Friday, May 6

Paterno Family Demands Full Review of the Facts


Because of a single sentence in a court record of an insurance case, Joe Paterno's reputation has once again been smeared with an unsubstantiated, forty year old allegation.  In response to this allegation and the subsequent media hype, the Paterno family is demanding a full public review of the facts.

From day one, Joe Paterno and his family have called for an objective and total pursuit of the truth with a full respect for due process. In 2011 and 2012 Joe Paterno was subjected to an unprecedented rush to justice by Louis Freeh and the NCAA. Time has proven that the Freeh report was deeply flawed and the unprecedented punitive actions of the NCAA were unjustified. Over the past four and a half years, numerous allegations that were taken as fact when they were initially communicated have been proven false. It is in this context that the latest claim should be viewed.

The reckless, all-out rush to accept accusations as legitimate without a full fair review of the facts, cannot be allowed to happen again. Fighting shadows and rumors on issues that are this significant is a disservice to everyone who cares about the truth. We do not fear the truth, we embrace it. And we will not allow a repeat of what happened before. We challenge anyone with evidence of misconduct to come forward and present their allegations in a process that allows a full, fair review of the evidence. We will stand by the facts, but we will never accept veiled accusations presented in a context where they cannot be objectively reviewed and analyzed.

If anything has been learned from the Sandusky tragedy it should be that rushed investigations do incredible harm. For once, a fair process should come before conclusions are reached.

Saturday, April 30

PS4RS 4/29/2016 Statement: AG Not Pursuing Appeal

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship Calls Case Against Penn State Admins “Ill-Conceived;” 
Asks for Formal Second Mile Investigation
April 29, 2016 — Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) is pleased that the Pennsylvania Attorney General has today recognized the futility of pursuing the most serious charges against the Penn State administrators who were indicted in connection with the Jerry Sandusky case. From the outset, our members have questioned why Penn State administrators have been held responsible for the errors made by administrators of Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile. We hope that the elimination of this distraction, along with the eventual dismissal of the baseless mandatory reporting and child endangerment charges, will turn the conversation towards making Pennsylvania children truly safer. That begins with an official, formal investigation into The Second Mile, the non-profit that was founded by a now-convicted preferential child sexual offender.  And it continues with a closer look at how such an offender could hide in plain sight, escaping the scrutiny of county and state licensed child welfare professionals, child protection advocates, Child Protective Services and ChildLine. Too much time and too many resources have been wasted on an ill-conceived case targeting the wrong institution. This was never a Penn State problem. It is was – and still is – a State of Pennsylvania problem.
Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS), with more than 40,000 members, was formed to promote positive change within the University Board of Trustees, demanding transparent, trustworthy leadership. For further information on PS4RS, please, email, or go to Follow PS4RS on Twitter at @PS4RS.

Kane’s office won’t pursue appeal in Spanier, Schultz, Curley charges

by Lori Falce

The Office of Attorney General is not going to appeal a ruling that dropped some charges against former Penn State leaders.
According to an announcement from Attorney General Kathleen Kane, her office will not pursue an appeal of the state Supreme Court ruling from January. That was when a panel tossed the perjury, obstruction and conspiracy counts against former university president Graham Spanier and former vice president Gary Schultz, as well as obstruction and conspiracy against former athletic director Tim Curley.
That leaves failure to report suspected abuse and endangering the welfare of children charges against all three and a perjury count against Curley remaining in Dauphin County. The charges stem from the grand jury proceedings against retired Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.
“The attorney general accepts the opinion of the Solicitor General and, in response thereto, orders that no further resources of the Commonwealth be expended to pursue a possible appeal,” the OAG said in a release.

Tuesday, April 19

Why I Didn't Read "Wounded Lions"

"Wounded Lions" author Ron Smith set out to create the history to support a never to be proven allegation that PSU officials failed to report Sandusky in 2001.

Ray Blehar

According to a January 19, 2016 email from "Wounded Lions" author Ron Smith, he set out to find the "historical background" that explained "how Penn State administrators responded to the Sandusky scandal."

Smith was not speaking about how the Penn State Board of Trustees sold the University down the river under the false pretense that they were caught by surprise by the Sandusky investigation.  

He was digging around trying to find individuals who would support the false narrative of an insular athletic culture that didn't conform to the rules of the rest of the University.

Smith's emails contained numerous examples of his falling for false narratives that the Attorney General's office and Louis Freeh wrote to deflect attention away from the failings of the Pennsylvania State Police, The Second Mile, and child welfare agents.  Instead, they heaped the responsibilities of those organizations onto Penn State.

The gullible emeritus professor got played like a fiddle.

Smith built a half century of history to support a false narrative of an insular football culture.

While Smith claims to have done extensive research about the history of PSU athletics, he admitted that he wasn't concerned about whether people were innocent or guilty.  


