The 2001 Coverup

[J. J. in Phila]

"The cover up of the 2001 incident began on 2/26-2/27/01."
Yes!

"Another question was, after they talked to McQueary, why did they never contemplate actually reporting this to the police? Why were they focused solely on DPW?"


Maybe: If they reported to police the 1998 file would be opened. But DPW destroys their records in unfounded cases, so they didn't have a file, and probably have a lot of staff turnover.
Harmon (police) might have advised them to keep it out of his office if it wasn't serious.

The knew the file was there, and they knew it was investigated, with no charges; why would they care if it was reopened? The police and DA already knew about it.

Besides, higher law enforcement wouldn't be happy that they waited 2 weeks. DPW seems to have a looser time constraint. And perhaps they thought that DPW was responsible for dropping the 1998 case so was the less dangerous agency.

Well, so did the DA's Office. They only interviewed McQueary on 2/20-2/22, so it wouldn't be that big of a delay; it wouldn't be a statute of limitation issue.

They didn't go back to Courtney for fresh advice.

Courtney had some TSM connection, right?

Schultz was away (Australia) for a few days at some point, maybe when the email coding started up, and maybe he was the only one smart enough and neutral enough to have reported a crime. Without him present, the others folded?

He was on board with it, when Curley suggested it. The only guy finding a downside was Spanier. Schultz only insisted on informing TSM.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"On 2/27/01, after a meeting with Paterno, Curley becomes "uncomfortable" with talking to anyone, except for Sandusky. When they made the plan, they knew the serious of the incident."

I thought the language was that he was uncomfortable talking to everyone but Sandusky. Which has a different meaning that uncomfortable talking to anyone but Sandusky. The first implies, to me, that he is uncomfortable leaving Sandusky in the dark. The second implies that he wants to cover it up.

I apologize if I am wrong about that. it would change my opinion, but I have had a hard time accessing the exhibits to the Freeh report. My slightly fuzzy memory says that the narrative of the report used anyone, but the email itself says everyone.

Just going back to this. I reread the email and it looks like Curley added, in talking to Sandusky, to ask if he had a problem and arrange to get him help. That looks like an add on, but they took DPW off when they added it.

 

[rlc]

but I believe the chair of the SM board was Bob Poole, who was also the CEO of Poole Anderson Construction, who had been contracted to build multiple projects for PSU, but also for the $10 million + project for the Second Mile, which received a 3million grant signed off on by Corbett.

He had more to lose personally than anyone if TSM was suspected of enabling a pedophile.

More interesting information: in 2001, he was named a distinguished alumni fellow at PSU. He has funded several endowments and sits on the board of either the Honors College or the Business School, or both. He is also the CEO of S & A Homes.

This all makes him seem like a wonderful guy, and I am sure he is, but it also suggests, given the above-referenced note, that it may be worth looking into.

 

[Rlaub44]

but I believe the chair of the SM board was Bob Poole, who was also the CEO of Poole Anderson Construction, who had been contracted to build multiple projects for PSU, but also for the $10 million + project for the Second Mile, which received a 3million grant signed off on by Corbett.

He had more to lose personally than anyone if TSM was suspected of enabling a pedophile.

More interesting information: in 2001, he was named a distinguished alumni fellow at PSU. He has funded several endowments and sits on the board of either the Honors College or the Business School, or both. He is also the CEO of S & A Homes.

This all makes him seem like a wonderful guy, and I am sure he is, but it also suggests, given the above-referenced note, that it may be worth looking into.

You may be onto something. When I read the quote in Schultz's e-mail that Curley "had the ball" to contact "the chair of the Charitable Organization", I just assumed they were referencing Dr. Raykovitz, especially since we know that Curley did brief him on the incident (although apparently a quite watered-down version).

These men already had a relationship with Poole, and being that Courtney was already in the know and had ties to both organization, I wonder if Poole could have been who they meant by "the chair" in their super-secret code.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You may be onto something. When I read the quote in Schultz's e-mail that Curley "had the ball" to contact "the chair of the Charitable Organization", I just assumed they were referencing Dr. Raykovitz, especially since we know that Curley did brief him on the incident (although apparently a quite watered-down version).

These men already had a relationship with Poole, and being that Courtney was already in the know and had ties to both organization, I wonder if Poole could have been who they meant by "the chair" in their super-secret code.

No, look at the transcript I posted of the "plan" of the 2/25/11 meeting. Schultz doesn't know who the chair of TSM's board is. He had to leave a note to himself that he had to ask.

