The guilty pleas of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz do not provide evidence that they knowingly endangered the welfare of a child
April 26, 2017, 1:59 PM, EDT
Courtroom observers at the trial of Dr. Graham Spanier noted that Commonwealth’s witnesses Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz appeared puzzled and at a loss for words to describe what they were guilty of when questioned by defense attorney Sam Silver.
There was a very good reason for their puzzlement because their guilty pleas did not comport with violating the child endangerment statute.
Here are the relevant parts of their agreements.
In both agreements, the language failed to establish that Curley and Schultz had a duty of care to the unknown victim involved in 2001 incident and were mandated to report the incident in accordance with the mandated reporter law (i.e., 23 PA C.S. Ch. 63).
Oversight of the athletic facilities (Curley) and oversight of all PSU facilities and the police department (Schultz) does not comport with having daily interaction with children and being knowledgeable of the signs of possible child abuse (ref. 23 PA C.S. Ch. 63).
Next, the agreements state that Curley and Schultz prevented or interfered with (someone) making a report of suspected child abuse on February 11, 2001.
The person who they prevented or interfered with making a report also remains unknown.
The February 11, 2001 date is of the utmost importance because the men had not yet spoken with the eye-witness, Michael McQueary, to get a first-hand account of what he allegedly observed.
At that point in time, Curley and Schultz were working with a second-hand report that Sandusky was “horsing around” in the shower with a child. Aside from that information, Curley and Schultz knew of a prior incident involving Sandusky showering with a child and/or multiple children in 1998, respectively.
The 1998 incident was investigated the University Park police, State College borough police, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW), and Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS). The investigation resulted in an “unfounded” incident of child abuse and no criminal charges.
Schultz also consulted with then-Penn State University General Counsel Wendell Courtney that day, who related that there was nothing that constituted suspected child abuse, however, it would be prudent to report the incident to DPW (and/or CC CYS).
Based on the evidence on February 11, 2001, Curley and Schultz had no basis to believe that Sandusky horsing around in the shower with a child was remotely close to a criminal act or constituted suspected child abuse.
As such their plea agreements were illogical and didn't comport with the law -- and that explains their befuddlement in attempting to answer why they pleaded guilty.
The questions that remain unanswered by the Office of Attorney General is why were Curley, Schultz, and Spanier (selectively) prosecuted for failing to report Jerry Sandusky and endangering children -- and why were Dr. Jack Raykovitz and others given a pass?
To be continued…
Next: Why Raykovitz Should Have Been Charged