No, but a couple of them sure thought to pick up the phone and call a lawyer on a Sunday morning for research on suspected child abuse didn’t they?
You are mislead.
Have a good day.
Mike, after Tim and Gary spoke with JVP, but before they spoke with you, Schultz made this note:
-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare
To conclude that by "a problem" Schultz was referring to child sexual abuse, one has to also conclude that he thought involving DPW was necessary if JS denied he had sexually abused a child, but not necessary if he confessed to sexually abusing a child. Since that is ridiculous on its face, the more reasonable conclusion is that, by "problem", he meant 'boundary issues'. Would you agree?
On 2/25/01, which I believe is after he and Tim met with you, Schultz wrote the following:
1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d
And 2/26/01, Schultz wrote:
Tim, I’m assuming you’ve got the ball to 1) talk with the subject ASAP regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility;
If you had clearly conveyed to Tim and Gary that child sexual abuse was what you had witnessed, is it reasonable to conclude that he would be considering under what circumstances JS would continue to enjoy guest privileges? What is the "future appropriate use of the University facility" for a suspected child molester?
* I have long held that his use of the word 'alone' speaks volumes here. He was, I believe, concerned about a potential he said/he said scenario in the future. It would only take one angry mother to file a civil suit and drag PSU into it.
On 2/28/01, part of Tim's email reads as follows:
I would indicate that we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups.
If, after meeting with you, Tim felt a child might have been abused, is it reasonable to conclude that involving DPW would depend on whether or not Jerry was "cooperative"?
In Spanier's response on the same day, he writes:
The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.
If Spanier was under the impression that a child might have already been abused, wouldn't the "downside" relating to his reporting the matter to the authorities have been the elephant in the room? What possible difference would it make if Jerry "heard" and acted upon their message or not? Why was Spanier operating under the impression that "only" a future shower incident could result in a "downside"?
Did you fail to convey the seriousness of the matter because, in 2001, you weren't sure yourself? Did they simply refuse to believe you saw what you said you saw? And if you did see Sandusky sexually abusing a child, why did you let the matter die?
