2001 Freeh Framing - Strange Evidence & Fiction

By Barry Bozeman        When Linda Kelly stood before the public on Nov 7 with pictures of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz beside Jerry Sandusky and read the horrific charges against one and perjury charges against the other's you may not have decided that Tim and Gary were guilty of perjury.. But that made it easy for Louis Freeh to further prejudice us with his report saying Schultz tried to hide a "secret file" or leaking email that supposedly supported the claims of the prosecution. 

Would this kind of thing be required if this case is as incriminating as Freeh insists? I know it's difficult but try to put the crimes of Sandusky out of your mind along with the Attorney General's press conference and focus solely on the report of Louis Freeh to arrive at an opinion of it's truthfulness and validity on it's own. The perjury trials in January are a long way off so we have some time to work on what we are calling The Freeh Fiction. This is another chapter in that effort - based on thin to non-existent evidence Freeh uses to make outrageous claims.

85 year old Joe Paterno is questioned about a decade past 10 minute meeting and uses 4 words "fondling" and "a sexual nature" to describe everything Freeh has along with a Tim Curley email mentioning a discussion with "Joe". The honorable coach who dedicated 60 years to Success With Honor and The Grand Experiment that resulted in 85% of his players receiving degrees at Penn State suddenly became a pariah. The media, public and the Board of Trustees have decided this absurd Freeh Report's conspiracy theory is valid? 

The simplest explanation of the actions taken by Joe Paterno, AD Tim Curley, VP Gary Schultz and Pres. Spanier are the most logical and reasonable. Joe heard whatever Mike had to say in 10 minutes and decided to turn it over to Tim and Gary. That was the right thing to do. Joe did what he thought was appropriate because he, like Mike's father and Doctor, was not sure of what to do given the vague and muddled 2 second glance observations and 3 slapping sounds in a 45 second locker room visit. 

If Joe actually recalled the words Mike says he used in that 10 minute Saturday meeting or if he asked Mike to refresh his memory sometime prior to his Grand Jury testimony is in question. But it's totally clear that Joe passed on his impression and Mike to Tim Curley and Gary Schultz exactly as he should have. 

Gary Schultz and Tim Curley took two different tacks with the information and divided the responsibility for evaluating the McQueary report and offering their evaluation to Dr. Spanier who had to make the decision. 

Gary immediately got Wendell Courtney to research the law on reporting suspected child abuse and sought to find out if the file on the 1998 incident that resulted in the inquiry that cleared JS of criminal or sexual impropriety was still available.

Tim set out to further discuss the meeting with Joe and to get Jerry Sandusky's explanation prior to setting up a meeting with Mike to get his version first hand and reporting the decision and the report to Dr. Jack Raykovitz of The Second Mile. 

Schultz was obviously aware of the inquiry and conclusion in 1998 and he would probably have  informed Tim that Jerry was the subject of a complaint in 1998. It seems reasonable to assume that neither Tim or Gary believed that Sandusky was involved in pedophile behavior. The transcript of the Grand Jury testimony of Tim Curley on page 189 shows he was asked about knowledge of  "sexually inappropriate activity" by Sandusky in 1998. Tim answers NO to this question and the follow up because 1) the report he may have heard was not sexually inappropriate according to the conclusion or 2) he did not hear anything about 1998. If the 2nd is true it appears that email used in the Freeh Report has been manufactured.  

Curley and Schultz's opinion of Sandusky was common at Penn State and in the community. Sandusky was the founder of the successful Second Mile Charity. His book TOUCHED had just been released in Jan of 2001. Sandusky raised 7 foster children. He was the Defensive Coordinator at "Linebacker U" and acclaimed as the best assistant coach in NCAA college football. He was a church going community leader who had been honored by Pres Bush, Sen Santorum and many top people in state government for his work in support of underprivileged kids. This is not the resume of a pedophile. 

However the PSU administrators were concerned about his seeming blind spot regarding these workouts and showers with young boys. Not because they believed they were "sexual" but because it had resulted in the 1998 inquiry and now this report by Mike McQueary. They believed that Jerry was setting himself up for criticism and possible harm to The Second Mile because he appeared to be unaware of the atmosphere in the country about sexual abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests. People were apt to leap to the "wrong " conclusions that did not know Jerry and his nature. These men did not believe Jerry the Saint could be a pedophile and they knew this kind of thing would eventually harm The Second Mile.

Curley & Schultz likely thought Jerry was too attached to his kids in the most benign and non sexual way and that these fears about the propriety of his workouts and showers would come as a shock to him. So telling him he could no longer bring these boys to PSU for the workouts and showers would be a blow because for Jerry it was the ultimate treat for some fatherless boys who were so excited and pleased about the opportunity to work out in the same place their football heroes did. This is what is meant by "humane" and getting Jerry help in understanding the situation. 

These men perhaps wanted to save Jerry and The Second Mile the embarrassment of an investigation because Mike McQueary did not see anything sexual. What he relayed to them was easily explainable as similar or identical to the 1998 bear hugs for Schultz who is the one of the three that for certain knew of the 1998 investigation. Tim and Dr. Spanier may have only known that a mother had complained about the shower and never saw 1998 as a criminal investigation or an investigation of anything "sexual". 

