Monday, April 10

Law & Evidence Favored the PSU 3

PSU officials could have won their cases had their attorneys stood by Schultz's testimony, the letter of the law, and a few other pieces of evidence

Ray Blehar

April 10, 2017, 10:06 PM EDT

Had former Penn State University officials, Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz not made plea agreements, it is very possible that the PSU 3 could have walked out of Dauphin County Courthouse unscathed.

For that to have happened, Gary Schultz would have taken the stand and stated that he made a report to Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) in 2001.  Given that the men were being tried together, his testimony would have cleared everyone.

Law & the evidence were on Schultz's side

The law and the evidence were on his and PSU's side -- and there was little chance of the Commonwealth producing evidence to convict any of them.

If the Commonwealth could not disprove a report being made in 2001, then the Endangering the Welfare of Children charges would have fallen like a house of cards. 

Prior to the plea agreements, the only evidence the Commonwealth was hanging its hat on were some vague emails and the lack of existing records of a 2001 report at the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and/or CC CYS.

The emails in no way rule out a report being made to CC CYS on or before February 12, 2001.   

As reported many times, an email from Wendell Courtney (see page 81 of the Freeh Report) confirmed that there was a two part action in which "someone contacted"  CC CYS to have them "do whatever they thought was appropriate" and to also "apprise of what PSU actions were" to prevent Sandusky from using the locker rooms with children.  

Courtney's email leaves the door open that all subsequent discussion after February 11th was in regard to the second action -- and not about making a report to the authorities.

Next, the Commonwealth's contention that an absence of records proves anything is flatly defeated by the law.

23 Pa. C.S. § 6337 requires records from "unfounded" reports and/or investigations be expunged.   

That's it for the Commonwealth's case, which would be soundly defeated by arguing the law.

The Law

First, the (1994) law in effect at the time of the incident clearly provided options for making a legal report to the DPW (a.k.a., the “department") or Children and Youth Services (“county agency”).

§ 6313.  Reporting procedure.

(a)  General rule.--Reports from persons required to report under section 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse) shall be made immediately by telephone and in writing within 48 hours after the oral report.

(b)  Oral reports.--Oral reports shall be made to the department pursuant to Subchapter C (relating to powers and duties of department) and may be made to the appropriate [child protective service] county agency....  

Schultz made at least nine statements that he recalled the 2001 incident was turned over to the "child protection agency" during his 2011 pre-grand jury interview and during his grand jury testimony. 

That agency was CC CYS -- not DPW.

Schultz was NOT a mandated reporter under section 6311, therefore he did not have to make an oral report or file a written report.  Nor did he have to make a report to police.

As Wendell Courtney testified (at the Spanier trial), he advised a report be made out of an abundance of caution and it was the prudent thing to do -- not because it was legally required.

Courtney also added that Schultz typically followed his advice.

If Schultz and his legal team stood by his grand jury testimony and Courtney's email from the Freeh Report, he'd have been home free.

The later passages of paragraph (b) of the law rule out that CC CYS acted on his report.

 ....When oral reports of suspected child abuse are initially received at the [child protective service] county agencythe [child protective service] protective services staff shall, after seeing to the immediate safety of the child and other children in the home, immediately notify the department of the receipt of the report, which is to be held in the pending complaint file as provided in Subchapter C. The initial child abuse report summary shall be supplemented with a written report when a determination is made as to whether a report of suspected child abuse is a founded report, an unfounded report or an indicated report.

Without knowing the identity of the child, CC CYS was hamstrung in carrying out their duties.

And the Commonwealth knew it.

That's why the grand jury presentment and the prosecution made such a big deal out of PSU not finding out the identity of the child.

Without the child's name, the report is useless and can't be followed up on.

As such, CC CYS could do nothing -- and did nothing -- with Schultz's 2001 report.

Evidence - CYS Reluctance to Act

As the evidence from 1998 revealed, CC CYS was very reluctant to investigate Sandusky when they had the name of the child and a complaining mother.  

