Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The evidence of the report was suppressed based on the diary. Also, The Second Mile should have had a record of the contact -- but mysteriously their records from 2001-2003 went missing. The diary also notes the latter.Soooo, this would mean that an attorney working under Freeh during his investigation apparently kept a diary with notes and entries or “work product ” and turned it over at the conclusion of investigation as “source materials”. Ralph Cipriano, a journalist, somehow got his hands on this “diary” and shared it with Ray Blehar, who in turn posted it on his website (link provided above).
If this “diary” indeed has information about an email that confirms a report was in fact made, then Shultz and others who say they thought a report of the “ 2nd shower incident” was made to CYS would be proven to be correct. But since there was no evidence of such a report being made years ago their claims of it being reported could not be substantiated. Hence a cover up story was developed by a bunch of lawyers. You can fill in the rest of the story.
Completely wrong. Schultz made 7 statements at the grand jury that he believed he or someone else at PSU reported the incident. He never, ever said Curley reported it.
This is what I never understood. All Shultz had to say was that he believed he made a report to CYS. CYS would not be able to confirm as records no longer existed. The prosecution could not prove that he didn't and all three would have been found not guilty.
Fine, so it wasn't Curley. Shultz conveyed no sense of certainty that he made a report and if it wasn't Curley, who else would it have been?
Fine, so it wasn't Curley. Shultz conveyed no sense of certainty that he made a report and if it wasn't Curley, who else would it have been?
EXACTLY! I'll never understand why his defense attorney didn't make the Commonwealth PROVE a report wasn't made -- which is impossible to do. Also, because the identity of the child was unknown, CYS couldn't do anything with the report. CYS's job is to protect the child and to do that they have to know the child's name.
The defense team also could have used Gary's file and the 1998 police report in his defense because those documents showed that CC CYS was reluctant to investigate Jerry (in 1998).
EXACTLY! I'll never understand why his defense attorney didn't make the Commonwealth PROVE a report wasn't made -- which is impossible to do. Also, because the identity of the child was unknown, CYS couldn't do anything with the report. CYS's job is to protect the child and to do that they have to know the child's name.
The defense team also could have used Gary's file and the 1998 police report in his defense because those documents showed that CC CYS was reluctant to investigate Jerry (in 1998).
Wasn't Schultz's attorney (and Curley's) provided and paid for by Penn State?
Harmon was treated with kid gloves by the OAG, everyone should be suspicious. Tomalis was rewarded with a no show job, till it was outed.Fine, so Schultz wasn't certain at the grand jury...but while he was being badgered by Fina, he certainly argued that he believed the report was made.
"If it wasn't Curley who else would it have been?"
Again, Curley wasn't in the discussion between Schultz and Courtney. Schultz testified that he could have made the report. The next likely candidate for making the report was Tom Harmon, who Schultz contacted on February 12 to ask about 1998. Harmon's story that Schultz didn't tell him there was another Sandusky incident isn't the least bit credible.
To say nothing about the toll on Tim's health and I believe Gary's wife?Not to the extent that people believe. Initially, PSU paid as they would have for any employee, but after a time, the defendants were on their own. When exactly, I don't know. But I'm pretty certain that a big part of their agreeing to a plea was the steep personal cost involved.
Given this, I think he may want to consider giving JZ the go ahead to release his interview with him.Perhaps not, in a plea deal. If I recall correctly, Schultz defended himself most vigorously and for the longest time among the two.
Okay, I'm confused:
"Ample evidence supported that someone at PSU made a report to CYS per the direction of then General Counsel (GC) Wendell Courtney. Under that scenario, the February 26 email showing plan to call DPW was not to inform the agency about Sandusky's shower incident, but a contingency plan if The Second Mile refused to enforce PSU's directive about Sandusky's facility use with children."
So what exactly was reported? And if Schultz did make a report, why was it not mentioned in his Grand Jury testimony?
After reading that I would say that Fina's punishment should be 10 times greater than Kathleens'. Just loosing his law license for a year, give me a break. His leaks were like waterfalls and he deserves major time in prison!
While I would love to believe PSU reported the incident, I thought Shultz (or Curley) testified at their plea that it was never reported. No?
CYS couldn't act on an incident that had no known victim. If a report was made based on Courtney's recommendation....keep in mind that Schultz called Courtney after receiving a heads up from JVP (and remember even MM said he didn't go into details with Joe)......and before he even met with MM.Yes, seems weird to me. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier have always insisted that did not notify CYS because McQueary’s report was not sexual, not that they did make a report and CYS did not act upon it.
Blehar confuses me. I am also baffled by his insistence that Allan Myers is not the “real Victim 2” and that Ray acknowledges Brett Swisher Houtz lied about being molested in the PSU Football facilities, but then insist BSH must have been molested at Sandusky’s house.
Why wasn't the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove no report was made?
It is a bombshell. But like many bombshells during WW2, they were duds and didn't explode.
No bombshell will explode in this case, no matter its payload. The BOT has made sure of that
Blogposts are not intended to be my daily diarySo, has Ray called Kathleen McChesney to discuss her diary? How about any of CSS's attorney's? Seems simple enough to me yet I don't see any mention of this in Ray's blog.
@rmb297 Ray, did you call her?
But when someone takes the position that PSU did report, I'd like to see a higher standard of proof than what was demonstrated by Freeh & Co.
Art, I think I saw somewhere in the comments section where RMB expressed confidence that the referred to documents will be found. Guess we'll see.
