Wednesday, April 26

Puzzling Plea Deals

The guilty pleas of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz do not provide evidence that they knowingly endangered the welfare of a child

By
Ray Blehar

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.










ANALYSIS

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).

CONCLUSION

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



22 comments:

  1. I'm still puzzled how Raykovitz got away without even a slap on the wrist. Looking forward to the next article...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Raykovitz wasn't Penn State is what saved him.

      Under the law, he's more guilty because Second Mile employed Sandusky in 2001. That would have made Raykovitz Sandusky's employer or supervisor, as the child endangerment law required.

      What should have hanged Raykovitz was his telling Sandusky in 2001 to wear a swimsuit when showering with boys.

      Why tell him to wear a swimsuit if sexual abuse wasn't suspected?

      Delete
    2. Tim,
      That pretty much explains it -- except that Sandusky truly was not employed by The Second Mile in 2001. He was a contractor - and the law didn't cover that situation.

      Regardless, Raykovitz received a report that contained enough information to suspect child abuse and he was mandated to report it.

      More later.

      Delete
    3. Ray - The Attorney General makes up the law as they go along so the AG could have easily interpreted the law to mean that Sandusky being paid $57,000 in 2001 made him a Second Mile employee and/or Second Mile CEO Jack Raykovitz was Sandusky's supervisor.

      The fact that Raykovitz was the one who talked to Sandusky about the 2001 incident was evidence he was the supervisor.

      Given that the Attorney General, jury and judge accepted that Spanier supervised Sandusky in 2001, then anything is possible.

      Delete
  2. Great analysis, Ray. But what will it lead to?

    Despite overwhelming evidence that no cover-up occurred between anyone at Penn State, the main stream media is intent on continuing to destroy these guys as well as Paterno.

    Given recent events (McQueary's outrageous financial awards), it is likely Curley and Schultz feared a jury trial and risking their pensions. I don't blame them.

    Unfortunately, I don't see real justice ever taking place. The media has moved on and is now focusing on the Russia narrative to avoid focusing on the DNC and Clinton corruption. It will take something like Frontline or 48 hours to do a complete retrospective on the Sandusky story and even then most of the population will not be convinced.

    You've done all you can. What else can you do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A previous PennLive report was that only Schultz had a state pension. Curley might have a private pension, such as TIAA-CREF.

      Too, I thought Ray previously reported that the law on pension forfeitures did not include the crimes that Curley and Schultz were charged with.

      Delete
    2. Frank,
      Thanks for the kind words.

      The media will never pick up this story until someone in a position of authority reveals the corruption in these cases.

      To quote John Rambo, "Nothing is over until I say it is over."

      I will continue to press on with the investigation.

      Delete
  3. Ray - I agree that the plea makes no sense. I don't see how the judge can accept the plea especially after the prosecutor claimed at the Spanier trial that 90% of Curley's testimony was lies.

    There seems to be a huge problem when it comes time for Curley and Schultz to allocate at sentencing. Either they contradict their previous testimony that they were not told of child abuse or they stick by it and insist they aren't guilty.

    I thought the law under which Curley and Schultz pleaded to was the same as for Spanier's conviction, as follows:

    "(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support."

    That law is extremely vague but I doubt it was meant as the prosecutors contended that the endangerment could involve other children years in the future.

    How could Curley, Schultz and Spanier have a "duty of care" to a child they never met and the prosecution could never even identify?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      Thanks for your comments.

      Interestingly, the plea deals only cite one of the four prongs needed for a conviction for EWOC and don't even establish the evidence to prove that prong was met.

      Tim's testimony -- called 90% lies by Ditka -- was more consistent with his grand jury testimony that Gary's was. Gary seemingly had been given a Gingko Biloba cocktail before he took the stand and could recall many more details in 2017 than he could in 2011.

      Was Schultz lying in 2011 and truthful in 2017 -- or the opposite? It is clear that both Tim and Gary's memories were refreshed by looking at some of the documents in evidence and the reconstructing their memories of the events.

      Some of Gary's testimony at the trial involved time travel -- so we can rule out that testimony as truthful and accurate.

      More on that later.

      Delete
  4. The OAG office is trying like hell to save face.... and they will do everything they can .... Curley and Schultz got screwed ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curley and Schultz taking a plea likely doomed Spanier as well.

      I bet the jury didn't want to let the top man go free while his underlings took all the blame.

      Delete
    2. Katrina,
      Thanks for your comments and for reading.

      We don't agree on a lot of things, but you are spot on about the AG trying to save face -- and bragging about THREE MISDEMEANOR convictions.