 

[rlc]

No, look at the transcript I posted of the "plan" of the 2/25/11 meeting. Schultz doesn't know who the chair of TSM's board is. He had to leave a note to himself that he had to ask.

It does seem odd that he would have to ask who the chair is given all of these connections, which makes me wonder how many of the connections existed prior to 2/26/2001. Was the distinguished alumni fellow after the coverup? The Board positions at Penn State? The awarding of the contract from Second Mile to Poole Anderson Construction?

 

[rlc]

This article was linked in the TSM thread.

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/12/05/120511-news-paterno-business-1-5/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It does seem odd that he would have to ask who the chair is given all of these connections, which makes me wonder how many of the connections existed prior to 2/26/2001. Was the distinguished alumni fellow after the coverup? The Board positions at Penn State? The awarding of the contract from Second Mile to Poole Anderson Construction?

Not really. I've had relatives that didn't know everything that I've done, or been involved with. More people that know me probably know that I write a blog on Gricar than that I was on the board of a local community health center for eight years.

Remember that the BoT was not a politically powerful entity. I'm also not too sure if Schultz would have direct contact with the board.

 

[BigCat]

Thanks for all the great responses to the questions I posed. A timeline of the 2001 cover up is beginning to come into focus in my mind.

I agree that the cover up began somewhere around 2/26 or 2/27 for Curley and Schultz.

I still don't know what to make of Paterno's role. When did he begin to cover up the incident? Was it immediately after he spoke with McQueary? I know he reported the incident to his superiors, but if he didn't convey to them the seriousness of the allegation is that considered Paterno covering up the incident or Paterno just being a doddering old man.

Here's what he told Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post about his response to MM's allegation:

“He told me what he saw, and I said, what? He said it, well, looked like inappropriate, or fondling, I’m not quite sure exactly how he put it. I said you did what you had to do. It’s my job now to figure out what we want to do. So I sat around. It was a Saturday. Waited till Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors and I said: ‘Hey, we got a problem, I think. Would you guys look into it?’ Cause I didn’t know, you know. We never had, until that point, 58 years I think, I had never had to deal with something like that. And I didn’t feel adequate.”

Freeh called the bolded part a "very critical, telling statement". I think he's right. What was there to figure out?

 

[BigCat]

It does seem odd that he would have to ask who the chair is given all of these connections, which makes me wonder how many of the connections existed prior to 2/26/2001. Was the distinguished alumni fellow after the coverup? The Board positions at Penn State? The awarding of the contract from Second Mile to Poole Anderson Construction?

Paterno went into business with Poole in 2002.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7320780/penn-state-nittany-lions-joe-paterno-did-business-leaders-second-mile-according-report

I'm not sure it means anything other than the wealthy in a small community are likely to be connected.

If Poole actually had any clue that Sandusky was a pedophile, I think he would have distanced himself from the Second Mile as fast as possible.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Paterno went into business with Poole in 2002.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7320780/penn-state-nittany-lions-joe-paterno-did-business-leaders-second-mile-according-report

I'm not sure it means anything other than the wealthy in a small community are likely to be connected.

If Poole actually had any clue that Sandusky was a pedophile, I think he would have distanced himself from the Second Mile as fast as possible.

That knocks him out for influencing something in 2001.

 

[rlc]

Did you guys notice in that link that Schultz was the treasurer for the nonprofit founded to develop that retirement community? So in that particular deal, we have Schultz, Paterno, and Second Mile board members.

Like you said, it could mean just that the wealthy are connected in that area, and involved in the boards. Or it could mean that after they all covered up an incident together over football, they trusted each other enough to do business.

About Poole, the first link I saw said he had been the chairman of the board of TSM for 17 years. I'm not sure it's possible to say he would have distanced himself if he had known, because at some point, he did find out, and he stayed. It does not matter how many times I read this stuff, I keep forgetting dates, but I thought there were references to at least one incident confirmed to have been reported to the board?

