<p>Well said, myturnnnow.
There are many, many public school teachers in their early 20’s. They are in a position to protect children in our schools. Imagine believing that they should be absolved from responsibility in reporting abuse because they are young!</p>
<p>
Three people were indicted as a result of the grand jury’s report, not just Sandusky.</p>
<p>Finally getting some evidence about what Curley and Shultz and Paterno did and did NOT do in 2001:</p>
<p>[CNN:</a> Administrators’ emails reveal plan to handle Sandusky report in 2001 - The Daily Collegian Online](<a href=“http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/06/29/cnn_administrators_emails_reveal_plan_to_handle_sandusky_report_in_2001.aspx]CNN:”>http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/06/29/cnn_administrators_emails_reveal_plan_to_handle_sandusky_report_in_2001.aspx)</p>
<p>Lots of blame to go around.</p>
<p>This is just what I imagined happened…a conscious choice to protect Sandusky over children being abused</p>
<p>“After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps,” Curley said in the email, according to CNN. “I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I would be more comfortable meeting with the person…tell him about the information we received…[and] tell him we are aware of the first situation.”</p>
<p>The “first situation” refers to a separate shower incident in 1998 involving Sandusky and a boy, who is referred to as “Victim 6” in the Sandusky case.</p>
<p>Curley wrote that he planned to tell Sandusky that “we feel there is a problem” and offer “professional help” and “at some point soon inform his organization [Second Mile,]” and “maybe the other one,” according to the report.</p>
<p>According to the report, a source with knowledge of the emails said that the other organization he’s referring to is child welfare.</p>
<p>If Sandusky is “cooperative,” Curley wrote, according to the report,” we would work with him…if not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups.”</p>
<p>CNN reported that two hours later, Spanier responded and agreed with Curley’s plan of action.</p>
<p>“I am supportive,” he wrote in an email, according to the report. “The only downside for us is if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road.”</p>
<p>Spanier also called the plan “humane and a reasonable way to proceed,” according to the report.</p>
<p>My turn now…your post illustrates a complete lack of knowledge about pedophiles on the part of Curley.</p>
<p>yes, as if they could tell if Sandusky would “cooperate”. So the fact that they never reported him after apparently talking with him means they perceived him as cooperating. Did they actually stipulate the requirement that he go for professional help? Not that that would be sufficient or even appropriate, but if that was their supposed plan, what did they actually do. </p>
<p>Tom Kline, the attorney for the person referred to as “Victim 5” in the Sandusky case, told CNN that he was shocked about the emails.</p>
<p>“It is unquestionable that had these men not engaged in a concerted, conscious, collaborative effort not to report this to authorities that the young man who I represent would not have been assaulted in the showers some six months later,” he said. “Here we see what appears to be on the face, reckless conduct.”</p>
<p>The lawyer went on to say that one of the more shocking details from this CNN report was that Curley changed the plan in dealing with Sandusky, according to the content in the emails, right after he spoke to Paterno.</p>
<p>more to be revealed but this would indicate that Paterno may have been part of the team communicating and strategizing around what steps should be taken…</p>
<p>Re: post 5184,
If authentic, those e-mails are the “smoking gun” that show a conspiracy between Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to cover up and handle the “problem” internally, without reporting to the proper authorities (they acknowledge as much in the e-mails), while leaving vulnerable kids at risk. Oh, and it sounds like JoePa’s fingerprints are all over this, too.</p>
<p>Penn State’s civil liability is going to be enormous.</p>
<p>Here’s a link to Susan Candiotti’s report on CNN:</p>
<p>[Sandusky</a> e-mails revealed – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs](<a href=“http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/29/sandusky-e-mails-revealed/?hpt=ac_bn6]Sandusky”>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/29/sandusky-e-mails-revealed/?hpt=ac_bn6)</p>
<p>Clearly they knew there was potential for legal liability–even using “code” so as to avoid mentioning Sandusky, Second Mile, or Child Protective Services by name. But there’s absolutely no concern expressed for the victim. </p>
<p>Well people have been asking what Curley and Schultz and Spanier did with McQueary’s report, and now we have a pretty good idea. I wonder if Spanier will be indicted as well. So far Curley and Schultz are only charged with lying to the grand jury, right?</p>
<p>Curley and Schultz have both been charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse in connection with the Sandusky case.</p>
<p>you are right Janesmith—plenty of blame to go around.</p>
<p>“Three people were indicted as a result of the grand jury’s report, not just Sandusky.”</p>
<p>Yes, but only one was being directly investigated, and in the course of that investigation, they happened to uncover perjury - directly related to what they said and failure to report (not what they did - the civil, and potentially criminal, conspiracy). They did not go out of their way to investigate the crimes of others.</p>
<p>attempting to put puzzle pieces together…</p>
<p>if Sandusky told the truth about this, (clearly a big IF) and Curley did speak with him as Curley planned to do, according to the above emails. It would seem Sandusky simply denied it, so then Curley decided what? to believe him? Curley didn’t even bother to take his keys. This we know to be true. The arrogance of Curley to let this man walk, refuse to report to authorities, knowing about both the '98 incident and the 2002 incident witnessed by McQueary. </p>
<p>"Sandusky told the Times that Tim Curley, Penn State’s athletic director at the time, confronted him about the alleged misconduct.</p>