There was no need to cover this up for Penn State's sake. Sandusky had been gone from the coaching staff for over two years. This problem was a Second Mile problem and they had no desire to harm the charity. They knew that any implication that the Second Mile was founded by a potential pedophile would effectively kill it. So they decided to tell Jerry that he could no longer bring these boys to the PSU facilities and to inform Dr. Jack Raykovitz of their decision. 

Dr. Raykovitz was a child psychologist. He had the training and staff to look into Jerry's behavior and to speak with boys that Jerry had befriended to see if there was something amiss. Informing Raykovitz was the right thing to do. He would work to see that Jerry was handled in order to save the source of his income from embarrassment or destruction. As a psychologist he would know who to contact to see that Jerry got help with this problem of not realizing the potential for disaster in his behavior. 

The decision seemed to work very well for the next 10 years as far as they knew. Sandusky was never again caught in a shower at PSU with a boy and life went on. Joe Paterno was not disappointed with their solution. Mike McQueary was fine with this solution, and The Second Mile evidently handled the situation to Jerry's satisfaction and to theirs. They had no reason to recall the 10 minute meeting with Mike or to even think about this incident again until they were subpoenaed by the Grand Jury to appear a decade later. Even then they had no reason to believe that Penn State, Joe Paterno, or themselves would be targeted for charges or trial based on what they had heard from Mike or what they had done to take care of the matter. They had informed Sandusky's employer who was qualified to discern any problem involving child abuse IF there had been any child abuse. 

This was never a question of anything sexual to them and despite what 85 year old Joe said to the Grand Jury the acceptance of their solution by both Joe and Mike seems to suggest they were never convinced that Sandusky was involved in any sexual behavior. We agree with most of you that Joe and Mike would have been more proactive if they really suspected that a boy had been raped or sexually molested. 

Earlier posts in this series on the Freeh Fiction dealt primarily with the weak to non-existent case against Joe Paterno and the PSU administrators in 1998. This edition takes on Freeh's fantasy about 2001

• K. I. S. S. Keep it Simple - 1998 Did Joe Know Ver...
• Analysis: Coach is NOT believed to be Paterno
• Freeh Lied About 1998 and Here's The Proof
• More ALTERED EMAIL? Blowing Up the Freeh Fiction
• Altered E-mail Found in Freeh Report Contains Dama...
• PROOF - HOW FREEH FRAMED JOE PATERNO

First lets look at the only things in Freeh's Fantasy about Joe Paterno.

First is the email from Tim Curley supposedly sent on on page 24 of the report, Freeh quotes Curley as saying. This is from the summary. 

"after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday." Curley now proposes to tell Sandusky "we feel there is a problem" and offer him "professional help."

But on page 74 of the report, Freeh quotes Curley as saying. This is the whole quote. 

On Tuesday, February 27, 2001, Curley emailed Schultz and Spanier:

I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. 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 responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. 

On Wednesday, February 28, 2001, at 7:12 p.m., Schultz responded to Curley's proposal for dealing with Sandusky. Schultz wrote to Curley and Spanier:

Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this. I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed). We can play it by ear to decide about the other organization.

On Wednesday, February 28, 2001, at 7:12 p.m., Schultz responded to Curley's proposal for dealing with Sandusky. Schultz wrote to Curley and Spanier:

Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this. I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed). We can play it by ear to decide about the other organization. hh

The "other organization" mentioned by Schultz appears to be a reference to the Department of Public Welfare. The first situation appears to be the 1998 reports of the bear hug showers. Does this mean Curley was aware of the Police/DPW/CYS investigation or did he simply know that a mother had been concerned by Jerry showering with her son and some inquiry had been made that resulted in no criminal or pedophile behavior being found so no formal investigation was required? He did not necessarily know of any "criminal" complaint or inappropriate "sexual" complaint - simply a complaint about the showers. 

NOTE  - TIM REFERS TO JOE as JOE and in the 1998 emails RE Jerry - The reference is to COACH. 

At 08:10 PM 2/27/01 - 0500, Tim Curley wrote: I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps; l am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved.  

There is a big difference between what Freeh put in his summary and the whole quote. 

So the only things that makes Joe part of some cover-up or involves him in any way is this single email reference that has many possible implications. 

This website has furnished several posts on Mike McQueary's testimony and 85 year old Joe Paterno's testimony to the Grand Jury in Jan of 2010. The most important thing to know about it is that Joe is 85 and he is trying to recall a 10 min Sat AM meeting from Feb 9 of 2001. This is a full decade in the past. Joe Paterno's full testimony to the Grand Jury is on pages 173 to 178 of the Perjury Hearing Transcript  Remember he is answering questions from a prosecutor trying to get an indictment of Sandusky. 

We have covered the interesting story that Mike admitted online in a messageboard chat that he only saw and talked about "horsing around" and nothing "sexual".  

