You really must be kidding or have lived under a rock for 6 years.Well, that is what Curley testified to. We know these things:
1. McQueary talked to Paterno on Saturday morning (2/10/01). They both say that happened. Paterno said that was "sexual."
2. Paterno had to have told Curley and/or Schultz because by Sunday (2/11), they were meeting. Courtney did a bill for "suspected child abuse," and recommended it be reported, so he was brought in by that point.
3. We know that sometime before 5:00 PM on 2/12, Schultz asked Harmon about the 1998 incident report, because Harmon sent him an e-mail saying that they had it.
At the end of this, according to Curley, he told Raykovitz that it was "horseplay." Now, and this not a rhetorical question, if Curley lied under oath about what he told Raykovitz, why?
We do know that Curley stated he was "uncomfortable" going to anyone "I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved." Raykovitz was not "the person involved." Why did Curley suddenly feel this way? That may be the key question.
I'll answer my own question: Raykovitz told Heim that nothing inappropriate happened. That is consistent with what Curley said he told Raykovitz.
Raykovitz also told Heim that he was told (presumably by Curley) that the matter had been investigated. We know of no investigation. So we still have the same question. Why would Curley lied about what told Raykovitz, if he did tell Raykovitz that it was an assault?
2.You say Courtney was brought up to point. He has subsequently testified he was told nothing about CSA.So you choose to believe half the story?
3.Harmon was asked about 1998 but we are to believe Harmon never asked why or between the two of them no follow up with CYS wasn't contacted. Illogical, also why has Harmon been "hidden from all inquiries"
4. Curley's email. i suggest you search any of the 500 times Indynittany has explained this.
5 You suggest Curley "made up" a story to Raykovitz.If he was going to make up a story why even go to JR. Again illogical