Witnesses take stand against Spanier
Curley, Schultz say they believed they acted appropriately in Sandusky matter
HARRISBURG — The star prosecution witnesses against former Pennsylvania State University president Graham B. Spanier finally took the stand Wednesday, delivering a fresh dose of uncertainty about when they knew Jerry Sandusky was a child predator and what they did about it.
Publicly testifying for the first time since they were charged in 2011, former athletic director Tim Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz told jurors they did not know Sandusky had sexually assaulted children and said they believed they acted appropriately after hearing reports in 1998 and 2001 that the former assistant football coach had showered with boys.
During nearly three hours of questioning, both men also seemed to do little to bolster prosecutors’ contention that Mr. Spanier knew about Sandusky’s crimes and failed to act on them or prevented others from doing so.
But Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz agreed on one point: In hindsight, both said they should have done more.
“I felt I had been deficient in not reporting it myself,” said Mr. Schultz.
Their testimony had been expected to be a cornerstone of the conspiracy and endangerment case against Mr. Spanier. Both men became government witnesses after striking deals last week and pleading guilty to a single endangerment count.
Instead, their testimony raised questions about whether Mr. Spanier’s defense team, scheduled to begin presenting its case Thursday morning, will find it necessary to call the 68-year-old longtime university president as a witness, or merely argue that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Spanier has denied any wrongdoing; his lawyer told jurors in opening arguments he was being unfairly prosecuted for a judgment call.
Prosecutors had portrayed the three administrators as plotting in 2001 not to alert authorities after assistant football coach Mike McQueary reported seeing Sandusky sexually assault a boy in locker room shower on campus, despite knowing that police had looked into a report in 1998 of Sandusky showering with a young boy.
Both Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz said they thought reports that Sandusky had showered with young boys was inappropriate but not criminal.
“I thought Jerry had boundary issues, judgment issues that needed to be addressed,” Mr. Curley testified.
Neither was in the courtroom when the other testified. And while portions of their accounts matched, each also contradicted each other at times.
Mr. Curley struggled at times to recall details of meetings or conversations with Mr. Spanier or Mr. Schultz.
Mr. Curley said he and Mr. Schultz had visited head coach Joe Paterno at his State College home in 2001 to hear what Mr. McQueary had told the coach. But Mr. Schultz testified that he didn’t recall going to Paterno’s house for that meeting and that he got his initial report on what happened from Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley’s testimony also raised questions about past statements by Paterno, who before he died claimed he had been unaware of any misconduct allegations against Sandusky until 2001.
Mr. Curley testified that he had told Paterno in 1998 that police had looked into the claim that Sandusky showered with a boy, but opted not to bring charges. He cited an email in which he said he had “touched base with the coach” and would keep him informed about the allegation.
Both men suggested they had not been led to believe Mr. McQueary witnessed a sexual attack in the shower.
Mr. Schultz said Mr. McQueary told them that he saw Sandusky standing behind a young boy with his arms wrapped around him — and that both were naked.
But he said he did not recall Mr. McQueary claiming, as he has in the courtroom, that he heard skin-on-skin “slapping sounds.”
The former vice president also testified that when he first described the incident to Mr. Spanier, he used the word “horseplay” because, he said, that’s how Mr. Curley told him Paterno had described it.
Mr. Schultz also said he took notes from a 2001 meeting with Mr. Spanier and Mr. Curley, during which he noted that they discussed the 1998 shower incident. They then decided that child welfare authorities should be notified and that Mr. Curley would “take the lead” and speak with Sandusky. He testified that his notes reflected Mr. Spanier’s “instructions.”
But he said he soon became “disappointed and frustrated” by how slowly Mr. Curley was moving on the matter. He and Mr. Curley didn’t interview Mr. McQueary until about 10 days after Mr. McQueary first reported the incident.
“Did Mike McQueary ever say what he saw was horseplay?” asked prosecutor Laura Ditka. “No,” Mr. Schultz replied. Days after that meeting, Mr. Schultz said, Mr. Curley wrote an email to him and Mr. Spanier saying he wanted to hold off on alerting child welfare officials until he had had a chance to speak with Sandusky. All three men agreed that was the fairest way to handle the matter, he said. Authorities were never notified; instead they agreed to bar Sandusky from bringing children onto campus.
Mr. Schultz testified that the decision was “a mistake,” seconds later adding: “We should have reported it, like the original plan.”
Mr. Curley acknowledged that the men initially had intended to notify state welfare officials of the Mr. McQueary report but testified that he became “uncomfortable” with that plan after talking with Paterno.
Under questioning, Mr. Curley could not recall what Paterno said to him to make him feel uncomfortable. He also was unable to recall how Paterno reacted in 1998, when he said he told the head coach police had looked into the first Sandusky shower incident.
Both men acknowledged on cross examination that they never conspired with Mr. Spanier to commit a crime or endanger children, and that they thought at the time that what they had done was responsible and legal.
Four of Sandusky’s victims were assaulted after the 2001 Mr. McQueary report, an agent for the Attorney General’s office told jurors. Each later became a witness at his 2012 trial.