The whole "Penn State scandal" was based on allegations that Curley and Schultz, then eventually Spanier, failed to report abuse but Smith didn't believe he needed to find out whether that happened or not.  

What is even more crazy is that Smith admitted that if a trial took place, PSU officials wouldn't be found guilty.  
That statement said a lot about Smith's knowledge about the scandal. 

First, all he needed to do was read the child abuse reporting statutes to know whether or not what PSU did (or didn't do) was criminal.  It wasn't.  The statute didn't apply to University administrators in 2001 and still doesn't today -- even after revisions to the statutes in 2014.

Next, he didn't follow the case close enough to know that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are scheduled to be tried together. There will be one trial, not three.

Finally, he didn't think they would be found guilty -- but the failure to report Sandusky charge is the decision for which he based his historical research.

So Smith forges on apparently assuming the PSU 3 are guilty -- but won't be convicted at a trial because of a lack of evidence.

Speaking of evidence or lack thereof, the book's premise is that PSU athletics was an "insular" operation.

Well, that premise was defeated by the evidence that was made public the day the Sandusky grand jury presentment was published.

Evidence:  PSU athletic department officials were extremely forthcoming and open in reporting and/or investigating Jerry Sandusky in 1998 and in 2001.  

In 1998, PSU Athletic Director (AD) Timothy Curley did not interfere or attempt to get involved in a child abuse investigation of then full-time assistant coach and defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.

In 2001, athletic department employees Mike McQueary, Joe Paterno, and AD Curley, when confronted with another incident of retired former coach Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with a child, reported the incident in accordance with University protocols.  In short, it was reported outside athletics.

Neither the 1998 nor the 2001 incident fit Smith's template of athletics as an "insular" operation.

But he somehow built a half-century of history to show that it was.

That's why I didn't waste my time reading "Wounded Lions."

Thursday, April 14

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

The Sandusky case was sent to a grand jury so that the investigation would die a slow, secret death

Ray Blehar

While the Moulton Report found no direct evidence that former Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) and one-term Governor Tom Corbett influenced the Sandusky investigation, it absolutely concluded the investigation was slow walked.  

While the report may not have used those exact words, Special Deputy AG Geoffrey Moulton and AG Kathleen Kane instead used "inexplicable" and "inexcusable,' respectively,  to describe the delays in the investigation.

Kane was right.  The delays were "inexcusable."

Moulton was wrong.  The delays were not "inexplicable."

Kane's mistake not to clean house upon taking office resulted in the evidence that would have explained the delays being excluded from Moulton's report.  

That evidence would have shown that Frank "moral responsibility" Noonan's did his best to derail the initial investigation and that when it landed in Corbett's lap, the AG was going to let the Sandusky case die a slow, secret death inside the grand jury.

The Evidence
The following evidence of the investigator's failure to follow leads and conduct routine investigative work was known to Moulton's team but not included in the report.

Failure to Find Victim 9
During the first twenty months of the investigation,  the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and OAG were completely reliant upon Aaron Fisher (Victim 1), Dawn Daniels, and Central Mountain High School officials to generate leads.  

As the investigation languished, the AG and PSP failed to investigate the first lead about other victims ever provided by Fisher, who provided the first names of two young men who had highly unusual first names beginning with the letter "S."

Fisher provided that information at his initial interview on November 20, 2008.  

It is unclear whether or not Trooper Cavanaugh included that information in his police report that eventually made its way to the OAG.  However, it is obvious that Cavanaugh didn't attempt to find Victim 9, as that would have required contacting The Second Mile (TSM) to find out the child's last name.

TSM wasn't contacted about the investigation until January 2011. 

According to the Moulton Report, the investigation went cold in March 2010 and nothing happened until October.   Typically, when an investigation goes cold, it is common practice to go back to square one and review all of the existing evidence with the hopes of uncovering something that was missed.  

That didn't happen.

In fact, the investigators did not go back to Clinton County CYS until June 27, 2011.

The search warrant Sandusky's home was approved one week before the investigators visited Clinton County CYS.   On June 22nd, the investigators finally searched Sandusky's home.

According to the trial testimony of AG Agent Anthony Sassano, a list of the names of participants of The Second Mile was found in Sandusky's home.  Victim 9's name, his mother's first name, and his phone number was on the participant list. 

Despite investigators having that considerable evidence that could have led them to Victim 9, they never followed up.

In November 2011, the assistant principal of the boy's school called the hotline after the news of the Sandusky charges hit the papers.

As it turned out, Victim 9 was repeatedly abused while the investigation lagged.  

Failure to Find Victim 10
Along those same lines, one of the lists from Sandusky's PSU office generated the name of Victim 10.  His name was  marked with an asterisk, like some of the other victims who were presented as witnesses at the trial.  