 

[rlc]

I still don't know what to make of Paterno's role. When did he begin to cover up the incident? Was it immediately after he spoke with McQueary? I know he reported the incident to his superiors, but if he didn't convey to them the seriousness of the allegation is that considered Paterno covering up the incident or Paterno just being a doddering old man.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I do not believe the lack of immediate action is an indication of intent to cover up. The mind is a funny thing. When I heard about the Colorado shooting, for example, my first reaction was not "oh, those poor children" even though I had been told that one of the victims was a child. My initial reaction was disbelief, trying to fit what I was hearing into a reasonable scenario where it was not true (publicity stunt?). My second reaction was to go through that mental phone book to think of who I knew in Colorado, could they have been at a midnight showing of Batman. It's the same reaction I have to every beyond comprehension type of tragedy. Disbelief, followed by starting with how it affects the people closest to me and working my way out. If someone I knew well had been responsible for such horrific acts, I think I would get caught up in the disbelief stage for quite a long time, and probably end up returning there every time I got to that next stage of processing it. I can see how that type of processing could lead to inaction, or underreaction, for a day or so. There would be so many things going through your mind all at once. It has to be a misunderstanding--couldn't there have been something else he was doing in the shower that looked like that. Followed by the implications of it--he was with my kids, what about his kids, what about my players, will he go to jail, what will this do his wife, what will this do to the Second Mile, what will this do to Penn State football.

I think the cover-up began, as J.J. said, around 2/26. The problem is, the paper trail ends at that time, so we have no clue the who/how/why of the cover-up. I'm not buying it was about football. I think the culture at PSU was quite different from what it was made out to be, and if this had been reported in 2001, fans would have rallied behind victims, and if there had been any fallout to us, fans would have rallied behind the team. I think the motivator has to be something more personal to the individuals involved. That could be something as simple as Paterno protecting his image of the leader of a program of the highest integrity, or it could be something bigger.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I do not believe the lack of immediate action is an indication of intent to cover up.

I have to agree. Paterno talked to Curley the very next day, Sunday, and Curley and Schultz were on the phone with Courtney that night. Schultz was talking about the 1998 incident on the next day, Monday. I don't think Paterno or Curley realized it was a sexual assault until after they interviewed McQueary.

I think the cover-up began, as J.J. said, around 2/26. The problem is, the paper trail ends at that time, so we have no clue the who/how/why of the cover-up. I'm not buying it was about football.

On 2/25/01, this only tangentially involved football. It happened in a facility used by the football program and it was witnessed by someone in the football program. If this had been a fight between two visitors in the building, that McQueary saw, it would be the same situation.

I think the motivator has to be something more personal to the individuals involved. That could be something as simple as Paterno protecting his image of the leader of a program of the highest integrity, or it could be something bigger.

I an understand how they would have wanted Sandusky to get treatment and how that would have been "humane." That would not preclude finding the victim and reporting it to DPW. They might have gone easier on him, because he came forward.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BigCate posted this on another thread: http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/20...ion-dept-probes-sandusky-case/ai2lgwm/?page=1

Could they have been covering up that they didn't report the incident to the feds in 1998?

http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/20...ion-dept-probes-sandusky-case/ai2lgwm/?page=1

 

[BigCat]

BigCate posted this on another thread: http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/20...ion-dept-probes-sandusky-case/ai2lgwm/?page=1

Could they have been covering up that they didn't report the incident to the feds in 1998?

http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/20...ion-dept-probes-sandusky-case/ai2lgwm/?page=1

What if Schultz says that he did tell Harmon about McQueary's allegation? There is the email in which Schultz asks Harmon if there is a record of the 98 investigation. Plus, if anyone had the incentive to cover up McQueary's allegation it was the University police since they failed to notify the feds in 98. It did appear that Schultz's attorney was laying the groundwork, in the prelimary hearing, to attack Harmon's credibility during the trial.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What if Schultz says that he did tell Harmon about McQueary's allegation? There is the email in which Schultz asks Harmon if there is a record of the 98 investigation. Plus, if anyone had the incentive to cover up McQueary's allegation it was the University police since they failed to notify the feds in 98. It did appear that Schultz's attorney was laying the groundwork, in the prelimary hearing, to attack Harmon's credibility during the trial.

Schultz claimed he didn't in grand jury, so it is still perjury. Remember, the major crime Schultz is facing is that he lied during his testimony. The failure to report is 90 days and a $500 fine, maximum. Further, that one has a statute of limitation problem (and I'd expect to be dismissed).

I'm also not clear on who would be responsible for a Cleary Act report; it might be Schultz or Spanier. It is punishable by a fine or loss of funds to the University, not personal liability; it is not a criminal violation.

 

[nittanylioness234]

I originally thought about naming this thread "horsing around" and just keeping track of all the time I've seen Joe Paterno quoted using the term. Instead, I'm placing this under the larger topic of the 2001 coverup, because I think it's important to understand where the term "horsing around" originated.

Here a some of the ocassions I have found where Paterno used the term just within the last two years:









Spanier, Schultz, and Curley all said they were told that McQueary witnessed Sandusky horsing around with a boy in the shower. But John McQueary, MM's father, testifed his son would never use that term: "That's an archaic term that my dad would have said to me. I don't think I would have used it, and haven't used it, and I don't think Mike knows it."

