Thought you might have some better insight that led you to say she focused on the criminality of those two instead of focusing on Spanier. What we get from trial coverage is necessarily selective.
I wonder what weight the jury will give to the documentary evidence (which is old and boring) versus the sworn testimony (which is new and exciting - to use, anyway, and the journalists).
A refresher on the documentary evidence:
Schultz notes from May 4, 1998 about the 1998 investigation (presumably from the police) “at best inappropriate - at worst sexual improprieties” and May 5 "is this opening of pandora’s box? Other children?"
5/5/1998 pp 3 and 4:
A May 6, 1998 email reply from Schultz to Curley updates Curley that DPW will interview with Sandusky; Curley’s original email said he had touched base with coach
A May 13, 1998 email from Curley to Schultz says “Coach is anxious to know where it stands”. Curley seeks another update on May 18, and again on May 30.
A June 9, 1998 email that includes the text of a June 1 email from PSU Police Director Thomas Harmon to Schultz:
June 9, 1998: Schultz writes to Curley:
1998 Summary: That’s it for 1998. Schultz was well informed, according to his notes.
Schultz, Curley, Spanier and presumably Paterno* were aware of the 1998 allegation; Spanier was copied on the May 6 Schultz email about the pending DPW interview and the June 9 Schultz “hope it is now behind us” email; Curley expressed much interest in the investigation; the investigation seemed to be definitive (not criminal) and Schultz was told that Jerry did this kind of stuff with other children in the past.
Feb. 12 Schultz note that @unclelar referenced above, “unless he confesses”, DPW.
Feb 25, 2001 Schultz note. No mention of “unless he confesses”, just three-part plan - 1. No kids in Lasch, 2. Report to DPW, 3. Tell TSM chair. Feb. 12 Schultz email check with Harmon that the 1998 incident is documented.
Schultz Feb. 26 email to Curley, again no mention of optional contact of DPW.
Feb. 27, 2001 email to Spanier from Curley and Spanier’s response: Curley wants to confront Sandusky and tell him they think he has a problem and have a responsibility to inform TSM and “maybe the other one” (presumably the state). “If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization.” Spanier’s response the same day: acceptable to him, and the downside is that “we become vulnerable for not having reported it” if the message isn’t heard.
Feb. 28 Schultz email to Spanier and Curley signing off on not informing DPW.
2001 Summary Jerry needs to “confess” to something. Plan is to notify agency if he doesn’t. Later notes from Schultz, including email, drop the optional part. Tim thinks about it,. talks to Joe, decides to confront Jerry directly with the plan that they all sign off on: No kids in Lasch, seek professional help, inform TSM “and maybe the other” organization.
*(I think that the 1998 emails contradicts Paterno’s grand jury testimony that he was not aware of the 1998 case was a big turning point in the public perception of Paterno.)