<p>“He was concerned about it,” he told the newspaper. “He was coming to me with a concern because, in his words, somebody had talked to him about inappropriate behavior in the shower.”</p>
<p>Sandusky said he responded by saying “it didn’t happen.”</p>
<p>“In my mind, there wasn’t inappropriate behavior,” he said.</p>
<p>The former coach said Curley then told him that “he didn’t want me to bring kids (into university facilities) and work them out anymore,” according to the interview.</p>
<p>But, he told the Times, Curley never commandeered his keys to the facility.</p>
<p>“And I still went in there and worked out,” the former coach said.</p>
<p>MD Mom, Curley probably did have a lack of understanding about pedophiles, but he certainly has keen appreciation for Penn State’s public image and its legal position. I don’t see either Curley or Spanier expressing any thought whatsoever about Sandusky’s victims. No surprise there, unfortunately.</p>
<p>Curley, for example, thinks that the worst that should happen to Sandusky – and only if he doesn’t cooperate with internal measures – would be to rat him out to Second Mile. Of course, this would no doubt would be done quietly; wouldn’t want to publicly tarnish Sandusky and, by extension, the program:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many people would have thought that they had “no choice” but to inform, oh, I don’t know, LAW ENFORCEMENT. But that doesn’t even enter the conversation.</p>
<p>Spanier’s response is even more disgusting:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s hard to know where to start. The “only downside” is their vulnerability – which I assume means their legal liability? “ONLY”?? Jerry not “hearing the message” would mean more victims; those children might have considered that to be a downside. But not to worry – that can be “assessed down the road.” No big deal. And it appears it never got assessed again.</p>
<p>But the part that turns my stomach is his use of the word “humane.” He is so solicitous of a predator, and so oblivious to the predator’s victims. Incredibly, Jerry’s potential victims – actual victims, as it turned out – do not seem even to have crossed his mind. It’s all about protecting Penn State and taking care of their monster. Human filth.</p>
<p><a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7920784/charge-penn-state-administrators-likely-dropped-change-jerry-sandusky-shower-allegations[/url]”>http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7920784/charge-penn-state-administrators-likely-dropped-change-jerry-sandusky-shower-allegations</a></p>
<p>Regarding the statute of limitations on the charges against Curley and Shultz:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At least the one that falls under the statute of limitations is the minor one.</p>
<p>Well that’s that. I am shocked and appalled at Spanier with his background in mental health. </p>
<p>The email leaves Paterno no defense. They all knew. They were all complicit. Shame on all of them. </p>
<p>They have tarnished the reputation of the school forever. </p>
<p>The email leaves no doubt. I am so glad that it was found .</p>
<p>Clean house, pay the victims, put millions into ongoing public education and help for all victims of child abuse for years to come…and whatever else it takes to even begin to make amends to all those men and their families for the lifetime of pain they have allowed to happen.</p>
<p>Ughhhhh…their behavior is beyond despicable.</p>
<p>^It is shocking and disgusting that Spanier never simply said, we MUST report this. We can also talk with “the person” but we are REQUIRED to report. </p>
<p>I have always wondered how they could not have been worried about that child, how could they not even care?</p>
<p>additionally, how stupid were these men to put these thoughts down in email. just another aspect of their arrogance, their, we won’t get caught, we’ll assess down the road, we got this covered mentality.</p>
<p>and Curley and Schultz’ attorneys are claiming this is what GOOD people do
“For Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, the responsible and ‘humane’ thing to do was, like Governor Corbett (said), to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague, but troubling allegations. Faced with tough situations, good people try to do their best to make the right decisions.”</p>
<p>beyond despicable is right…</p>
<p>Thank goodness that proof has been found of this cover-up.</p>
<p>I’m not at all surprised but disgusted, nonetheless.</p>
<p>Oh, not at ALL surprised. I was going to write more above but decided against it. But then I took a look at the beginnings of this thread, and it’s made me sick. Paterno’s statement, from post no. 61.</p>
<p>“If this is true, we were all fooled, along with scores of professionals trained in such things, and we grieve for the victims and their families. They are in our prayers,” Paterno said in a statement issued by his son, Scott.</p>
<p>right, and who exactly were those “scores of professionals trained in such things?” </p>
<p>“A spokesman for Paterno’s family, who has not seen any e-mails, told CNN Paterno didn’t communicate by e-mail and defended the coach.”</p>
<p>um, what does the fact that Paterno didn’t use email, have to do with Joe talking with and obviously influencing Curley in their complicit strategy?</p>
<p>“Everyone should want the truth … and Joe always told the truth,” Dan McGinn told CNN. “He did the right thing. He told his boss about McQueary.”</p>
<p>and Spanier’s BS;
Shortly after his dismissal, Spanier issued a statement that said, in part, “I was stunned and outraged to learn that any predatory act might have occurred in a university facility or by someone associated with the university. … I would never hesitate to report a crime if I had any suspicion that one had been committed.”</p>
<p>sure hope Spanier’s mental health license is revoked for this illegal and unethical behavior.</p>
<p>Thankfully, Joe didn’t have to put anything in writing. His associates did it for him.</p>
<p>I would love to know what he told people when they talked to him about possibly hiring Sandusky. How much of the wider college football community knew?</p>