Victim 10, who had a long criminal record,  was incarcerated in at State Correctional Institution - Albion, serving 22 months for robbery until July 2009.  He had a prior arrest in 2004 for burglary. 

Apparently, Noonan's crack team of cops and Corbett's AG investigators didn't think to check for arrest records of former participants of a charity for troubled and at-risk youth.   

Four of the eight witnesses/victims presented at Sandusky trial had arrest records prior to being identified by police.

Those records were not used to find them -- and those facts were excluded from the Moulton Report.

Inexplicable delays?  Certainly not.  

This was turning a blind eye to evidence and not conducting the most basic investigative work.

The Moulton Report revealed that NO investigative activity occurred for ten of the first twenty months of the investigation.  

The Sandusky investigation was put in the grand jury to die. 

And it almost did -- until Corbett decided to use the Sandusky investigation to take out former PSU President Graham Spanier.

Until the Spanier flap, Corbett was letting the clock run out on the investigation

Coming Soon:  Keystone Corruption & Corbett's Politically Motivated Prosecutions

Thursday, March 24

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 2

If Corbett's assertion that the AG needed a grand jury to prove a cover-up was true, then the outcome for the former one-term governor is even worse


Ray Blehar

For Corbett, if his statement was true
then he confessed to foot-dragging.

While the official facts in evidence refute former Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) and former Governor Tom Corbett's statement about needing a grand jury to coerce testimony and prove a cover-up, the irony is that if his statement was true, it is an admission of not investigating a cover up and/or foot-dragging on the investigation for political reasons.

As noted here, the facts in evidence were that the AG's office didn't find another victim to corroborate Aaron Fisher allegations until January 2011. 

If there wasn't evidence of more than one victim --and that Fisher reported Sandusky to the authorities -- then there was no evidence that supported a cover-up.

But what if Corbett was telling the truth?  In this case, the truth is worse than a lie.

Under one of the "truth" scenarios, the AG's office may have had a hunch that the reason the other young men that were interviewed didn't disclose abuse was because some person or persons had provided them with some material incentive not to talk.  

While it is possible that victims may have been physically threatened,  the only known victim, Fisher, came forward without fear of physical harm in November 2008.   And, like the other eventual victims, Fisher received gifts from Sandusky, such as new clothes, computers, and sports equipment.   

In short, the most likely suspect in a cover-up scenario would have been none other than the perpetrator, Jerry Sandusky.  

The Jerry Sandusky Non-Investigation

According to the Moulton Report, there is no evidence that the investigation searched Sandusky's personal records to verify purchases or to check for cash (ATM) withdrawals -- his bank account and credit card records were not subpoenaed.  

Fisher also stated he attended sporting events, such as Eagles and Browns National Football League (NFL) games with Sandusky, sometimes in the company of other children.  

Here's where the story gets interesting. 

In late 2009, Dawn Daniels claimed that she was offered free Philadelphia Eagles box seat season tickets.  In the book, Silent No More (p. 117), Mike Gillum noted that a man named "John" from the Eagles, who knew that Aaron had attended games and had set the tickets aside for them. 

At the time of the alleged offer, Sandusky's adopted son, Jon, worked for the Eagles.  He would later get a job with the Browns.

The AG "investigated" the Eagles ticket allegation and took the word of the Eagles -- that the family misunderstood and were being asked to purchase tickets.  Right -- because the Eagles routinely phone housing projects in search of prospective season ticket purchasers.  

In the one instance where a possible cover-up/payoff scenario was alleged, it appeared to be investigated pro forma and dismissed.  The "John" - "Jon" connection wasn't made.

If Sandusky was the prime suspect, then the first information subpoenaed about him were his employment records -- requested on January 7, 2010. That was almost seven months into the investigation and employment records would not provide evidence  of a cover-up.  

In fact, in the inexplicable Sandusky investigation, the evidence apparently reveals that the AG didn't consider Sandusky could have been a suspect for covering up his own crimes! 

But don't expect Bumsted or the rest of the media to figure this stuff out.

News reporters, most without any knowledge of the case, might propose that Corbett and the AG suspected that officials at Central Mountain High School (CMHS) or from The Second Mile (TSM) were behind the alleged cover-up.

Under those scenarios, there is also a dearth of evidence of even a half-hearted cover-up investigation.

CMHS Non-Investigation

According to the Moulton Report, the only CMHS individual interviewed by the police -- prior to July 28, 2011 -- was assistant principal and head football coach, Steven Turchetta.   Again, Corbett said he needed the grand jury to coerce testimony.  

Who was being coerced?  Turchetta was a cooperating witness.

Certainly, there is no evidence on the record supporting a cover-up investigation of CMHS.

The Non-Investigation of The Second Mile

Geoffrey Moulton used the word "inexplicable" to explain the delays in getting warrants for Sandusky's home and making an arrest.   However, that same word applies to the Pennsylvania State Police's (PSP) failure to interview individuals and gather evidence from The Second Mile (TSM) as a means of identifying potential victims.