First, CC CYS's John Miller didn't seem overly enthused to take on an investigation of Sandusky when he was informed about the 1998 incident involving The Second Mile founder whose charity helped relieve the burden of assisting foster families and provided other programs for children and youth.

The May 5, 1998 note below also demonstrates the reluctance of CC CYS to investigate -- even after learning that Sandusky had given naked bear hugs to two boys on three different occasions.

It is almost certain that the 2001 report was "screened out" much like the reports in Dauphin County in 2013 and 2014 that were not acted upon -- and resulted in the death of Jarrod Tutko, Jr.

After the release of the Sandusky grand jury presentment and his subsequent conviction for horrifying crimes against children, there was no way on Earth that anyone from CC CYS or a representative of the Commonwealth would have come forward and tell the truth about what really happened in 2001.

That's because the Commonwealth would have had to pick up the tab for the lawsuits arising from the Sandusky case. 

The politically motivated prosecution of PSU officials required the Commonwealth to cover up CYS's failure to act in 2001.   And it seems obvious that members of the PSU Board of Trustees bankrolled the Sandusky-CC CYS cover-up. 

While this is stomach turning, it gets worse.

How many more Sanduskys are out there making the schools, playgrounds, and Pennsylvania communities unsafe for children because CYS is continuing to fall down on the job?


  1. Thanks Ray. Although the puzzle pieces were spread out over a large table and ,in many cases hidden from us, you have done an outstanding job pulling those pieces into a coherent picture. The wrong person received a Pullitzer for this story. Clearly, you have done more to accurately report this tragedy than anyone!

    I more concerned than ever about wrongful prosecutions by the media and AG's. i am saddened by the outcomes for Tim, Gary, & Graham.

    Thanks once more for your tireless research and reporting.

    1. Kevin,
      Thanks for reading, commenting, and the kind words.

      As these cases go forward, more and more lies and deceptions are exposed.

      Gary was clearly struggling to tell the story the AG asked him to tell. The part about his 2/12/2001 note coming as a result of a meeting with Spanier and Curley clearly was a false statement.

      First line of the note said "Talked to TMC" (Curley). It didn't say he talked to Graham (GBS) nor was Spanier ever mentioned in the notes.

      Other fibs were told on the stand. I'll write about them soon.

  2. So then why didn't their lawyers drive this point home during the trial? It seems more and more as time goes by that these lawyers are part of the ruse to lay total blame on PSU. This whole case is nothing but a smokescreen to hide what really went on- Second Mile was running pedophile ring. What else could it be? There are people in high positions in this state who have everything to lose if that comes out.

    1. DMarioP,
      Thanks for your comment.

      One thing I've learned during this scandal is that the laywers are juggling a lot of cases and are not focused on the details -- like the rest of us.

      They have a legal strategy that they determine early on and seem to stick to it -- regardless of the evidence and information that is developed through the case.

      Tim and Gary's lawyers were focused on dismissal via the statue of limitations at first. Later in 2013, they joined a motion by Spanier's legal team that Tim and Gary were not mandated reporters.


      From the day the presentment was released, most of us understood that Tim and Gary weren't mandated to report anything. But it took them quite some time to make that argument.

      Eventually, the FTR charges were dismissed because they were not within the statute of limitations. In hindsight, however, an affirmative defense and speedy trial would have likely gotten a better result than dragging the case out for 5 years.

  3. DMarioP,

    I agree with you that the Second Mile was an organized child rape facility. Our elected officials won't even talk about it. I see their silence and inaction as an admission of guilt. The length of time they continue to ignore the requests to investigate the financial records of the Second Mile, will only add to the public's suspicion. And it could add that same amount of time to their prison terms for aiding and abetting child sex trafficking.

    When we're getting too close to the truth and Josh Shapiro can't take any more heat from the public, I look for him to privately call on his billionaire friend, Michael Bloomberg, to sponsor a scary but staged mass shooting false flag to distract us and get us off of the Second Mile's scent. Kinda like Franky False-Flag Noonan did with his alter-ego character, Eric Frein. I can hear Noonan now, "I won't let that b*tch expose my office porno addiction to the public, I need something big to happen, and I need it now!" In other words, a staged threat will occur that makes Shapiro look like he's just too busy protecting us to look into the Second Mile. When it happens, let's not fall for it, keep the pressure on.

