Not to take away from the gist of your note, but just for the record, neither Tim nor Gary are 'frail'. In their mid- and late-60s, they both enjoy relatively good health and active lives.
Spanier Avoids Jailtime?
- Thread starter didier
- Start date
Not to take away from the gist of your note, but just for the record, neither Tim nor Gary are 'frail'. In their mid- and late-60s, they both enjoy relatively good health and active lives.
I thought curley just had a bought with cancer? Regardless, five years at age 65 is a load
Diagnosed back in 2013, I think? Has been successfully battling it since then, with good health reports for the last few years. When I see him, he's fit, eating well, active, and very positive overall.
I think that at least outwardly, he handled that kangaroo court trial and sentencing as well as can be reasonably expected. Gary, too. Far better than I or many others would have, I'm certain.
Thanks for the info. A bout with cancer will make one reevaluate Putting this behind him to enjoy some good years was the right move
I'm sure in Pennsylvania there is a way they can extend it indefinitely based on a law not yet passed.
Perhaps I did a poor job of venting. Apologies. I realize it's easy to make claims when it doesn't affect me personally, and I should have been more sympathetic.
Anyhow, I get that the game was rigged, and they couldn't be sure of a fair outcome no matter what. I imagine that what they did, in accepting a plea deal, was probably just the safest thing to do given how corrupt the whole state system is. It was just very frustrating to see Gary and Tim take a plea when they really were guilty of nothing other than naivete. The curtain really never ever got pulled back.
I think you are correct that Gary is a lot more likely to speak up than Tim. If you read the interview notes from Snedden's report, Gary was very forthcoming in his interview (pages 82-89) where Tim, on advise of counsel was not at all forthcoming (pages 90-92).
I would urge all to take a look at these notes to get an understanding of what Gary Schultz thinks.
Some guys are willing to fight down to the last ounce of someone else blood. Hardly put up a fight....good Lord! Tim Curley is as fine a human being as you will ever meet. The scum sucking fat pigs like Corbett didn't blink an eye ruining his career. The assholes on the BOT knew damn well Tim was innocent and never did a thing to help him. Bastards!
I think C&S failed miserably as administrators. McQueary's report should have been documented and they should have had him sign it. The report and McQueary's name could have been kept confidential but it should have been documented and memorialized. That way there would never have been a question about what McQueary told them.
That said, poor administration does not constitute a coverup. McQueary's dad and Dranov said that Mike didn't tell them about sexual assault. Joe said the same thing and McQueary admitted that he used soft language. So why shouldn't we believe C&S when they said MM gave them a similar report?
I suspect that C&S were willing to accept a minimal sentence instead of risking a jury trial. 1 month in jail with daytime work release vs. a 50/50 chance of a severe sentence. Why take the risk? That said it would be horrible to have to live with the word believing you knowingly enabled a pedophile. Once my sentence was served I would try to tell my story to the public. We'll see is that happens.
That said, poor administration does not constitute a coverup. McQueary's dad and Dranov said that Mike didn't tell them about sexual assault. Joe said the same thing and McQueary admitted that he used soft language. So why shouldn't we believe C&S when they said MM gave them a similar report?
I suspect that C&S were willing to accept a minimal sentence instead of risking a jury trial. 1 month in jail with daytime work release vs. a 50/50 chance of a severe sentence. Why take the risk? That said it would be horrible to have to live with the word believing you knowingly enabled a pedophile. Once my sentence was served I would try to tell my story to the public. We'll see is that happens.
I largely agree with your first two paragraphs, except the first sentence (I'll punt on the third paragraph). In retrospect, they should gave documented their conversations with Magic Mike, but that's easy to say in hindsight and without specifically knowing the content or character of the discussions. Seems that they thought that nothing discussed would come back to bite them on the ass and for ten years they were right.
I'd go a step further to say that Spanier should have thrown Sandusky under the bus even if he wasn't given a report of sexual abuse. The mere notion of that grinning baboon showering naked with a kid in a virtually empty building at night should have caused him to call the cops and, at minimum, barred him from campus.
In hindsight I'm sure they wish they did just that, too. I'm sure if this all happened in 2019, not 2001, they'd have acted differently, too.
No administrator on this planet could have foreseen being screwed by the commonwealth a decade later. Could they have better documented what seemed like a benign situation... certainly. But that’s a far cry from them “failing miserably.”
Documenting reports like this is HR 101. It doesn't matter that they didn't expect things to come back and bite them. Most companies with 70 employees and a $15m budget have procedures on how to handle this kind of thing. PSU has 90,000 students and a $6.5b budget.
They definitely failed as administrators. Even small companies have written whistleblower policies and procedures these days.
They sought legal counsel. We haven’t heard that they ignored said legal counsel.
Courtney testified that he advised Shultz to report to child welfare officials.
