If prosecution continues to prosecute Schultz for "not reporting" to police when they know the defense has proof he did, that isn't prosecutorial misconduct....
It's ineptitude that adds a whole new dimension to the word "stupid."
Paterno had two legacies and his followers need to accept it
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
If prosecution continues to prosecute Schultz for "not reporting" to police when they know the defense has proof he did, that isn't prosecutorial misconduct....
It's ineptitude that adds a whole new dimension to the word "stupid."
If you have some other, possibly profound explanation, please share it with us.
Last edited:
You know, I sometimes think that people like you are providing a fair take on things, but then I read comments like this.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the Freeh Report:
III. University Leaders' Response to McQueary's Observations
A. February 11, 2001: Paterno Reports Sandusky Incident to Schultz and Curley
Paterno also testified to the Grand Jury that he "ordinarily would have called people right away,[after hearing McQueary's report] but it was a Saturday morning and I didn't want to interfere with their weekends." Paterno thought he spoke to Curley "early the next week" or "within the week." Paterno had a telephone call with Curley and said, "[h]ey, we got a problem, and I explained the problem to him." When asked if the "information that [he] passed along was substantially the same information that [McQueary]" had given him, Paterno said "yes."
Curley testified to the same Grand Jury that Paterno called him on a Sunday and asked him and Schultz to come to Paterno's home where Paterno related that an assistant coach saw "two people" in the shower of the football building locker room. Curley recalled that Paterno said the assistant saw the people through a mirror, "was uncomfortable with the activity in the shower area," and had reported the issue to Paterno.
Schultz testified to the same Grand Jury in 2011 that he attended the meeting with Paterno and Curley and that it occurred in Schultz's office or "possibly" at Paterno's house. Schultz told the Grand Jury that Paterno said "someone" had seen Sandusky and "some unnamed boy" engaging in "some behavior in the football locker room that was disturbing." He testified, "I believe the impression I got was it was inappropriate and he wanted to bring that to Tim Curley and my attention." Schultz did not recall Paterno's precise words, and said Paterno described the events "in a very general way." Schultz thought the conduct might involve "wrestling around activity" and Sandusky "might have grabbed the young boy's genitals or something of that sort." Schultz said the "allegations came across as not that serious. It didnʹt appear at that time, based on what was reported, to be that serious, that a crime had occurred. We had no indication a crime had occurred."
B. February 11, 2001: Schultz Discusses "Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse" with University's Outside Legal Counsel
On Sunday, February 11, 2001, Schultz had a conference call about the "reporting of suspected child abuse" with Penn State's then outside legal counsel, Wendell Courtney. Courtney conducted legal research on this issue and had another conference that day with Schultz about the matter. Courtney charged 2.9 hours of time to Penn State for his legal work. Courtney’s work on the 2001 matter is confirmed in an email Courtney sent to Schultz in 2011 when Penn State received subpoenas for testimony by Schultz and others concerning the criminal investigation of Sandusky.
So three points here:
1. Yes, it is absolutely false that Paterno avoided interfering with Curley's weekend. The report has a sub-heading that describes their meeting as happening on Sunday. Freeh came to that conclusion because of the time-stamped e-mail from Courtney to Schultz.
2. Look at the impression the reader comes away with after reading this. Instead of ignoring Joe's obviously mistaken testimony about the timeline, Freeh leads with it. (And, what do you know, it just so happens that Joe's comment paints him in a bad light.) The report also refers to Curley's testimony that he and Joe met on "a Sunday." Nowhere in the body of that section III-A is the date of the Paterno-Curley meeting stated. The next section (having to do with Schultz's communication with Courtney) leads with "On Sunday, February 11, 2001," as if we're talking about a completely different date. The two sections are talking about conversations held on the same date! Wouldn't a fairer reporting of the facts be something to the effect of, "While Paterno testified that he waited until after the weekend to relay McQuery's report to Curley, we found that he did in fact meet with Curley on Sunday (the day after his meeting with McQuery)?"
3. Joe obviously misremembered this detail. Rather than latch onto Joe's "sexual nature" comment as if it's gospel truth, maybe we should be more skeptical of an 85-year-old's recollection of something that happened 10 years in the past.
