From one of the comments to that Harrisburg article, here is the e mail chain, in chronological order:

Monday Feb. 26, 2001 1:57pm From Gary Schultz to Tim Curley
cc Joan Coble (secretary)
Subject: confidential

Tim, I'm assuming that you've got the ball to 1) talk to the subject ASAP regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility; 2) contact the Chair of the Charitable Organization; and 3) contact the Dept. of Welfare. As you know, I'm out of the office the next two weeks, but if you need anything from me, let me know.

Tuesday Feb. 27 8:10pm from Tim Curley (to Schultz and President Spanier)

I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday - I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also. we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

Tuesday Feb. 27 10:18pm From Graham Spanier to Tim Curley and Gary Schultz

Tim, this approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means that your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if the message isn't "heard" and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it, but that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.

Wednesday Feb. 28 2:13pm From Gary Schultz to Tim Curley and Graham Spanier
Subject: re: meeting

Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this. I can support this approach with the understanding we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed). We can play it by ear to decide about the other organization.

*****************

It is obvious that at the beginning, prior to Curley talking to Joe on Monday, they had planned to inform Dept of Welfare (Child Protective Services). Hell, it's the law. Then, surprise surprise, after speaking with Joe, Tim's all of a sudden uncomfortable with all of this reporting business. He wants to talk with Sandusky. Get him to understand what he's doing just isn't right. Hopeful good old Jerry hears the message. Spanier is supportive, but points out they'll all be vulnerable (for breaking the reporting law) if Jerry doesn't "hear" the message.

I think we all found out that pedophiles don't stop. You need to stop them. Yes. They failed any and every test anyone can come up with.

How many kids were abused after this episode? Why are we rewarding Penn State by reducing their penalty again?