That diary entry about an exculpatory email needs some context. Here are the 5/1/12 diary entries right before and after it:
Per Fina 5.1.12
Spanier brings everyone in on Saturday, Coble brings Becleher in as replacements, there was a Sandusky file - told her it was sacrosanct and secret; Gets a call on her way to work on Monday from Schultz- have to surrender keys, she's emotional - she may have been sleeping w Shuclttz -
Sees Horvath folder & one for GCS - She thought GCS file might be needed so she decides to bring it to him; thought about the Sandusky file, drawer with lock on it, hadn't seen file before, didn't look at papers but looked through and picked up 20 most incriminating papers & she drives to Schultz' house, she puts 20 in another folder, he takes documents, says thanks; CBaldwin tells her not to get rid of anything; she is now is in contact with Schultz - now she wants immunity - she was interviewed by McCall and Baldwin - separately
Schultz may have presented the papers to get immunity - (Fina got papers from two different sources)
She made a copy for herself before giving to Schultz
Stories are being put together to match each other
Exculpatory 2.26 email is on the top & they came in the same order where he says he thinks they contacted cps
Notes in Schultz hand 98 & 2001, minute details, profound control over 98 investigations - inappropriate at least at most criminal conduct
2001 handwritten note Mon 2.12 mtg with TMC reviewed 98 incident; tmc to confront JS, other consulted with Jo Pa extensively;
Knew about 98 details & psych reports;
All of those diary entries are based on information from Fina, and relate to the physical Schultz file that was given to the AG in late April 2012 (two copies - one from Schultz, one from Belcher)
Take a close look at the full diary entry referring to the exculpatory 2.26 email:
Exculpatory 2.26 email is on the top & they came in the same order where he says he thinks they contacted cps
It seems as though this exculpatory email was "on top" of the stack of document Schultz (i.e., "he") turned over to the AG.
There was exactly one 2/26/2001 email listed in the Freeh Report (Exhibit 5F). That same email (presumably in hard copy form) was provided by Schultz in his 10/31/2012 omnibus motion, at p.48:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130604022401if_/http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/Schultz Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion 10-31-12.pdf
The question now is, why would that email be viewed as exculpatory? It's exculpatory only with respect to Schultz insofar as he is telling Curley he's got the ball to, among other things, report to DPW. (Recall, at the time, Schultz was only charged with perjury and failure to report.)
That email's exculpatory nature might carry weight if that were the only email. But it doesn't carry enough weight when considering subsequent emails that made clear the agreement that reporting to DPW was conditional.