Here's another set of questions:
1. When you wrote, "The decision not to contact authorities was made final two weeks later in a flurry of e-mails among Curley, Schultz and then university president Graham B. Spanier," did you actually read those e-mails before you went off the deep accusatory end?
After all, Schultz's hand written notes for a meeting on 2/25/01 include the steps that are to be taken concerning Sandusky: "3) Tell chair of Board of Second Mile 2) Report to Dept. of Welfare. 1) Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg who's the chair??"
2. Is there anything in those notes that indicates Schultz, Curley and Spanier decided not to report to the Department of Welfare?
The next day's e-mail from Schultz to Curley says: "Tim, I'm assuming that you've got the ball to 1) talk with the subject ASAP regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility; 2) contacting the chair of the Charitable Organization; and 3) contacting the Dept. of Welfare."
3. Is there anything in that e-mail, which indicates that Schultz, Curley, and Spanier had made the decision not to report to authorities?
4. Again, I ask, did you actually read the material you reported on?
Readers who actually think about what they are reading will have noticed that Schultz's notes for 2/25/01 and his e-mail of 2/26/01 contain no reference to any confession by Jerry Sandusky. They simply state a plan of action, which includes reporting to the Department of Welfare--as Pennsylvania State law requires. To that extent, these notes and e-mail actually sever the link that Messrs. Roebuck and McCoy attempt to create between Schultz's notes of 2/12/01 and the "flurry of e-mails" two weeks later which "made final" their decision not to report Sandusky to the authorities.
In fact, it's Curley's e-mail to Schultz and Spanier on 2/27/01 which reintroduces the idea of a confession by Sandusky. As will be shown below, Curley is uncomfortable about going to everyone but Sandusky, "the person involved." Here's the relevant portion of Curley's e-mail:
"After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday--I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. 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. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel the responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] 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. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?"
Curley's e-mail not only reintroduces the idea of a confession by Sandusky, but also implies that if Sandusky agrees to get professional help the Department of Welfare would not be notified. Spanier and Schultz not only agree with Curley's proposal, but also praise it for being "humane."
Thus, all three seemed prepared to violate Pennsylvania's law to report allegations of sexual abuse if Sandusky admitted his problem and agreed to seek professional help. Presumably, that plan was designed to prevent more "incidents" like those of '98 and '01 while rescuing a friend. (I condemn this approach, but understand it.)
In fact, Spanier admits: "The only downside for us is if the message isn't "heard' and acted upon, and we become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road."
But, again, I must ask: What is the probability that Sandusky will confess and agree to professional help. I believe that it was a lead pipe cinch that Sandusky would not confess.
Consequently, if Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schultz stick to Curley's revised plan, , these officials must report McQueary's allegation to the Department of Welfare when Sandusky fails to confess.
Yet, that's not the conclusion reached by the authors of the Freeh Report. In its grotesquely erroneous "gotcha" moment, the report asserts: "A reasonable conclusion from Spanier's email statement that "[t]he only downside for us is if the message isn't "heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it" is that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were agreeing not to report Sandusky's activity."