But that's not the point. PSU should have had a whistleblower policy that required documentation of MM's report.
I thought at one point that Schultz said he did report it to CYS. It’s been many years, so I may be wrong.
Also, did courtney, as legal counsel, recommend that Penn State adopt a whistleblower policy and handle mcqueary’s claims accordingly?
Courtney served both entities. Who would be certain that when he testified he didn't serve himself?
Last edited:
It's not a company, it's a university. At the time, it didn't have a Legal Department (and who knows what else). Regardless, the level of professionalism in staff functions is generally pathetic.
That might be relevant if there was a whistleblower involved.
Curley and Schultz did not fail miserably. They received a report from McQueary. That report was not of sexual abuse of a child. Rather it was of horseplay in a shower.
Let me stop here and suggest that the reaction to such a report today, 2019, is far different than that in 2001. In fact, Dr Jack Reykowitz testified at Dr Spanier’s trial that he advised Jerry, after Tim Curley made the report to Jack, to wear swim trunks in the shower any time he wanted to shower with boys. He didn’t tell him he SHOULDN’T shower with boys.
Back to McQueary’s report to Curley/Schultz.
They received the report of horseplay and immediately referred to the 1998 incident. An incident that was fully investigated. So they thought they had a repeat of 1998.
Gary then consulted with Outside Counsel who testified at Dr Spanier’s trial that Gary/Tim reported an incident of horseplay More importantly, Courtney testified had he believed abuse had occurred he would have reported it.
Tim and Gary were falsely prosecuted in my opinion. Neither were guilty of any crimes.
Let me stop here and suggest that the reaction to such a report today, 2019, is far different than that in 2001. In fact, Dr Jack Reykowitz testified at Dr Spanier’s trial that he advised Jerry, after Tim Curley made the report to Jack, to wear swim trunks in the shower any time he wanted to shower with boys. He didn’t tell him he SHOULDN’T shower with boys.
Back to McQueary’s report to Curley/Schultz.
They received the report of horseplay and immediately referred to the 1998 incident. An incident that was fully investigated. So they thought they had a repeat of 1998.
Gary then consulted with Outside Counsel who testified at Dr Spanier’s trial that Gary/Tim reported an incident of horseplay More importantly, Courtney testified had he believed abuse had occurred he would have reported it.
Tim and Gary were falsely prosecuted in my opinion. Neither were guilty of any crimes.
I’m pretty sure I read a trial/Gj transcript in which Shultz said he thought the shower incident was reported to the “agency “. Easy to imagine that he thought a report to second mile was equivalent to reporting it to CPS.
To be clear here, I’ve worked in pediatric ERs and been involved in abuse cases. When it comes time to file a report, the person who does the grunt work of actually filing a report isn’t the ER director. It’s a specially trained nurse or resident. The ER director will say “ I want you guys to contact CPS”, and then he assumes it’s done and only follows up if something goes wrong.
They were absolutely falsely accused based on the laws at the time
Further, and I’ve posted this before without much traction, but with the law as it currently stands, and if it really was abuse, none other than MM would be in ‘jail’. Let’s take this another step further so people can really start to comprehend this - MM would be the one in trouble even for HORSEPLAY!
So everyone involved took all this time to write a new law, train us, we had to write new policies, train our staff, and the end result is that the “eye witness” must directly report the incident.
Do not pass go and do not collect $7m - directly report BEFORE consulting or telling anyone or pay the price.
That should be very telling about how screwed up this situation is!
Don't forget the petition notes that lawyers for Schultz, Curley, as well as former Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was also formerly represented by Baldwin, were not invited to the conference. At the conference, the petition says, Fina told the judge regarding the attorney-client privilege that he intended to "put those matters on hold" until the judge made a decision regarding the privilege, and "we can address that later on."
Penn State's counsel then argued that the judge should make a ruling on the attorney-client privilege first, before Baldwin testified. But Fina told the judge, "We need not address the privilege issue," because "we are not going to ask questions about" the grand jury testimony of Schultz and Curley, "and any preparation for, or follow-up they had" with Baldwin, Fox wrote.
Fina asked the judge to keep Baldwin's testimony secret so "We can address this privilege matter at a later date." That prompted the judge to tell Fina to proceed under the assumption that "you're not going to get into any inquiry as to [Baldwin's] representation" of her former clients.
But Fina double-crossed the judge, as well as broke the rules of professional conduct. And that's not only Fox's opinion, but it was also the ruling of the state's Superior Court, when they threw out eight charges Fina filed against Spanier, Schultz and Curley.
On Oct. 26, 2012, Fina questioned Baldwin in front of the grand jury, and "did elicit" what the disciplinary board described as "extensive . . . attorney-client privileged communications between Baldwin and Curley, Schultz, and Spanier" as well as "confidential information" pertaining to the three former clients.
