Not really. In this case, Courtney recommended that the matter be reported to the appropriate authority. Schultz’s file noted as much. Courtney’s testimony on this is also very clear.
That plan was unilaterally changed after Tim met with Joe. The plan originally did not include speaking with Jerry. Joe’s advice was to tell everyone, including Jerry. Tim, believing he had a rehash of the 1998 incident, did not think abuse had occurred. Given the 1998 incident was fully investigated and no charges were lodged against Jerry, Tim made a decision that he likely regrets today. He made a judgment because he believed this was another instance of horseplay.
Many on this board know Tim personally. Do any of you believe he would knowingly allow someone he thought was abusing children to run around just so bad publicity could be avoided?
Anthony, to answer your question, of course not!
I think it's really important to emphasize something else in your post. "Joe's advice was to tell everyone".
Tim wrote,
"I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received...."
This change did not exclude telling anyone. It merely included Jerry among those to be told. For Freeh's conclusion to be true, Tim's email would have to read, "I am having trouble going to
anyone, but the person involved....." This is a critical distinction that, IMO, changes everything!
I would also point out that in Tim's email he said that he had been giving it further thought before he went to Joe. And in his email, he repeatedly said "I". I am having trouble. I am uncomfortable. Not once did he suggest that "Joe is uncomfortable" or that "We are uncomfortable." So I don't think you can even conclude anything about Joe, other than that he affirmed Tim's concerns.
However, as it relates to how "unilateral" this was, I also think it is important to point out that the
option to involve DPW was referenced three times.
First by Schultz, after meeting with Joe:
-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
Second, by Tim in his email:
"...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...."
Third, by Spanier:
"....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. But that can be assessed down the road...."
Two and three occur after meeting with Mike. Each reference was in the context of an if/then scenario, and hinged upon what Jerry would or would not do in the future. None had anything to do with what Jerry had already done. So I don't even know how unilateral Tim's decision was.
There's not a single reference to the boy in the shower with Jerry in any of their written communication. Had they believed this boy had been abused, he would have been the elephant in the room. Jerry's future behavior would have had no bearing on their decision to involve DPW.
I'll repeat...and yes, I know Tim pretty well. And no, he's neither confirmed nor refuted my assertion...their focus was prevention! They saw what happened in '98. They also saw how "vulnerable" PSU could have been, had V6's mom filed a civil suit. What happened in 2001 was a wake up call. They understood it was important to prevent future he said/he said situations. There's no evidence at all pointing to their being concerned that the boy Mike saw had been abused.
Anthony, what's the real reason Penn State hasn't challenged the narrative?