Paterno tells the Grand Jury that McQueary said something about "fondling - whatever you might call it" and "He was doing something. It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure what it was." This is the only part of a 10 minute meeting that Joe recalls. 4 incriminating words out of that conversation without any context. This is quite strange and has led many to speculate that Joe may have discussed the meeting with his assistant after being called to the Grand Jury because in truth he did not recall it. For more complete detail about Mike McQueary's various testimonies and statements 

See I'm Mad As Hell and 

McQueary's Testimonies and Contradictions  and 

The Whole Story of the McQueary Testimonies and Statements 

So that's it. An 85 year old Joe Paterno is questioned about a decade ago 10 minute meeting and uses 4 words to describe everything Mike McQueary said to him without any context? If this doesn't strike you as incredibly contrived and the product of a recent conversation between Joe and his assistant coach you don't interact with many people of that age. All Freeh has are those 4 words and a Tim Curley email mentioning a discussion with "Joe".  So the honorable coach who dedicated 60 years to Success With Honor and The Grand Experiment that resulted in 85% of his players receiving degrees at Penn State suddenly became a pariah. The media, public and the Board of Trustees have decided this absurd Freeh Report's conspiracy theory is valid?  They then accept the NCAA sanctions that deprive Joe of 111 victories off his 409 record based on these 4 words and a single email? 

These emails are the only evidence provided by The Freeh Report meant to lead us to the conclusion that Joe and Tim were aware of the DPW investigation in 1998. Is this the entire email string? Or was some of the email eliminated that contained context leading to a different meaning for these remarks? Have these emails been edited? 

Take a look at Exhibits 3A 3B 3C and 3G - all containing email from Tim Curley - none of them are these single sentence one line type of remarks. For example this email chain from 2001 were several emails are run together unlike the chain seen above. 

Note how different this is from the email chain from 1998 and how the punctuation is not read correctly in the program the &nbsp and the html mark ups that are shown. 

Here is the email above run through an OCR and cleaned up in Word so it can be read as the chain it is instead of the mess Freeh left in his exhibits. 

From: Gary C. Schultz <gcs2@psu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:13 PM
To: Graham Spanier; Tim Curley
Subject: Re: Meeting

1) Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this.  I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (l think that's what Tim proposed). We can play it by ear to decide about the other organization.  

2) At 10:18 PM 2/27/01 - 0500, Graham Spanier wrote: Tim:  This approach is acceptable to me.  It requires you to go a step further and means that your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive.  The only downside for us is if the message isn't "heard" and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.  But that can be assessed down the road.  The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed 

3) At 08:10 PM 2/27/01 - 0500, Tim Curley wrote: l had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday-- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps; l 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 a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and 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, l 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?

This is obviously a three part email chain involving Schultz, Curley and Spanier so why does it not show up like the email chain in 1998? *note the length and detail of the Curley response. 

Or this email from Tim alone that shows his propensity for emailing complete thoughts instead of the one line questions and referring to Joe as Joe in this email captioned subject Jerry. 

Freeh's summary and conclusions made in his press conference are absurd 

FREEH has no evidence other than two Curley emails referencing "coach" to indicate anything to do with Joe Paterno and 1998 and he makes the absurd statement that Joe not only knew but "followed it closely"? 

DPW & CYS two agencies whose task it was to protect children, the State College and PSU police and DA's Gricar and Arnold concluded in 1998 that Sandusky exhibited no criminal or sexually inappropriate behavior yet Freeh makes the ridiculous claim that somehow Joe and PSU administrators ignored the safety of children for 14 years? What insane world does Louis Freeh inhabit where PSU administrators are blamed for what the agencies tasked with child protection did not do? This is so far beyond the realm of reason it is almost impossible to contemplate. 

Freeh Report Analysis
A look at some of the contents of the Freeh Report relative to the 2001 incident:

Exhibit 5C
hand written notes, 2/12/01, on Schultz Letterhead
No plans to report to the Second Mile

Exhibit 5E
hand written notes, 2/25/01
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 ??

Exhibit 5G
email, 2/28/01, Schultz to Spanier & Curley
Plan to inform his [Sandusky's] organization [Second Mile]
Plan to "play it by ear" [Schultz] & depends on JS response [Curley] to inform other organization [DPW]

Chapter 4, Section V. March 19, 2001 - Curley Meets with Second Mile Leadership
"Curley testified at the Grand Jury that he met 'the executive director of the Second Mile. I shared the information that we had with him.' The Special Investigative Council found no written records concerning this meeting."
"The Second Mile executive director declined to be interviewed."
Chapter 4, Section V is less than one page. The term "executive director" is used 11 times. Nowhere does the Freeh Report identify who the "executive director" is.

Tim Curley met with Dr. Jack Raykovitz of The Second Mile to explain the PSU administrations decision to ban Jerry Sandusky - a Second Mile employee - from bringing boys to the PSU facilities. That alone should have prompted the Second Mile CEO to look into the Sandusky situation. He evidently did not. Raykovitz as Sandusky's employer is a licensed agency with DPW. Beyond all doubt it is his job - mandated by law - to report any suspected chile abuse. He is the man trained to recognize pedophiles not Joe Paterno or PSU administrators. Yet not one agency has looked into the role of The Second Mile in this tragedy. 

Please Discuss this in our Forum at this Link