All Things Gary Schultz

The whole response was an exercise in bureaucratic paralysis. All the discussion about contacting "his organizaton" and maybe the "other organization." It's maddening. Like a nightmare out of a Kafka novel. Why didn't they attempt to find the child, immediately?

It wasn't bureaucratic paralysis, though Penn State is a bureaucracy. They began to look at this on the same day it was reported. I'm not convinced that they, initially, thought this was any different that the 1998 incident, except it wasn't the parent or child complaining. That changed when they heard from McQueary.

Instead, Schultz took 10 days to research the 98 case and devise a 3 point plan to handle McQueary's allegation. When he learned that Spanier, Curley, and "Joe" were not comfortable with his plan, he folded like a lawn chair. He was non-confrontational and passive, which is the "Penn State way" according to Vicky Triponey.

(The woman who stood up to Joe Paterno http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/us/triponey-paterno-penn-state/index.html)

The plan was three days after talking to McQueary. I can understand, based on the 1998 experience, why they thought this was nothing too serious, just Sandusky "horsing around," prior to that.

And yes, I can understand not trying to find the identity of the child, and saying, *We should let DPW handle that part. They are the experts.* (Okay, DPW screwed up badly.) If they actually followed the 2/25/01 plan, I wouldn't be too upset. It is a bit slow, but it still gets everything over to the proper authorities, even if a fortnight later.

And even if Paterno was not behind the plan, Curley certainly attempted to give the impression that Paterno was behind it in order to give his alternative plan more authority. That says a lot about how things worked at Penn State, I think.

The change in the plan originated either with Curley, giving the impression that Paterno was in favor of it, or with Paterno. Even if the former, Paterno had to know that there wasn't an investigation, because no investigator talked with him, and he was part of that reporting chain.
 
What happened in the conversation Curley had with Paterno?
Curley must have told Paterno it is way worse than they thought-- what he and Schultz got from McQueary was an explicit report of sexual assault- way beyond what Paterno had allowed himself to hear yet (he did not ask McQueary for details.)
And did he also inform or remind Paterno that there had been an earlier investigation?

How did Paterno respond? Why did Curley become uncomfortable? Was he ordered to keep it in house, or was he told that it was his decision and the entire responsiblity for whatever happened was his?
 
I hope one of them flips. :)

The more the Paterno family continues their public fight to protect Joe's name and now their appeal of the NCAA sanctions it makes me wonder if some of their intention is to ward off Curley & Schultz from laying the blame on JoPA?
 
The more the Paterno family continues their public fight to protect Joe's name and now their appeal of the NCAA sanctions it makes me wonder if some of their intention is to ward off Curley & Schultz from laying the blame on JoPA?

The only guys in that conversation were Curley and Paterno.
 
The only guys in that conversation were Curley and Paterno.

Isn't it possible that the public fight the Paterno family continues to battle may also serve as a warning to anyone that would malign Joe's name in court that they will go after them as well.

The Paterno's do seem to have unlimited interest and funds in their fight to reconstruct JoPA's name, his win record and reputation.

I don't find it unreasonable that they would attempt to warn anyone like Schultz, Curley or Spanier if he gets indited (or anyone else for that matter) not to flip and blame Jo - or lookout here they and their lawyers come.
 
Isn't it possible that the public fight the Paterno family continues to battle may also serve as a warning to anyone that would malign Joe's name in court that they will go after them as well.

The Paterno's do seem to have unlimited interest and funds in their fight to reconstruct JoPA's name, his win record and reputation.

I don't find it unreasonable that they would attempt to warn anyone like Schultz, Curley or Spanier if he gets indited (or anyone else for that matter) not to flip and blame Jo - or lookout here they and their lawyers come.

That's a good point, but as JJ noted earlier, the only people in the conversation were Curley and Paterno, and since Paterno didn't use email (no documentation) and isn't alive to refute it, Curley is free to recall the conversation any way he wants to.

The family's lawyers won't have any way to impeach Curley's recollection, and Schultz (and Spanier as well, if it comes to it) can easily jump on the bandwagon. We've seen from their grand jury testimony that they have no problem conspiring to protect their own interests.

As I mentioned before, it won't be a defense to the perjury charges, but they might be attempting to improve their public image and possibly even deflect their personal liability in civil suits.
 
Well it is a German name. :)

While there is a substantial German ancestry population in the area, I would not attribute Schultz (presumed) ethnicity as a reason for "just following orders." The Germans that were in PA 1683-1860 or so were basically people that were at odds with the powers that be in their homelands. They did not have the "obedience" tradition.

Also, looking at the emails, it wasn't a question of Schultz, "just following orders." He seemed to be an actual participant in the decisions.

I am a bit surprised that it was Spanier, and not Schultz, who would see the "downside." Schultz was at least closer to LE and should have understood the problems.

Make any sense (and back on topic)? :)

Spanier should have been more aware of the ramifications of child sexual abuse, given that he is a trained marriage and family counselor. He should have been aware of reporting requirements, and of the effect such abuse could have on a child's life.
 
I took another look at the Freeh Report today based on something I read on another site, and a few strange things stood out to me.

