<p>And Curley and Shultz’s excuse that they didn’t know the incident was sexual is falling apart. From the Chronicle of Higher Education :</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first hearing for Curley and Shultz is July 11.</p>
<p>This is what is so troubling. They had a plan. Maybe not the world’s greatest plan, but a plan: no more childern in the locker room, contact Second Mile, contact Child Protective Services. It makes sense to me to add contact Sandusky and tell him why this is happening, or that his behavior is inappropriate to the plan…I don’t see how you could avoid it. I don’t see why the plan was not carried out. That’s the part that doesn’t make sense.<br>
It would make sense if they contacted Second Mile and Child Protective Services, and were asked to just tell Sandusky to not bring minors into the locker room, ie give them a chance to investigate. I would not like that procedure, but it would make some sense. But to just ask him not to bring minors into the locker room, and not even change the locks or something. That’s not a plan. And no contact with Child Protective Services, Second Mile or the police. That is crazy.</p>
<p>As I’ve said before, I think they were extremely angered that Sandusky’s actions stood a chance of tarnishing and having long term effects on the good name of PSU. I think they felt that it wasn’t fair to them, it wasn’t fair to PSU, it just wasn’t fair. And the more they thought about the unfairness of it all, the more they felt justified in letting it be someone else’s problem. So they told Sandusky to stop, he denied everything, they told him couldn’t bring kids around anymore, he said OK.</p>
<p>And as the days went by, it became more and more of a forgotten memory.</p>
<p>“I don’t see why the plan was not carried out. That’s the part that doesn’t make sense.”</p>
<p>The email explains it. Paterno spoke to Schultz. After that conversation, Schultz tells Spanier he is now “uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” Schultz even specifies the change of mind came after speaking to Paterno. It is obvious. Paterno persuaded Schultz to squash the plan and the rest of them fell in line. Paterno did not want this made public because of the damage it could do to the football program. Their concern was not the victims or future victims. Their concern was protecting the program.</p>
<p>According to their grand jury testimonies (Curley and/or Schultz), they reported the incident to Second Mile, specifically to the director Raykovitz. The main attorney for Second Mile was also one of long time attorney for Penn State, Wendell Courtney. It is interesting that they actually have the law-firm billings record. I think they (Curley and Shultz) also testified that they did not consult their lawyers on the 2002 incident. But if they did, I guess what they talked about with the lawyers is privileged so we probably would never find out. I just can’t imagine the lawyers would tell them to cover up all these stuffs.</p>
<p>
This may well be true, but of course this reasoning is post hoc ergo propter hoc. It will be interesting to see what Schultz says (if he ever says anything) about what he and Paterno discussed.</p>
<p>There are billing records from 2001 beginning on a Sunday. I would like to know exactly what Sunday that was.</p>
<p>“post hoc ergo propter hoc”</p>
<p>I knew I should have studied Latin instead of French.</p>
<p>Curley allegedly writes: “After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.”</p>
<p>I don’t know it’s pretty obvious to me. The plan was there. I think it was a good plan too, as long as CPS would be notified. Paterno speaks to Schultz and the plan is trashed. Coincides with the way he ran his program. Everything went through him.</p>
<p>“Their concern was protecting the program.”</p>
<p>If it came out that Sandusky has been molesting kids using his connection to the PSU program and PSU facility, it could certainly has big impact on the football recruiting and obviously the image of the university. Athlete recruiting is a very competitive cat and mouse game. At the time in February, it would have been in the middle of the crucial time in the recruiting cycle.</p>
<p>but even the revised plan, post Paterno’s input, suggested that if Sandusky didn’t “cooperate” THEN they would go to reporting. But they never did anything further. And I can’t see how Curley et al could convince anyone that Sandusky’s complete denial of the incident could be construed as “cooperating”. </p>
<p>So even their half baked plan to first just talk to Sandusky, and then x,y,z…didn’t happen, which to me demonsrates an utter disregard for the children. They didn’t even try…</p>
<p>Here’s another theory–in 2001, Curley and/or Schultz calls their outside counsel and asks if they are required by law to report what they’ve heard from McQueary. Outside counsel says they aren’t mandatory reporters under the law, so they don’t have to report. They decide to confront Sandusky, and he denies everything; he says McQueary must be mistaken, etc., etc. They go back to Paterno and tell him they aren’t required to report anything, and that Sandusky denies everything. What to do? They decide to simply tell Sandusky to keep his “guests” away from PSU. Then they try to forget about it. Is this reprehensible? Yes, I think so. But it’s perhaps somewhat less reprehensible than some other constructions of their actions.</p>
<p>Hunt, I’d agree with you if it weren’t for the language in the e-mail about “after talking” to Paterno. Makes him seem to have a role in a cover-up.</p>
<p>I’m imagining that the conversation with Paterno was telling him that the lawyers said there was no legal obligation to report.</p>
<p>Why are they charged now with failure to report, did their lawyers not know this could happen?</p>
<p>They are charged with failing to report, but as I think I said hundreds of pages ago, I don’t think they actually were legally obligated to report, and I predict those charges will not be pursued. Remember, there is no general legal obligation to report a crime, unless you have some special legal status, and there’s a pretty good argument that the PSU officials didn’t have that status in this case.</p>
<p>Well, OK, that could all very well be. But there’s still the issue of WHY they didn’t want to report. And that goes to their unwillingness to let the actions of one man bring shame to their institution. They knew how the media would react, they knew how the public would react. And it really wasn’t fair that they got stuck with Sandusky. But, we all know, life isn’t always fair.</p>
<p>As college staff who had contact with minor children, ie a 17 year old college student, were they not required to report? It is unbelievable that some are relying on the legal nuances to justify not doing the right thing.</p>
<p>I know many kids who started college at 17. Are you saying if something happened to a legal minor who is a student they have no obligation? </p>
<p>The fact they even called legal council is disgusting. Covering themselves big time. Hey give us excuse to do nothing and hide a pedophile amoungst us.</p>
<p>But he wouldn’t have had to talk to Paterno to know that there was no legal obligation to report. He knew that going in. So, IMO, Paterno seemed to say something that changed his mind about what to do.</p>
<p>This making any and all excuses for paterno is just sad. He knew. He covered up. He told others to cover up. And indont care if he is dead. His legacy meeds to be corrected to show what kind of little mean man he was.</p>
<p>they are also charged with perjury.</p>
<p>found this on whether they were mandated reporters of child abuse;</p>
<p>Under current law, a mandated reporter in a schools setting is required to report the suspicion of child abuse to a school administrator. However, that administrator has the power to decide whether or not the claim warrants getting law enforcement and other child advocacy groups involved.
[Local</a> lawyer pushes for stricter standards for reporting child a - abc27 WHTM](<a href=“http://www.abc27.com/story/15979727/local-lawyer-pushes-for-stricter-standards-for-reporting-child-abuse]Local”>http://www.abc27.com/story/15979727/local-lawyer-pushes-for-stricter-standards-for-reporting-child-abuse)</p>