Is Joe Paterno old enough to be John McQueary's father? Probably so. It seems like he is suggesting Paterno originated the term. I'm sure MM told him that he never said it.

When Paterno met with Cynthia Baldwin on January 3, 2011, she noted that Paterno said that MM saw Sandusky "horsing around" with a kid in the shower (pg 83 of the Freeh report). She made no note of "fondling or doing something of a sexual in nature" as Paterno testified in front of the grand jury.

So what did Paterno tell Curley and Schultz when they met them in February 11, 2001? Did he tell them that MM said that he saw Sandusky horsing around with a boy in the shower? And 10 days later, when Curley and Schultz met with MM, did MM then tell them that he witnessed something "extremely sexual in nature" as he testifed he said? If so, Curley and Schultz must have been blindsided. They've been sitting on a rape allegation for TEN DAYS. It was only after the meeting with MM that Curley and Schultz began using "code" (Freeh report, pg 73) in their emails. The coverup only began after they realized Ol' Joe did not convey to them the seriousness of the allegation.

If this scenario is correct, Paterno did do the right thing by testifying truthfully in front of the grand jury; however, he left Curley and Schultz holding the bag. They're left with this ridiculous "horsing around" story that is not believable. They deserve no sympathy, however. If they were willing to coverup child abuse to protect JoePa's legacy, they've getting their just desserts.[/QUOT


I found another reference to "horseplay"... in Seasock's report (pg 3):
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

Maybe the PSU people read or learned of this report, and that's why they thought it was a matter of "horsing around" rather than rape. Maybe they, like Lauro, never knew of the Chambers report. Who DID get the Chambers report? Did Gricar even have it?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I found another reference to "horseplay"... in Seasock's report (pg 3):
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

Maybe the PSU people read or learned of this report, and that's why they thought it was a matter of "horsing around" rather than rape. Maybe they, like Lauro, never knew of the Chambers report. Who DID get the Chambers report? Did Gricar even have it?

The police report indicated the Chambers Report was attached to the file. It would be impossible to read the file and not know that the Chambers Report existed.

 

[BigCat]

I originally thought about naming this thread "horsing around" and just keeping track of all the time I've seen Joe Paterno quoted using the term. Instead, I'm placing this under the larger topic of the 2001 coverup, because I think it's important to understand where the term "horsing around" originated.

Here a some of the ocassions I have found where Paterno used the term just within the last two years:

Spanier, Schultz, and Curley all said they were told that McQueary witnessed Sandusky horsing around with a boy in the shower. But John McQueary, MM's father, testifed his son would never use that term: "That's an archaic term that my dad would have said to me. I don't think I would have used it, and haven't used it, and I don't think Mike knows it."

Is Joe Paterno old enough to be John McQueary's father? Probably so. It seems like he is suggesting Paterno originated the term. I'm sure MM told him that he never said it.

When Paterno met with Cynthia Baldwin on January 3, 2011, she noted that Paterno said that MM saw Sandusky "horsing around" with a kid in the shower (pg 83 of the Freeh report). She made no note of "fondling or doing something of a sexual in nature" as Paterno testified in front of the grand jury.

So what did Paterno tell Curley and Schultz when they met them in February 11, 2001? Did he tell them that MM said that he saw Sandusky horsing around with a boy in the shower? And 10 days later, when Curley and Schultz met with MM, did MM then tell them that he witnessed something "extremely sexual in nature" as he testifed he said? If so, Curley and Schultz must have been blindsided. They've been sitting on a rape allegation for TEN DAYS. It was only after the meeting with MM that Curley and Schultz began using "code" (Freeh report, pg 73) in their emails. The coverup only began after they realized Ol' Joe did not convey to them the seriousness of the allegation.

If this scenario is correct, Paterno did do the right thing by testifying truthfully in front of the grand jury; however, he left Curley and Schultz holding the bag. They're left with this ridiculous "horsing around" story that is not believable. They deserve no sympathy, however. If they were willing to coverup child abuse to protect JoePa's legacy, they've getting their just desserts.[/QUOT


I found another reference to "horseplay"... in Seasock's report (pg 3):
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

Maybe the PSU people read or learned of this report, and that's why they thought it was a matter of "horsing around" rather than rape. Maybe they, like Lauro, never knew of the Chambers report. Who DID get the Chambers report? Did Gricar even have it?

Interesting. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.