Avatar Image
about a year ago

Trial of Curley, Schultz to Proceed

Tim Curley

Joe Paterno was not present in Harrisburg at the preliminary hearing of Gary Schultz and Tim Curley; however, a written testimony was read on his behalf this afternoon.

The testimony was rather short. It began with Paterno saying that Mike McQueary had told him he saw Jerry Sandusky “fondling” a young boy in the shower. “I don’t know what you call it. He was doing something sexual in nature to a youngster.  I didn’t push Mike to tell me what it was.” Paterno said that he would have normally been more urgent under normal circumstances. “I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends.”

When Paterno called Curley, he allegedly said, “Hey, we’ve got a problem,” and proceeded to explain it to him. I have a tremendous amount of confidence in Mr. Curley, and I thought he would look into it.”

That concluded Paterno’s statement as he was not in attendance and not asked many specific questions.

Curley’s statement followed Paterno’s and took a bit longer to read.

It began by describing that McQueary had seen “an uncomfortable activity in the shower”. Contrary to McQueary’s earlier testimony, nothing regarding a sexual nature was mentioned. “Mike McQueary seemed uncomfortable with Sandusky’s behavior.” Curley went on to say that he reported the incident to The Second Mile.

From there, he pointed out that it was his decision not to report the crime to the police. “I reported it to my direct employer, which was President Spanier. After meeting with Sandusky, I was not aware of anything sexual, so I felt my actions were appropriate.” In his meeting with Sandusky, he said Sandusky at first did not admit to being the shower but later conceded that he was in the Lasch Football Building that night.

Throughout his testimony, Curley maintained that he was never made aware of the 1998 Sandusky investigation. He stuck to the terms “wrestling”, “horsing around”, and “inappropriate conduct” several times but never mentioned anything of a sexual nature.

Curley’s testimony concluded, and shortly after, Gary Schultz’s was read. Schultz seemed to struggle to recall many specific details that were said at meetings. He testified that McQueary and Paterno only spoke in a general manner. “They did not use details.”

Schultz, like Curley, also was under the impression that a crime had not occurred. “I got the impression that there may have been some wrestling activities, and Sandusky may have grabbed the boy’s genitals.” Schulz later went on to say that he did not know if such an action would be considered a crime. Contrary to Curley, Schultz was aware of the 1998 incident involving Sandusky; however, he was under the impression that the Child Protection Agency ran the investigation as opposed to university police. Penn State, in fact, had a ninety-five page report on the investigation that Schultz said he was unaware of.

Building off of that, he testified that the previous investigation was not looked at after the 2002 incident, and to his knowledge, no one from the university pursued the 2002 investigation, and there was no attempt to identify the child.

One of the most poignant lines from Schultz’s testimony came towards the end. When Schultz was pressed as to whether or not he thought showering with young boys was appropriate, he responded, “I don’t know if it’s criminal.”

While the written testimony was lengthy, it seemed that Schultz consistently struggled to recall details regarding a meeting with Paterno and McQueary’s emotional state. “I don’t recall him being upset.”

Schultz’ testimony concluded, marking the end of witnesses and prompting final remarks from the prosecution and defense.

After both closing arguments, Judge William C. Wenner ruled that the case will proceed forward to trial upholding the perjury and failure to report charges for Curley and Schultz. Bail will also remain the same.

“I do believe the Commonwealth has met prima facie. Case will move forward.”

From there, court was adjourned. Onward State will have trial dates and arraignment details as they become available.

  • Crozier-Cross

       Read this at your own risk as this is just my take on the situation.  I have known many individuals that have been accused,, arested, and imprisoned for being sexual predators on minors.  I’ve been following this case as closely aspossible and have to ask myself how this stacks up against actual cases of sexual abuse that I have encountered through the people I have known.
       I feel that Mike McQueary has an axe to grind in all this.  If he initially spoke to his supervisors the following day (and telling them of “an uncomfortable activity in the shower”) (http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-football/mcqueary-new-testimony/) instead of immediately calling the police after watching the alleged act (not just seeing — symantics, yes, but a vast differnce when dealing in criminal law), then describing the event in almost pornographic depiction in court, I would have to say that something is wrong somewhere.  Any person with even the most spastically functioning moral compass that saw an adult in a shower performing any act on a minor that caused:

                       “rhythmic slapping sounds” to which he (McQueary — emphasis mine for identification) “turned to face his locker, looked over his right shoulder into a mirror, and saw Jerry Sandusky directly behind the boy.” He looked in the shower a second time, and Sandusky “did not change his position” from the first time. (http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-football/mcqueary-new-testimony/)

    This is where any person of moral standing would grab their cell phone and call the police directly.  I am not accusing McQueary nor am I exonorating Sandusky, yet somewhere along the line, this sounds too much like McQueary has been wronged by Sandusky personally and is now attempting to strike back at Sandusky.  McQueary has too many holes in his story for my tastes.

       As for the difference between “watching” and “seeing,” to watch something is to actively take it into ones mind through visual means (“My father watches the Super Bowl every year.”); while to see something is far more simple and incidental (“I saw a cat crossing the street yesterday.”)  The same applies to “listening” and “hearing.”  English lesson over.