the answers to these questions - especially about that mysterious October 1998 between all the principals involved in the 1998 investigation and Ganter in the football building - but I don't think any of the answers put forth are terribly compelling, either.
I don't think he will, but if he does plead to misdemeanor EWOC, so what? That's another win for the defense and a loss for the OAG. Same as for the others.
The only reason I hope that doesn't happen is that I really want to hear some of these impending testimonies to shed some more light on all this.
Spanier's email: 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 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. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.
If the "only downside" had to be triggered by a future event, how concerned do you think Spanier was that V2 had actually been abused? Wouldn't the possibility of him going to the authorities be a pretty large "downside" and of a more immediate concern?
Can you please show me a source that states the legal requirement when witnessing a child being sexually abused is to slam your locker door and go home and tell your daddy?
This. It sounds as if Spanier thought Sandusky had some boundary issues that bordered on being inappropriate, but that e-mail does not even remotely hint at Spanier believing that Sandusky was molesting children. The only tangible evidence we still have suggests that no one (C/S/S) thought a sexual assault occurred; the e-mails just don't read that way. And the only one now saying he made sure everyone knew an assault had occurred, or he BELIEVED an assault had occurred, is McQueary. And from gambling to sexting coeds to playing in Sandusky's golf tournament after he witnessed whatever he now says he witnessed, Mike's got credibility issues.
Big brothers big Sisters is the largest.
There are also 1 on 1 friend fitness programs all over PA & the USA. http://youthmp.org/programs
I point this out because all the people screaming about TSM (which is defunct) completely ignore these other programs run in much the same way.
I can show you that iot must be re[ported, either to Childline, the police, or the supervisor withing 48 hours. It was.
The supervisor reported to his supervisor.
Are you a premium member?
We don't know if TC knew that JS was being investigated for potential child abuse, etc. He may have just been told by Schultz that JS was being looked into for something but it ended up being nothing.
Re: the change of language in the emails if there is one, I have no idea why, maybe b/c there were admins/various other people copied on the 01 emails but not the 98 ones and/or they knew it was a sensitive matter and decided to treat it differently? Who knows, the language they used proves literally nothing. It's SOP for HR/high level admins to do this type of thing so I have no idea why you are making such a big deal out of it. If they wanted to be all secretive and discrete, guess what, they wouldn't freaking copy admin assistants! This isn't rocket science.
If that's all the OAG is basing their case on, cherry picked emails where the worst possible interpretation is assigned and context ignored, then they better hope that jury is as biased as many of us think.
Notice how every time the media or one of the resident trolls bring up the text of this email they truncate the non bolded part? When you add it to the other emails/notes it destroys the current narrative b/c it shows that the change of plan was to confront JS directly instead of going behind his back to everyone. Then depending on if he agreed his behavior was wrong and needed to stop, they would loop in DPW or not and also tell TSM regardless of JS' agreement.
The non bolded part provides much needed context and makes no sense whatsoever if they thought JS was abusing kids. The "only downside" is if there's some future event?? You can't make that fit into what the OAG/Freeh claimed. As you said the only way that makes sense is if they thought another boundary issue happened and there'd be a he said he said situation or something like that.
Last edited:
I call BS and FALSE! You seem to conveniently ignore that MANY of us bring these to the attention of PA officials and other prevention orgs on a regular basis. FYI I blasted my local TX orgs for ignoring Arrow and now they follow my account in case I find another one they didn't know about. You need to stop gaslighting and start using some facts Covey.
Just a few posts above this one Raffy specifically addresses the YMCA one brought to Josh Shapiro's attention by Wendy more than 24 hours ago, smh. I even asked Kristen Houser and Charlie Tuna at Pennlive why they aren't talking about it. It's done regularly, so stop living in your BWI bubble and pay attention. Maybe even help us track them and do some good for a change.
Exactly. The idea that Spanier meant "let's take a chance with a man that was reported to have raped a child on PSU's campus" with this statement is just ludicrous. As with this whole mess, context is critical.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Covey and facts???? Good one!! The next time he use's facts will be the first.
You're right - we don't know at this time precisely what Curley was told that Jerry was accused of doing. What we do know is that Curley was told that something occurred between Jerry and one or two boys on university property, that whatever happened caused a report to be filed, and whatever that report was caused the university police department, DPW, and a child psychologist to get involved and investigate. We have those emails, so we do know a bare minimum of what Schultz told Curley. I believe that Curley was a man of adequate intelligence and diligence who would (1) want to know a little more than "something happened, it's being investigated" when it involved my current defensive coordinator and brand ambassador; and (2) recognize that if Jerry was accused of doing "something" with a boy on university property that warranted police involvement and interviews with child psychologists, that there are only a few options for what that "something" could have been - with none of them being particularly good for anyone involved.
As far as the choice of language in 2001 is concerned, while it's true that Joan Coble was copied on one email in 2001, where Schultz told Curley that he would be away on vacation and relayed that the plan was for Curley to talk with "the subject", for Curley to contact "the Charitable Organization", and to contact the Department of Welfare, the only parties copied on the remainder of the 2001 emails were Curley, Schultz and Spanier - and Harmon. Even in the emails restricted to only the three administrators and the email between Harmon and Schultz, the same language is used - so I don't buy the concept of maintaining Jerry's and The Second Mile's privacy throughout all of those emails from the prying eyes of a sole administrative assistant who was copied on a separate message.
It's clear that you interpret those questions very charitably towards the administrators, but I remain much more skeptical. We'll agree to disagree.
Why are you dedicating 3 posts to your argument?
This entire thread is nothing but people trying to eat each other because two men turned out to be frauds, and some people can't deal with it.
See that @LaJolla Lion ... YOU have gone off the deep end. Not the Jerry defenders... not the ones still proclaiming C&S innocence, but you.
And given this perfectly rational perspective, why these guys chose to plea deal after five plus years is beyond me. Unless, of course, the conspiracy theorists are correct.
Where did I say they weren't already off the deep end?
Some like you and Towny are celebrating, some are always in the clouds...LaJolla is angry for some reason. Like he's taking this very personally. That's why I said that to an ostensibly reasonable poster.
But carry on!
Mike's brother-in-law who said he didn't call the cops that Saturday morning because Mike was gonna see Joe about it. Worked out well, eh?
Thanks for the heads up.
Yeah, I'm the angry one. I think you need to look at the timing of the posts and what was actually said in what order. Perspective is a good thing.
Either way this gets settled soon enough and some won't believe the outcome one way or the other. I'm not trying to dig up personal info on people as a few have on this site which clearly crosses a line. Where were you calling people out then? I'm not connected to anyone involved like others are. I'm not calling you or anyone out daily either. Apparently you think something I said was way off, but instead of pointing it out, you told me I need a TO. Thanks, but I'm just fine.
This response perfectly illustrates my point. I thought you were sane and above this. I've been wrong before.
