BOMBSHELL: Exculpatory Evidence Removed From Schultz File
- Thread starter mathprof
- Start date
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.
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).
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.
Why wasn't the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove no report was made?
Wasn't part of the situation that Schultz went out of the country shortly after the meeting with Tim and Spanier where they had decided to report? While he was away, he assumed the report was going to be made. When he came back, the decision had been made to confront JS first, and to go to TMS. Perhaps he was not clear that a report had not been made, so he figured it had been at some point.
I am 100% certain that they did not know that they were dealing with a crime. They handled it in a way fitting the report that was made to them by McQ at the time.
I do not understand why the involved parties do not hold any animus toward Jack R. and TSM. From the saga as we now know it, I (for what that's worth!) place the blame squarely on Jack. R. for not reporting it further as he was mandated.
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.
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.
To say nothing about the toll on Tim's health and I believe Gary's wife?
Given this, I think he may want to consider giving JZ the go ahead to release his interview with him.
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.
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!
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.
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
No bombshell will explode in this case, no matter its payload. The BOT has made sure of that
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.
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.
And there were bombs that exploded years after being dropped. or that to happen there still had to be a functional detonator that could be tripped. Here we've got a fuse, but no sense that it works.
Blogposts are not intended to be my daily diary
Ralph Cipriano contacted McChesney about her diary and she didn't response. I don't have any particular reason to contact her because Ralph authenticated the diary. That's all I need.
Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are adults who can read. It's not my job to contact their legal teams.
I've been in touch with Gary and now he is pissed off because he was certain that CYS was contacted in 2001.
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.
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.
I hope the documents are found and that they prove to be exculpatory. As you said, we'll see.
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).
I appreciate the discussion.
BTW, I have been enjoying retirement immensely. I've been traveling (Montana, Hawaii, Bahamas) and doing quite a bit of fishing and hunting. It is still bow season here in Maryland, but no Sunday hunting where I live.
It's a good day to check trail cameras, move firewood, and get caught up on other stuff.
Cheers!
BTW, I have been enjoying retirement immensely. I've been traveling (Montana, Hawaii, Bahamas) and doing quite a bit of fishing and hunting. It is still bow season here in Maryland, but no Sunday hunting where I live.
It's a good day to check trail cameras, move firewood, and get caught up on other stuff.
Cheers!
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.
Last edited:
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.
Okay, pretty obvious that PSU isn't producing them voluntarily. Appears that they are no longer relevant to the Schultz's and Curley's legal cases. PSU has repeatedly and steadfastly maintained that it is not subject to PA's right-to-know legislation. So, I'll stick to my position that it will take a very large checkbook or quite a bit of luck.
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.
For a lot of reasons, some of which you stated, depending on individual recollection isn't likely to yield anything. And how would it be done? How does one get CYS to circulate a broadside asking for anyone with recollection of a report related to the 2001 incident to step forward?
Possibly better venue is to search records, dependent on CYS's retention requirements. There are legal requirements that some documents be retained forever. Don't know if that's the case here. Even so, what would be the legal basis for compelling CYS to undertake a search, assuming that it hasn't already been done?
Ok , I agree. So why then would Jerry lie about the boy’s identity, and nonsensically continue that lie even after AM turned on him?
it should only be a couple of months until he is free and clear. Given what Gary has already been through, I would advise him to wait until he is in the clear.
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.
Okay, the crime is not filing a report or tax return. The prosecution states that all relevant files and databases have be searched and no evidence of the documents was found. As the defense you can: 1) provide your own documentary evidence; 2) say that you did, without providing any of your own evidence to the contrary; 3) let the statement go unchallenged; or 4) challenge the prosecution to prove that a search was conducted.
If you choose 1) and have compelling evidence, you win. If you choose 2) or 3) you find yourself in Schulz's situation, not an enviable one as subsequent events have proven. If you choose 4) you'd better hope that the prosecution lied or was guilty of gross malfeasance in conducting the search. Otherwise, you've invited them to make a presentation of just how exhaustive their search was and you are totally fvcked.
Your choice, counselor.
Tim and Gary were represented by separate lawyers (Caroline Roberto and Tom Farrell) both of whom were referred to them by Cynthia Baldwin.
Attorneys fees and related expenses were paid by PSU through their insurance carrier and such costs are disclosed, albeit bundled, in the footnotes of PSU audited financial statements over 7 years.
to the best of my knowledge, PSU did not cover related Public Relations expenses incurred by Curley and Schultz.