  4. I agree that they had a good defense but mysteriously they didn't employ it. For the charge Spanier was convicted of, it required Spanier to be Sandusky's employer or supervisor. He clearly wasn't in 2001 but not sure if the defense emphasized that. The trial transcripts are still not online.

    The defense could have called Miller, DPW's Jerry Lauro and Asst. DA Karen Arnold to ask about the 1998 investigation to show that the authorities did not believe Sandusky bear hugging boys in the showers was anything to worry about. If you believe McQueary's testimony about 2001, he saw the same bear hug behavior as in 1998.

    In one motion, the AG argued that Schultz was a "law enforcement official" so that made him a mandatory reporter. The other two defendants could have then argued that it was reported to law enforcement when Schultz was told.

    1. Tim,
      Great comments.

      You hit the nail on the head on Schultz. Why didn't the Spanier team AGREE with the AG's argument that Schultz was law enforcement and that the incident was reported by Curley? Puzzling for sure.

      I also agree that I would have dragged Miller, Lauro, and Seasock in to let the jury hear from those who were paid to protect kids and the "expert" who swung their decision.

  5. If Schultz was a mandated reporter because of his 'law enforcement official' status, then I'm guessing the prosecution put the finger on him over this and that is how they pushed him into a corner and got him into a plea bargain. This whole mess boils down to McQueary's testimony and the propensity of others to inflate the importance and validity of it. Of course no one is going to come forth with anything resembling the truth. It would mean them stepping up to the guillotine.

    Is anyone other than the PSU faithful even interested in the truth anymore? The only ones I'm seeing are Ray, Ziegler and this Cipriano guy. With the inroads now occurring in the Catholic Church scandal, this would be a good time to expose the operations of these subversive social justice groups. How can the media be so complicit in providing cover for these organizations?

    1. Philip,

      I have faith that we will know the truth about the Second Mile very soon. I think the entire state of Pennsylvania is more than interested, as you put it, in knowing this truth, not just the 'PSU faithful'.

      Everyone of us that have raised children or anyone of us that respects the sanctity of childhood want to know why our state officials are ignoring our pleas to punish those that hurt children and broke the law at The Second Mile. We simply don't want this abuse to continue hidden under different quasi-government programs.

      Why did Bruce Beemer as Acting Attorney General destroy The Second Mile's records? Why did Governor Wolf sit back and let that happen? Why won't Josh Shaprio acknowledge or even mention the laws broken at The Second Mile? Why did Risa Ferman bring false charges against her superior, Kathleen Kane, that wanted to expose the Second Mile? All of us know the answer to all of these questions. And our corrupt public servants, Governor Wolf included, don't care if you don't like what they are hiding. "Pay your damn taxes and mind your own business" is their motto of corruption.

    2. Philip - The judge dismissed the failure to report charge well before Schultz took the plea deal so his mandated reporter status was moot by that point.

      Being a "law enforcement official" actually may have been an advantage to Schultz. If Schultz, as a law enforcement official, did not suspect child abuse, then there was nothing to report.

      The state trooper who was told the 1971 accuser's story of an alleged rape, never bothered to report it, and he faced no charges. That state trooper stated that the teen claimed rape but he found the story not credible.

  6. Thanks for the updates guys. It is hard to believe that a law enforcement official can simply dismiss an incident as 'nothing to report' given all the hoo-hah over this PSU debacle. Our media goes rabid over any suggestion of complicity by anyone that can be tied to an institution with $$$. I was not aware that a state trooper was involved in the 1971 incident. Where can I find information on this?

    1. Philip,
      The state trooper heard the story of the 1971 incident in 2014 or 2015. That's in CNN's story. He called the story too incredible to believe.

      The media in PA is covering for the government. No doubt about it.