I don't think he would have been shocked if he was aware of Victim 6/B. K.
He would have had time to process it by the conversation with Curley.
I've posted before that what MM interpreted as 'shock', in that he said JP slumped back in his chair and looked stunned, could also be that JP WAS stunned, to learn that here these allegations were again after 1998, when he knew JS had been investigated and hopefully scared off abusing children, even though he was not charged. JS was at least out of the football program and JP thought his own involvement was over. Now, here is it again and happened in HIS program's quarters with an independent witness that did still work for him...it would be known, discussed, what to do to get it away from me and my program?...who can I trust to handle it? Why now, why me??
To me, this is just as plausible a scenario as him being just 'shocked'. IMO
I have been wondering the same thing JJ. I also noted the wording in Curley's e-mail - "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe"; as if the second thoughts about the plan occurred before the conversation with Paterno.
This whole thing is horrific - Central PA Gothic to be sure - but I wish I knew exactly how this happened. In any case, it was a horrible decision and a terrible lack of judgment by people who should have known better, especially if, as we now have heard, they sought legal advice before choosing Plan B.
BBM - However, even the way you put it with the 2nd thoughts by Curley coming first (about changing the plan) and then the convo with Paterno possibly running those changes by him, he still indicates no argument from Paterno about the changes and indicates he is on board, as J. J. also said.
Well, I think you need evidence that he knew. It is possible, certainly, but possible isn't the same as, "It happened."
I fully understand that. I never stated 'it happened' this way. Did you and others miss that in my post it was explained this was a process of deduction I was making from the available information and that it was IMO? I think that's allowed here, right?
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8106668&postcount=66"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky Trial #12 (GUILTY-post verdict discussion)[/ame]
BigCat: How would Schultz' atty have gotten those 2001 emails?
In 2004 there was a system change at PSU. Spanier thought that all the data (well, at least the emails) prior to that had been lost. Then, recently, it was determined that it was recoverable. So, it had been backed up prior to installing the new system.
And, it was turned over to the Atty Gen. That's why Spanier is now suing PSU. He wants his email traffic for the years 1998-2004. So he can refresh his memory when he cooperates with the Freeh investigation, he said.
So, Atty Gen has the emails. That man who was fired in the past few months over some related issue might have had them--at least Curley's--perhaps printed out. What does Freeh have and where did he get it?
And how would anybody's atty have the emails in question at this juncture?
From their clients? It's very possible various ones involved, seems Schultz most possible since he supposedly has the 'secret file', copied all the emails written between the 3 of them, as a record and protection in the future. They all obviously knew this was a very sticky situation and might come back to bite them in the butt later on, which it did and has.
Been there, done that...when I was a state admin, used to copy a lot of emails between my boss and myself regarding various cases being worked on in the district offices, as he waved with the wind and HIS bosses, and liked to delete his emails so he could have deniability. I did it for the same reasons, a record and protection/proof of what he had earlier agreed to and/or told me to do.
