Emails and Agendas

So now we have versions of four emails leaked by someone to CNN. I suspect the leak came from a civil attorney for one of the victims from something told to him by a contact with the Freeh investigation. The email text is not exact but it has added fuel to the anti PSU/Paterno bonfire started by the media in the wake of the Grand Jury Presentment of Nov 5 2011. Since that time PSU has been on the defensive - despite the Board of Trustees capitulation and surrender without a shot.
The media is taking the emails as proof of a coverup and complicity of Joe Paterno. "How could they know that pedophile Sandusky raped a boy in the PSU showers and then think it humane to ban JS from PSU without reporting it to the authorities" is the general theme.
It seems these email leaks most benefit civil attorneys in settlement talks and in their support for the AG's theme. PSU knew of a dangerous pedophile and covered it up.

This overlooked information is quite informative. and it's the first time I've seen it mentioned.

The documents, the sources say, show that former university President Graham Spanier and others discussed whether they were obligated to tell authorities about a 2001 allegation involving a late-night encounter in a Penn State shower room between Sandusky and a young boy, both of whom were naked. The documents allegedly show that university officials even did legal research on whether such conduct might be a crime.

Why would Spanier, Schultz, and Curley do legal research on their obligation to report if they were going to cover up knowledge of a crime? It seems quite obvious that they took the vague report of McQueary seriously to see if what he reported to them required them to report it outside of PSU. This all comes back to what MM said to Joe, Tim and Gary. And it's evident his report did not make them believe it was credible or serious.

So first let's take a look at the summary of the email's content as presented by CNN.
This first email outlines a plan

In an alleged e-mail dated February 26, 2001, Schultz writes to Curley that he assumes Curley's "got the ball" about a three-part plan to "talk with the subject asap regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility," ... "contacting the chair of the charitable organization" and "contacting the Department of Welfare,"

This second email revises that plan 

The next evening, February 27, Curley allegedly writes to Spanier. Schultz, who's out of the office for two weeks, is copied. Curley writes: "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," Curley writes he'd be "more comfortable" meeting with Sandusky himself and telling him they know about the 2001 incident and -- according to a source with knowledge of the case -- refers to another shower incident with a boy in 1998 that was investigated by police, but never resulted in charges against Sandusky. Curley writes to Penn State's president Spanier that he wants to meet with Sandusky, tell him there's "a problem," and that "we want to assist the individual to get professional help." if Sandusky "is cooperative," Penn State "would work with him" to tell Second Mile. If not, Curley states, the university will inform both Second Mile and outside authorities. adds that he intends to inform Sandusky that his "guests" won't be allowed to use Penn State facilities anymore. "What do you think of this approach?"

The third email is Spaniers agreement to the revised plan

About two hours later, Spanier responded to Curley in another e-mail and copied Schultz. Spanier allegedly called the plan "acceptable", but worries whether it's the right thing to do, according to two sources. "The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier purportedly wrote. "But that can be assessed down the down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed," he adds.

and the final leaked email indicates Schultz agreeing to the revised plan

The next afternoon, Schultz allegedly responded to the Penn State president and its athletic director. Schultz signs off on handling the matter without telling anyone on the outside, at least for now. "This is a more humane and upfront way to handle this,' Schultz purportedly wrote. But he made clear Penn State should inform Sandusky's charity Second Mile "with or without (Sandusky's) cooperation." As for telling child welfare authorities, he added, "we can play it by ear."

but what happens following the meetings Tim had with JS, Jack Raykovitz, and the final meeting with Mike? Where are those emails? Why are they not being leaked? Do they not fit the agenda?

The attorneys for Tim and Gary react to the emails.

06/29/12 – Statement issued by Tom Farrell, Counsel to Gary Schultz, and Caroline Roberto, Counsel to Tim Curley:

"As Governor Tom Corbett stated, "If we were going to do this case, we had to have the best possible case to go against somebody like Mr. Sandusky who was … loved by everybody. Carried out of the football stadium on the shoulders of his football team. How can anybody say there must be something wrong with him?" (Patriot News, June 25, 2012) For Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, the responsible and "humane" thing to do was, like Governor Corbett, to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague, but troubling allegations. Faced with tough situations, good people try to do their best to make the right decisions."