      They are much like now embattled Philly DA Seth Williams, who took on the bribery cases that Kane wouldn't prosecute, and then bragged about getting them to plea to sweetheart deals.

      There are a lot of dishonest prosecutors in PA.

      Delete
    3. It's true Ray, Josh Shapiro's absurd announcement of misdemeanor convictions against these three innocent men shows his desperation. Only someone with a little child's mentality would see those misdemeanors as earth shattering convictions that need to be announced and hyped in the media. Considering the five year wait for a trial, and the original defamatory WANTED posters on television of the three, the misdemeanors are a joke. And even those convictions were hard-won with quite a bit of illegal hidden influence.

      Tom Corbett's OAG tried to influence the public to wrongly believe that Graham, Gary and Tim were dangerous pedophiles that ran with Sandusky. I have to admit that's the feeling I had when I first saw the "America's Most Wanted"-style posters of the PSU three and Sandusky on television. I thought, Oh my God, the Feds have busted up a pedophile ring at Penn State, and those are the 4 guys! Ha, what a joke, we now know it was a cheesy local PACORN hit to throw the public off of The Second Mile! And they even paid-off a corrupt ex-Fed(Freeh) with 8 million to make it all look official.

      I enjoyed this article Ray, keep up the pressure on these clowns!

      Delete
  5. Ray, do you have any guesses why Curley and Schultz took the plea deal? Their decision seems at odds with the evidence and chance for appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A questionable multi-million dollar settlement with McQueary, two nefarious plea deals and a single misdemeanor conviction later and where are we now? Meanwhile the architects of this misdirection get let off the hook with nary a scratch. Does the Paterno suit have any chance for justice? Is it even still on the table?

    Neither side can be happy with any of this though the child advocacy frauds will bill this as a validation of their position and self-righteously bray at the indignity heaped upon their cause. It would sure be nice to see some actual justice come out of all this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Paterno estate v. NCAA lawsuit is still alive but is moving very slowly. There is no trial date announced nearly a year after discovery closed.

      The NCAA likes to delay and may be trying to settle to keep it out of court.

      Delete
  7. I sort of feel sorry for Schultz that his lawyer didn't get him a better deal the way Curley did. Curley will serve house arrest if he gets jail time.

    I would think Schultz's lawyer should have asked for that same deal or at least that Schultz do any time in a prison with nonviolent offenders. With a child endangerment conviction in a sensationalized case, Schultz could be a target in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The person who they prevented or interfered with making a report also remains unknown."

    While I think we can all speculate who they 'interfered with', my real question is this: Is there a legal requirement to identify this person in the plea deal?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think they mean Schultz and Curley prevented the report by not reporting it themselves. They were just quoting from the law but there is an "or" in there.

    On Feb. 11, the only person they had talked to about the shower incident was Paterno, and he never testified they told him not to report it. Paterno maintained that he thought they should handle it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would disagree. I believe the logic would say they interfered with McQueary's report. By telling Mike they would handle/investigate it, they gave him the impression that he did not have to report. Them failing to report it would fall under the FTR charges which were dismissed.

      Delete
  10. John - Ray pointed out that the date of the prevention or interference on the plea agreement was Feb. 11, well before they ever talked to McQueary. McQueary testified that Curley and Schultz never told him not to report to police or anyone else he wanted to.

    In fact, they actually had Feb. 10 typed in, and then corrected it by writing a one over the zero. Such sloppiness by the OAG on an important legal document is appalling. They should have printed out a corrected copy for the defendants to sign.

    Typos have caused some cases to be thrown out. I wonder if the defense can make that an issue? Was that typo corrected after Schultz and Curley signed it? Usually, you would have them initial any corrected typo to prove they saw it prior to signing.

    The plea doesn't make a lot of sense based on the date and, as you pointed out, the lack of identifying how they prevented or interfered with a report of suspected child abuse.

    McQueary had already decided not to report to police before Feb. 11. He decided not to call police right after the incident on Feb 9, still decided not to call police after discussing it with his father and Dr. Dranov on Feb 9, still decided not to call police after talking to Paterno on Feb 10, etc.

    I don't even remember McQueary testifying that Paterno reported back to him on Feb. 11 to say Curley and Schultz were notified. So how to they get Feb. 11?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Tim,

      Great pick up on the 1/0 write over was the basis for the Barry Reed's Book/Movie 'The Verdict" with Paul Newman and James Mason they changed the time last ate before surgery from 1 hr to 9 hrs by
      just doctoring the 1 with a little zero added to the existing 1.

      Thank-you ALL for the great work & ideas you put forth.

      Chuck

      Delete