Exhibit 5E is the note that Freeh attributed to Schultz that reads:
3. Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile
2. Report to Dept of Welfare
1. Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg
*Who's the chair??

This note is unsigned, but Freeh asserts that it is handwritten notes from Schultz. But look at Exhibit 5C, which is on Schultz's letterhead - does the handwriting appear to be very different to anyone else? Without interviewing Schultz, how did Freeh confirm that he wrote 5E?

In earlier discussions, some posters found it strange that Schultz would have to ask who the chair was, based on the business relationship he had with Bob Poole, so the possibility that this wasn't written by Schultz would reopen that discussion.

Also, does anyone have a thought why the note is numbered from 3 to 1? Just seemed very strange at first glance.
 
In earlier discussions, some posters found it strange that Schultz would have to ask who the chair was, based on the business relationship he had with Bob Poole, so the possibility that this wasn't written by Schultz would reopen that discussion.

Also, does anyone have a thought why the note is numbered from 3 to 1? Just seemed very strange at first glance.

The business relationship didn't start until 2002, IIRC. Further, a lot of people don't know about the involvement associates have in boards.

The numbering is 1, 2, 3, in the e-mail.
 
The business relationship didn't start until 2002, IIRC. Further, a lot of people don't know about the involvement associates have in boards.

The numbering is 1, 2, 3, in the e-mail.


But if you look at the handwritten note that is marked as Exhibit 5E, it is ordered 3,2,1, not as you would think an ordered list would be. Was it a list of steps, as in we do #1, then #2, then #3, or a prioritized listing of the options, as in we would prefer to do #1, second choice would be #2, etc?

And as far as the business relationship, I'm not so sure. Spanier conceived of the project in 1995, and the bid was awarded to Pinnacle Development (Schreyer, Poole and Paterno) in 1996 to use the University's logo and marketing for The Village. From what I've read, the nonprofit organization was formed around that time because the planned site was on University property, with Schultz as its treasurer, but they didn't obtain funding for the project until 2002.

Do we have any knowledge of how Freeh determined that the list was written by Schultz?

Edited to add: in checking back, the numbers next to the options were mixed from the handwritten note to the email; talk to the chair went from #3 in the note to #2 in the email, so it seems as if the order may not have mattered.
 
There is some discussion on Fight on State message boards about the emails referenced in the Freeh report, that the emails, particularly in 2B, are out of order date-wise, leading to speculation that they have been edited, thereby changing the intent and what they mean.
 
There is some discussion on Fight on State message boards about the emails referenced in the Freeh report, that the emails, particularly in 2B, are out of order date-wise, leading to speculation that they have been edited, thereby changing the intent and what they mean.

That can occur with just including text from a previous e-mail in a response e-mail.
 
Schultz's attorneys ask Penn State to hold off on renaming the "Gary Schultz Child Care Center".

In a letter to the board obtained by the Centre Daily Times, Schultz attorney Thomas Farrell asks the board to wait until after Schultz's trial "both for the sake of Penn State and in adherence to the American tradition of presuming citizens innocent until and unless proven guilty after a fair trial."
"The renaming of the Child Care Center will unfairly and precipitously paint Gary as guilty before trial," the letter says.

 
Schultz's attorneys ask Penn State to hold off on renaming the "Gary Schultz Child Care Center".

In a letter to the board obtained by the Centre Daily Times, Schultz attorney Thomas Farrell asks the board to wait until after Schultz's trial "both for the sake of Penn State and in adherence to the American tradition of presuming citizens innocent until and unless proven guilty after a fair trial."
"The renaming of the Child Care Center will unfairly and precipitously paint Gary as guilty before trial," the letter says.


He's already guilty of believing a naked man touching a child's gentials is not necessarily a sexual act. That's enough to pull his name from a child care center, in my opinion.
 
He's already guilty of believing a naked man touching a child's gentials is not necessarily a sexual act. That's enough to pull his name from a child care center, in my opinion.

There is no way on earth that they could even consider leaving his name attached to it. If it was a science lab, or an administration building, the board might have more time to hold off on a decision, but the irony of a Child Care Center named after him is absolutely too much.
 
Trustees today decided to table the discussion of renaming the Gary Schultz Child Care Center, after a reading of his attorney's letter:
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/09/14/3336056/penn-state-trustees-tackling-state.html

There really has been a vast difference in how the board has handled Schultz and Curley compared to their handling of Paterno. Like dismantling the statue, I would have thought renaming the Center was a no-brainer.
 
Schultz does not need to be convicted to have his name removed. The naming is solely up to the Board.
 
Update: Former Penn State administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley ask court for separate trials

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/09/17/3339597/former-penn-state-administrator.html#storylink=cpy

I'm not surprised - they tried presenting a unified front at the Grand Jury and ended up indicted. Separate trials allow each to try to minimize his own role in the University's handling of 2001.

The good news for the public is that in separate trials, the attorneys for Curley may present evidence implicating Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, and Schultz' attorneys will do the same towards Curley and the others. This may be our best opportunity to put the pieces together to get as much of the true story as we ever will, if we can read between the lines.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
963
Total visitors
1,105

Forum statistics

Threads
589,933
Messages
17,927,859
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top