<p>I think you missed my point. I did read the email “after talking it over with Joe…” To me, all that email says is that they should confront Sandusky as well as the authorities. It reads to me, that Joe (and Curley) want to confront Sandusky and tell him that they are going to the authorities. It is the reply to the email that (message not being heard) that outlines a cover up. </p>
<p>Reasonable people can disagree. I’m not saying Paterno was not consulted. I actually think he should have done a LOT more. But I don’t think the email trail is some amazing smoking gun against Paterno.</p>
<p>^ They were going to notify the authorities. The plan was changed. You wondered why it was changed. It states right in the email, “After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” The next steps had been defined in previous email. Authorities were not notified. The email tells why. Could not be more simple, unless Spanier, Schultz and Curley were to come clean, which is extremely unlikely.</p>
<p>remember this detail which likely influenced Spanier, Curley and Schultz’s lies, they believed that due to the email system change, that those old emails were irretrievable. When they were interviewed by the Grand Jury they thought they were home free.</p>
<p>“After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable…”.<br>
Just for arguments sake, it doesn’t say Joe and I gave it more thought or Joe is uncomfortable. He specifically states that HE thought it over and HE is uncomfortable.</p>
<p>“Hopefully the prosecutors did some more work after the report.”</p>
<p>Oh, I think (we’ll see) that there’s going to be a circular firing squad. Victim #4 will collect tens of millions from both PSU and JoePa’s estate in order to keep the case out of court. Otherwise, the floodgates are really going to open. (But I doubt we’ll ever see a Mann Act prosecution. There’s no reason to do so.)</p>
<p>“Just for arguments sake, it doesn’t say Joe and I gave it more thought or Joe is uncomfortable. He specifically states that HE thought it over and HE is uncomfortable.”</p>
<p>Yes and he specifically states he is uncomfortable after talking it over with Joe.</p>
<p>Of course it doesn’t say that he wasn’t uncomfortable before he talked to Joe. My take when I read that email in the Freeh report was that the email was written to imply the Joe made the decision. One could just as easily infer that the writer of the email never did want to report Sandusky and was covering his *** by writing an email and crediting the decision to Joe without really saying so.</p>
<p>“One could just as easily infer that the writer of the email never did want to report Sandusky and was covering his *** by writing an email and crediting the decision to Joe without really saying so.”</p>
<p>I disagree that this is just as easily inferred. It’s a bit of a stretch, imo.</p>
<p>thanks greenbutton—glad to see the positive learning and dialogue happening. reducing stigma so victims can come forward and become survivors, educating community members to identify signs of abuse, all good.</p>
<p>Article an today’s LA times says that some legal observers believe that the nature of the new indictment against Spanier, Schultz, and Curley suggests that Paterno would have also been indicted if he were still alive. </p>
<p>It also mentions Schultz’s handwritten notes from the 1998 meetings corroborate the e-mail in that they spell out the follow-up action of first getting Paterno’s input on the strategy of going directly to authorities about Sandusky - the course of action that was not taken after Joe said no, according to the e-mail.</p>
<p>Several days ago I heard on a TV news report that the DAs office is now in possession of materials found in a box that Schultzs secretary was given and instructed to take off campus and never disclose its existence. Supposedly, materials found in this box led to the indictment of Spanier and additional charges for Curley and Schultz.</p>
<p>It’s sure taken a while, but AT LAST Spanier has been charged. Let’s hope Kelly is investigating other possible indictments, including Victim 1’s principal.</p>
<p>Will Spanier, Curley, and Schultz each get their own trials?</p>
<p>“The severance and compensation will not be paid out before mid-2017. (A university spokesman) declined to speculate on what might happen if Spanier were convicted.”</p>
<p>Spanier, to date, has not been convicted of anything, so I am guessing that - legally - the university has no other option.</p>
<p>^^^^ My guess is that some of the items in the box are damning to Schultz but other items show complicity/duplicity by others, that could be used for bargaining w/ the authorities if need be.</p>