[quote="Chooch, post:7968, topic:2287"]Did C/S/S really know the details of '98, or did they just know that there was an investigation that did not lead to charges (in affect absolving JS)? If the latter, then they would not necessarily have reason to think 2001 was any different, if they interpreted MM report as "horseplay." For them to have been told details, wouldn't that be a violation of confidentiality on the part of the police/DA/CYS?[/quote]
Assuming I'm interpreting your question right, the answer is yes, they knew that Sandusky was being investigated for inappropriate behavior in the shower with a child. It's in the Freeh Report emails, you can see that for yourself. Mind you, I think "absolving JS" are not necessarily the right words here. I did say you can look at them favorably (or not unfavorably) for 1998 if you want, it's not cut and dry. I choose not too (and admitted that this maybe too much given I have the benefit of hindsight bias).
Correct that they knew that Sandusky was being investigated. And correct that they knew that he was being investigated for showering with a child. But "inappropriate behavior" while in the shower? Not so sure about that. What they did know was that he was told to not shower with kids anymore but I'm not sure it's clear what they were told about what actually happened in the shower other than it was nothing criminal. If you can point me to something that says differently, I'd appreciate it.
I'm not an expert on this topic, but....
....didn't I hear about Shultz having "a file" on the 1998 investigation? I think his secretary mentioned it, and Schultz admitted to having it.
I think it contained the same police report from 1998 that was linked a page earlier in this thread.
Schultz had a Sandusky file. People insinuate that it was some sort of secret file and the way that you phrased the sentence "I think his secretary mentioned it, and Schultz admitted to having it" presents it in the same manner. The fact is that Schultz testified to the Grand Jury that he did at one time have a file on Sandusky, that he left it behind when he retired, and that he really didn't know what happened to it after that. Also, the references that I have seen to that file said it contained emails that referenced Sandusky along with handwritten notes that Schultz had taken regarding Sandusky. Never have I seen a claim that there was a police report in there.
His secretary testified at a later hearing that the Sandusky file was kept in a bottom drawer of bookcase along with other confidential files, such as employment contracts, on prominent university employees. She also stated those confidential files were handled that way before Schultz took the job and continued to be handled that way after Schultz left.
So the file was actually a business as usual situation for handling prominent university officials' files. It wasn't something that was unique to Sandusky, and while it was a confidential file, I think calling it a "secret" file suggests something more nefarious than it actually was.
No, Lar. Only in your mind would you think that I presented it in that manner, whereas I try to make it sound like a "secret" file. I stated such to say that it did indeed exist. It was not just a wild rumor.
When you phrase your sentence in the terms "Schultz admitted to having it", it certainly sounds like something more than stating that it exists. Schultz DISCLOSED the file and said it was left behind for his successor. It was in a locked drawer along with a bunch other files that contained sensitive information, like employment contracts, about senior officials.
You personally may not have specifically stated that it was a "secret" file but dozens of others have. It was a confidential file just like all the others in that locked file drawer in the VP's office.
Here's Schultz's testimony before the Grand Jury on Jan 12th 2011 where he mentions the file.
[i]Q: Do you believe that you may be in possession of any notes regarding the 2002 incident that you may have written memorializing what occurred?
A: I have none of those in my possession. I believe that there were probably notes taken at the time. Given my retirement in 2009, if I even had them at that time, something that old would have probably been destroyed.
I had quite a number of files that I considered confidential matters that go back years that didn't any longer seem pertinent. I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I would guess if there were any notes, they were destroyed on or before 2009.[/i]
It turns out that they weren't destroyed but it was Schultz that told the authorities about the file. It wasn't a secret file, it was a confidential one.
Also, it bears repeating that at no time have I ever seen it stated that the actual 1998 police report was in that file. That said, Schultz's notes do indicate that he knew that Sandusky had given the kid a bear hug from behind in the showers, so we do know that Schultz knew the generalities of the incident.