Let's go back to Nov 5 2011 and the Grand Jury Presentment stating this

Mike McQueary SAW a naked Sandusky forcing a boy to endure anal intercourse .............. He went to Joe Paterno and told him THAT. Later it says he also told Tim Curley and Gary Schultz that.

We now know that is a LIE but the media and people following the case through the media think this was the TRUTH
But the Jury in the Jerry Sandusky Case thought differently and found JS not guilty of the rape charge 'deviate sexual intercourse' in the case of Victim 2 - the one charge in the Presentment that brought the most wrath on PSU.

—Victim 2: A boy of about 10 that a graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, has said he saw being attacked by Sandusky in the team showers in February 2001. Investigators have not been able to determine the boy's identity. McQueary reported what he saw to head coach Joe Paterno, and Paterno's handling of it contributed to the university's decision to fire him shortly after Sandusky was arrested in November. Sandusky was found guilty of indecent assault, unlawful contact with minor, corruption of minors, endangering a child's welfare. He was acquitted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

It is interesting to note that they found him not guilty of two other shower assault charges on the PSU campus

—Victim 5: Sandusky put his hand on the boy's leg while in a car, they showered together and he placed the boy's hand on his genitals, according to his testimony in court. The alleged incident occurred in August 2001, while the boy was 12 or 13. Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minor, corruption of minors, endangering a child's welfare. He was acquitted of indecent assault.

—Victim 6: While showering together in May 1998, he testified that Sandusky grabbed him and said, "I'm going to squeeze your guts out" and that the ex-coach said he was the "tickle monster." The boy's mother complained when he came home with wet hair, prompting a police investigation at the time that did not result in charges. The boy was 11. Sandusky was found guilty of unlawful contact with minor, corruption of minors, endangering a child's welfare. He was acquitted of indecent assault,

These charges were reduced to the one’s involving grooming eliminating the key felony charges. It's the lawyer for Victim 5 who appeared on CNN to blast PSU over the emails. What is his agenda? I think we know that beyond doubt.
So these are the facts, the suppositions about 4 emails that may or may not be complete, the verdicts of a jury about showers at PSU and the inaccurate statement in the Presentment that has created the media misconception about what Joe, Tim, Gary and Dr. Spanier knew. This makes the media narrative and the agenda of the investigators suspect.
Here are a few questions to mull over in the wake of these leaks.

1. Why leak these emails this way?
2. Does someone stand to profit in settlement negotiations?
3. Why did the AG make that totally inaccurate statement in the presentment?
4. Where is the Grand Jury testimony of Raykovitz? We have Joe's, Tims & Gary
5. What was the conversation between Dr Jack and AD Curley?
6. Did he offer to investigate JS internally?
7. Did he offer to keep a closer eye in JS activities?
8. Did he beg Curley not to go to CYS and allow him to handle it?
9. Did he have further evidence that cleared JS like knowing this particular boy and the situation?
10. Had he already investigated similar situations and did he have compelling information that this had happened often but none of the kids involved reported bad things happening?
11. What did JS say to Tim in their meeting?
12. What did Tim report back to Gary and Dr. Spanier after meeting with JS?
13. What did he report back after his meeting with Raykovitz
14. Where are those emails? Do they make the decision seem reasonable?
15. Why haven't we heard from Jack Raykovitz?
16. What did Tim report to Gary and Dr. Spanier about his last meeting with Mike?
17. Was Mike satisfied with the solution at the time?

Can we truly make anything more of the situation given these leaks? What is the agenda behind them? The attack on Joe and PSU continues. Like water torture the prosecutors drip drip drip out the information they want the public to know and withhold that they don't want known. They have control of the agenda - Freeh and the AG.
Blood is in the water and big money is at stake for some. The truth and justice sometimes meet. So far it's not easy to tell what is the truth. The AG and the Freeh people should be better than this unless there is something else at work here that we do not yet see. Questions upon questions remain and until we see Tim and Gary at the Perjury Trial we will have few answers.