First, no. Difficult or impossible to prove a negative e.g. Feds say you didn't file a tax return, you have to prove that you did. So in the face of no hard evidence, what we have are Schultz's vague recollections. Had he said something along the line of "I phoned (so-and-so) on or about (this date)," or "I sent a letter/email to (so-and-so) on or about (this date)," it creates doubt (that the prosecution's contention is correct), which could be raised to the level of reasonable doubt with more detail and evidence/testimony (though falling short of an actual report record).
But we're beyond that. The record is that no one at PSU reported the 2001 incident. To disprove that, we need more than an investigator's note. I'd like to see the document to which the note referred. Short of that, I'd like to hear the note maker's recollection of what the document contained.
And just for context, I happen to believe that Curley, Schultz, et al. did nothing wrong by not reporting. But when someone takes the position that PSU did report, I'd like to see a higher standard of proof than what was demonstrated by Freeh & Co.
Yes, seems weird to me. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier have always insisted that did not notify CYS because McQueary’s report was not sexual, not that they did make a report and CYS did not act upon it.
Blehar confuses me. I am also baffled by his insistence that Allan Myers is not the “real Victim 2” and that Ray acknowledges Brett Swisher Houtz lied about being molested in the PSU Football facilities, but then insist BSH must have been molested at Sandusky’s house.
1. We don't know what the record is at PSU because there is no established chain of custody for any of the evidence. We know that Cynthia Baldwin was the conduit through which all information was funneled and that her involvement in the process was duplicitous.
2. Based on the evidence, it is certain that Fina had a copy of the original Schultz file when he questioned Gary, Tim, and Joe on January 11, 2011. As the diary notes point out, there was a lot more information in the Schultz file than in the file that was put into the public domain as the "Schultz file."
3. If the report was made via email, as the diary states, then it can be recovered (but mountains will have to be moved to make that happen).
The emails were collected from the PSU server in 2011. Several copies of them were made and distributed. Subpoena or search warrant will do the trick, but you're correct that getting to that point will be difficult.The mountains to which you are referring are the Himalayas, the entire range. To attempt to recover an e-mail that is going on 20 years old, someone better have a very large checkbook and a high tolerance for failure.
Better chance is that somehow a hard copy turns up.
That is correct! All parties involved confirmed that the 2001 report from Mike was benign.The did report the incident to Jack Raykowitz of the Second Mile. Raykowitz solution was to tell Jerry to wear swim trunks next time. This incident did not turn into sexual abuse until McQueary was manipulated by the OAG in late 2010.
The emails were collected from the PSU server in 2011. Several copies of them were made and distributed. Subpoena or search warrant will do the trick, but you're correct that getting to that point will be difficult.
I have always believed that if a report was made, either to Childline or local CYS, there would be people who worked at those entities who saw the report and to this day remember it. Further, I have thought that perhaps one day one of those people would come forward and say "yes, we received a report from PSU" and then elaborate on what happened with it. For example, I have heard conflicting things about the discretion CYS had back in 2000 when they receive a complaint - did they have the discretion to immediately determine, this is bogus, nothing happened here, we are not investigating? Did they have a duty to conduct interviews? I don't know. But if a report was made someone, almost certainly multiple people, saw the report. Given the hysteria of this case, particularly in 2011, I can certainly see why nobody would willingly come forward to testify that they saw the report, especially since, it it was determined to be unfounded, there is no record of it so they can be pretty certain it can never be found. And if they received it and deemed it unfounded, they know their lives are going to be destroyed if they admit to it. So whoever would come forward now would almost certainly not be the decsion maker but rather someone who knows who the decision maker was. Maybe when the decision maker dies someone will come forward, much like we had to wait for the death of Deep Throat before we found out who it was.
FACT CHECK:
1. Curley and Spanier have testified they didn't contact CYS.
2. Schultz testified that he believed he contacted CYS.
3. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that AM is an unreliable witness who was never in the Lasch Building Locker Room. That's why most people believe that the actual Victim 2 has never been identified.
4. BSH was molested in the PSU showers, just not the extent that he alleged.
5. BSH was molested at Sandusky's house, even though he claimed otherwise.
6. BSH's civil attorney is responsible for the falsehoods in 4 & 5.
That is correct! All parties involved confirmed that the 2001 report from Mike was benign.
Given this, I think he may want to consider giving JZ the go ahead to release his interview with him.
While you may be correct in practice, this is against the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". In your tax return example, while this is how it worked, this is BS. The accuser must PROVE that the accused committed a crime. If the accused can prove they did not, that's great, but the burden should ALWAYS be on the prosecution.First, no. Difficult or impossible to prove a negative e.g. Feds say you didn't file a tax return, you have to prove that you did. So in the face of no hard evidence, what we have are Schultz's vague recollections. Had he said something along the line of "I phoned (so-and-so) on or about (this date)," or "I sent a letter/email to (so-and-so) on or about (this date)," it creates doubt (that the prosecution's contention is correct), which could be raised to the level of reasonable doubt with more detail and evidence/testimony (though falling short of an actual report record).
.
While you may be correct in practice, this is against the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". In your tax return example, while this is how it worked, this is BS. The accuser must PROVE that the accused committed a crime. If the accused can prove they did not, that's great, but the burden should ALWAYS be on the prosecution.
The CSS case is another example of how this concept gets botched in reality.
Not to the extent that people believe. Initially, PSU paid as they would have for any employee, but after a time, the defendants were on their own. When exactly, I don't know. But I'm pretty certain that a big part of their agreeing to a plea was the steep personal cost involved.
So what! No crime was reported to them. Reporting to CYS was to cover PSU's ass, not because they thought Jerry was abusing anybody.Fine, so it wasn't Curley. Shultz conveyed no sense of certainty that he made a report and if it wasn't Curley, who else would it have been?