Friday, February 17

Senior VP Gary Schultz Perjury Fiasco

The Perjury charge against VP Gary Schultz are based on his Grand Jury Testimony and they are lacking any merit whatsoever.
First we have to remember this testimony is about recollections of a 10 to 12 minute meeting with Mike McQueary and Tim Curley about 10 days after McQueary's 45 second visit to a locker room in the Lasch football facility on the Penn State campus. McQueary's testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing for the Perjury and Failure to Report charges gave us the following information:
McQueary heard 2 or 3 slapping sounds he characterizes as "rhythmic and sexual"
McQueary "glanced" into the showers through a mirror for 1 or 2 seconds
McQueary then moved to where he could glance into the showers directly and he saw Sandusky's back and the side of a boy standing in front of Sandusky. The boy's head came to Sandusky's pectoral muscles. He saw this with little or no motion for 1 or 2 seconds.
McQueary then slammed his locker door and walked to where Sandusky and the boy could see him. They were standing 4 feet apart and there was no pain or distress on the boy's face
McQueary said nothing to either and immediately left the boy there with Sandusky and went upstairs to call his father. He did not return to the shower room to see if they had left.
McQueary then met with his father and Dr. Jonathan Dranov at his father's home. They advised him not to call police but to report the incident to his boss Joe Paterno
McQueary did not tell Joe Paterno what he suspected in graphic detail
McQueary then met with Schultz and Curley after Paterno set up the meeting.

McQueary claims he was adamant about suspecting a sexual act in his meeting with Curley and Schultz. Curley and Schultz indicate their rather vague recollections of the 12 minute meeting did not indicate that a crime had been committed. The Attorney General wants us to believe this difference in recollections of that meeting 10 years ago constitutes perjury.

As you scan through the images of the testimony click on an image and you will be able to see it in full readable size and you can use this utility to click through every image. I have provided the pages of the transcript that deal with the recollections and impressions of the meeting with McQueary, Curley, and Schultz so you can try to find the perjury.

First lets look at Schultz'a Testimony to the Grand Jury read into the record at the Perjury Preliminary Hearing:

Shultz's memory of a 10 or 12 minute meeting a decade back is quite different than Curley's recollection. He believes that either he or Tim contacted Child Protective Services - the same agency that investigated the 1998 incident when a mother of a Second Mile child complained to police about a shower incident between her son and Sandusky.

In the interest of this post I want the reader to identify the statements by Schultz above that constitute Perjury. What has he said above that is misleading or a deliberate lie known to him to be such?

Thursday, February 16

Now It Begins - The First Assault on the Attorney General's Case

Lawyers for Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have filed motions for dismissal of charges and to compel the Attorney General to provide particulars in the Perjury and Failure to Report cases against their clients
This is something expected since the Perjury and Failure to Report charges were filed against Gary Schultz - Former Senior VP and this follows the same motions filed by Tim Curley the Athletic Director yesterday to dismiss the charges filed by Attorney General Linda Kelley. These charges seemed bogus and flimsy from the beginning. I speculated that the charges might not make it past the preliminary hearing but the judge was not interested in hearing about testimony concerning Dr Dranov and he was not going to toss the case out the door as should have been done.
Remember that Perjury charges in Pennsylvania require corroboration beyond any opposing versions of what might have been said between 3 people in a private meeting. Since only Curley, Schultz and Mike McQueary heard whatever was said in a "10 or 12 minute meeting" back in March of 2002 it is completely impossible to have corroboration if no notes, minutes, or recordings of that meeting exist.
Both Curley and Schultz felt they did not hear evidence of a criminal act and we have no way of knowing what McQueary said to them or how indicative of any criminal act it may or may not have been.
As far as the law in 2002 concerns being compelled to report suspicious behavior goes we know what that law says and it's evident that the attorneys don't believe the administrators are compelled under that law.

Curley and Schultz were not informed of a sexual assault by Paterno or McQueary. At best McQueary told them about "inappropriate contact of a sexual nature" - a far cry from sexual assault.Why did the Attorney General claim Schultz and Curley were required to report suspicions?
Top administration officials at PSU, Curley and Schultz, after receiving a report of the sexual assault from both a graduate assistant and the coach Paterno, failed to report the incident, as required by law
The law in 2002 did not require Paterno, Curley or Schultz to report suspicions but Raykovitz was subject to that law. Does the Attorney General not know the law?
The 2002 law required that the abused child come directly in contact with a person in his or her professional capacity in order for that person to be considered a mandatory reporter. The law was then amended in 2007 to broaden the reporting requirements
Raykovitz has not been charged in the sex-abuse scandal even though PA law says anyone who works with children must report suspicions of child abuse " "A fair reading of the statute would implicate the CEO of the charity in the event he received a report or information regarding possible abuse,"
Raykovitz with a PhD in psychology was the CEO of the Second Mile subject to the Pennsylvania Mandatory Reporting law as a psychologist and head of an organization that constantly dealt with children. Why was Raykovitz not charged with failure to report? Raykovitz was in a position of responsibility for the victims of Jerry Sandusky who was being paid by The Second Mile and a trained psychologist who could have located and interviewed Second Mile kids with whom Sandusky spent time
The Motions filed on behalf of Curley and Schultz maintain through a Memorandum of Law that the State has failed to provide the particulars as required to prosecute these charges This makes the Attorney General's office appear to be quite incompetent. Perjury is a very specific offense. It requires proof backed up by two witnesses or one witness with corroboration that a witness under oath made statements known by him ot be false. Those particular statements must be provided and they have not been provided by the state.
These dismissal motions should lead to the end of this bogus part of the state's case that led to the idea this was a Penn State Scandal involving some cover up by the university and start the ball rolling on shifting the blame for the longevity of this situation to the former Attorney General now Governor and Second Mile where it belongs.
It appears that the Attorney General's office cannot provide the particulars because there are none that apply to Curley and Schultz and when these charges are dismissed it will leave the the Attorney General with much explaining to be done. We can only hope that the dismissal of the charges will receive the same publicity that was aimed at PSU when these bogus charges were filed. Having charges dismissed in a case like this should show the public that the Attorney General's office was complicit in a cover up on behalf of the Attorney General and the Governor.