Penn State Records On Jerry Sandusky Could Lead To New Charges

Gary Schultz (left), Penn State’s former senior vice president of finance and business, and Tim Curley, the athletic director on administrative leave, face charges of lying to a grand jury and failing to report allegations of child sexual abuse. Both have maintained their innocence. (AP)

The independent investigation into what Penn State officials knew about the sex abuse allegations against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky shows they knew more than they claimed to.

Chronicle Of Higher Ed: More On Sandusky Investigation

According to a report published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, in 2001, top university officials held a three-hour meeting to discuss Sandusky and a report of suspected child abuse. As the Chronicle reports:

A law-firm billing record from that conversation describes a “report of suspected child abuse,” according to a person with knowledge of an independent investigation into the matter.

The new information adds to a detailed report by CNN and suggests that several top Penn State administrators, despite their claims otherwise, knew about the sexual nature of the accusation against Mr. Sandusky. Their failure to report it to child-welfare agencies, which is required by Pennsylvania law, could lead to further charges in the case.

New evidence also suggests that Joe Paterno, the head football coach, may have played a role in the university’s failure to notify outside authorities. Previously, he said that he had done his job by simply reporting concerns about Sandusky’s behavior up the line.

Last month, Sandusky was convicted of abusing 10 boys over a 15-year-period, some of them on the Penn State campus.

Guest:

Brad Wolverton, senior writer for the Chronicle of Higher Education

We welcome comments from all of our listeners. Post below. Please stay on topic and be civil. Comments may be moderated by us, but you are solely responsible for the content of your comments.

Slordpsu

Be very careful about how you implicate Joe Paterno, in your comments and postings. NPR and its affiliated programs advertise their fair and impartial reporting, but I have serious doubts about that, based on your reporting thus far.

Your comment above is very misleading and verges on slander. Joe Paterno never used email, so could not have been part of the email communication that took place, within the University Administration. Anything said about him in emails is hearsay, as there is no record of email he knew about or sent. Check your information before doing further damage to Joe Paterno’s reputation.
dylan

Slordpsu
I wonder why you even think it had anything to do with the emails. Emails are part of the evidence suggesting failure to report on University Administration’s part, but it does not say anything about Joe Paterno’s emails showing his knowledge. ‘New evidence’ suggests that Joe Paterno “may have played a role”. Not that he “did” play a role. Maybe the evidence is a record of meeting with these lawyers about the issue. We need to wait and see for release of more records for that. I don’t know why you are so sensitive about the issue (Are you from Paterno’s family?) but there is no misinformation here. Maybe you should check your reading and processing skills, first.