Fina's questioning of Baldwin was "calculated," the disciplinary board wrote, to solicit damaging information that would attack the credibility of Baldwin's three former clients. In the petition, the disciplinary board proceeded to list 73 examples from the grand jury transcript where Fina elicited confidential testimony from Baldwin that violated the attorney-client privilege, according to the petition filed by Paul J. Killion, chief disciplinary counsel, and Amelia C. Kittredge, disciplinary counsel.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. It is unreasonable to believe that so many well thought of professionals came to the same conclusion, independently, after being told something by Mike McQueary to believe that Mike McQueary reported something clearly sexual to them.
But, if they reviewed the 1998 case to see what they should do, they should have just made a report to CPS. If they went to legal counsel to decide whether or not they should call CPS, they should have just called CPS. The fact that they did both of these things indicates that they were not exactly sure what they were dealing with. It was not their job to figure out exactly what they were dealing with. If they had just made a report to CPS (and documented that they had done so) then none of the rest of what occurred would have happened.
How do we know a report was never made? No record would exist. Gary was pretty emphatic that a report was made " to the same agency....as 98." If Courtney in fact told GS to call CYS....where is it documented? We never saw the notes on his billing? Do we believe that GS called Tom Harmon to see if a record of 98 existed (you know the one he mislabeled) and inspector Gadget never asked...."why?" Perhaps Harmon was entrusted with "making the call?" Do you think its odd that OAG treated Harmon, Courtney (who represented TSM and whose wife was very involved) and Raykovitz with kid gloves, while following a scorched earth policy with the PSU 3? Raykovitz was a mandated reported who in addition to being the CEO of TSM did contract work for CYS. He had a$100,000 reasons not to pursue the report Tim gave him.......
Let's stop pretending there was anything legit about what happened to the PSU 3.
What MM saw was so troubling, it took him weeks to report it to Joe. No one....no one thought it was worthy of alarm. Not Dad, Dr. D or anyone at PSU or TSM until Tommy Boy got the reigns and wanted blood.
Speaking of a failed run for judge....look into the immaculate email.
Last edited:
I have to say I disagree with those who say 1998 should have set off alarm bells in 2001. The original 1998 investigation determined nothing criminal happened. Also, in PA police investigations aren't typically shared with outside agencies/people. It's not as though a full copy was sent to C/S/S. At most they were told an investigation was conducted and nothing was found. Looking back at it a decade later and being able to weigh what happened in the meantime makes it easy to say, "HA! They screwed up!" Anyone who keeps harping on 1998 doesn't grasp the concept of the pillar of the community offender.
I disagree. I think Corbett would have found another way to deflect attention away from his "friends" at TSM by implicating PSU.
Everything C/S/S did in response to MM's report was designed to avoid another he said/he said scenario, like '98, from occurring in the future. The object was not to protect children from Jerry. It was to protect Jerry and PSU from a false accusation by a child.
If that's the case, they should and would have documented MM's report for the record.
In my post I said they should have reported it and documented it. If he had reported it, or had somebody else report it, he should have had it documented. There was no documentation of it being reported that I can recall.
Interesting how, with the benefit of hindsight, you seem to think you're the smartest person in the room. A minimum of ten people, many with credentials that would suggest a high level of intelligence, were in the loop during 2001 and none of them thought to document their actions yet it's clear to you that you would have done so? smh
If I know somebody had been investigated by police for a behavior one time and then I was told that the person repeated the same behavior three years later it would set off alarms in my head. It would also tell me that the behavior was worthy of being investigated once, so it is probably worthy of being investigated again.
I will say that logistically, I’m not sure how a call to CPS would be done in this case. Any time that I call I have the kids name, address, other demographic information pertinent to the case. In this situation, they had a secondhand report from an eye(ear?)witness. I would imagine that if I called CPS and did not have the identifying information they would tell me to call police instead.
He should avoid jail time. The Press wanted everyone guilty except Jerry, the one who committed the crime.
What the hell are you talking about? I don’t think I have ever been in a room with another human being and thought that I was the smartest person in the room.
I’m not even sure that it can be debated at this point whether or not it should have been documented. You document things like this for legal backing should the situation go awry. I would be shocked if the three administrators that were found guilty in this case said that they would not document their actions if they could go back in time and do this over again. I’m not saying they didn’t document this for nefarious reasons. I’m not even saying they were wrong not to report it to CPS or the police because we don’t have any record of what exactly was said. It seems from the actions of all McQueary told that he didn’t tell them anything explicit. I am saying it was a mistake to not document what was said to them so that they could justify their plan of action.
I think they may be able to appeal here because the court didn't really have jurisdiction - I believe they plead guilty under the 2007 law, which the judge said did not apply.
Similar threads