Moreover, if there was an organization that should have been suspected of covering up Sandusky's crimes, TSM should have been at the top of the list.  Sandusky was the organizations founder, face, and top fundraiser. 

As history shows, without Sandusky, TSM could not exist.  

Even if the PSP didn't understand the financial incentive for a TSM cover-up, they had plenty of leads that should have caused them to visit the charity early in the investigation.   The first seven people interviewed by the PSP all mentioned Sandusky's association with TSM and his work in mentoring young men.  

The PSP continued to investigate the case when it was ensconced  in the grand jury.  

In August 2009, F.A., a former CMHS student, testified to the grand jury about being a TSM participant and being in the car with Fisher and Sandusky.   Following F.A.'s testimony, Agent Anthony Sassano drafted a list of investigative steps that excluded contacting anyone associated with the charity.  In reading the email below, the incompetency of Sassano is evident -- and likely explains why he was assigned to the case.

Even if Sassano was incompetent, he was being overseen by a seasoned prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach, who had prosecuted many sexual abuse cases.  Eshbach should have been the "backstop" that made sure investigators didn't miss anything.

Instead, it appeared that Eshbach was equally avoiding investigating TSM, as this request for subpoena reveals the gymnastics that had to be undertaken to not request records from the charity, but justify a request to Penn State.

It is notable that Eshbach and the AG had "some suspicion" -- based on no evidence on the official record -- that PSU had knowledge of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with children. 

More on that in a second.

In summary, the evidence shows that if Corbett and the AG suspected a cover-up, then it failed to investigate any of the most probable suspects until 2011.  Based on the official record of evidence, the Sandusky grand jury was not investigating a cover-up or coercing any witness testimony.

Suppressed Evidence Equals Electoral Foot-Dragging or Worse
Eshbach's subpoena request is among the earliest official records indicating the AG may have obtained information about the PSU incidents earlier than November 2010.

The unofficial record may help fill in the blanks.

Mike Gillum, in Silent No More (p. 120), stated that on June 16, 2009,  Eshbach and Trooper Scott Rossman "indicated there was some other evidence they weren't at liberty to share with me.  It was something that happened in 1998."

While the official record states the 1998 University Park police report was not obtained until January 3, 2011, Gillum's account reveals that the AG got its hands on the 1998 report much earlier -- in fact, it appears that they possessed it around the time of the grand jury began.

If that was really the case, then Corbett might have been telling the truth about using the grand jury to prove a cover-up.  Except there's a problem with the 1998 police report.

It doesn't provide evidence or suspicion of a cover-up by PSU.

In fact, it shows the opposite because PSU immediately reached out to the DA's office and Centre County CYS to assist with the 1998 investigation.

That leads to the highly probable scenario that if Corbett suspected a PSU cover-up, then he had knowledge of the 2001 incident when the grand jury was convened.

The fact that the anonymous email tip on the incident showed up the day after Corbett was elected governor provides additional evidence that he was sitting on that evidence until after the election.

In summary, the circumstantial evidence in the case indicates that foot-dragging on the Sandusky case was politically motivated.  It also indicates that the AG could have found victims and made Sandusky's arrest much sooner. 

But arresting Sandusky wasn't part of the original plan -- and that's really why the foot-dragging occurred.  

The Sandusky investigation was supposed to die a slow, secret death in the grand jury.

Next: Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

Wednesday, March 16

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie

Former AG Tom Corbett's rationale for the inpaneling of the Sandusky grand jury in 2009 doesn't square with the facts in evidence

Ray Blehar

As I was reading Brad Bumsted's "Keystone Corruption, A Pennsylvania Insiders Guide to a State Gone Wrong" last week, I  came across an interesting statement attributed to Tom Corbett on page 196 about his reasoning behind using use of a grand jury in the Sandusky case.

Corbett's grand jury rationale
doesn't square with the facts.
"Corbett said the grand jury was needed to compel testimony and because of the complexity of proving a cover-up."

That statement doesn't square with the facts.

On May 1st 2009, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General submitted the Sandusky investigation to the Thirtieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.  On May 5th, the case was accepted.

According to evidence, Aaron Fisher was the only known victim until the eventual Victim 6 was identified in January 2011.  Moreover, according to the Moulton Report (page 148), in August 2010, Corbett agreed with other prosecutors that the case shouldn't be charged due to the lack of victims.

Early August 2010. Fina, Sheetz, and Ryan meet with Corbett to discuss the status of the Sandusky investigation. Corbett affirms their recommendation that the case should not then be charged and that the search for other victims should continue. 

Corbett's response to the Moulton Report, filed by his attorney Mark Zimmer on June 11, 2014, did not provide a reason for using a grand jury, other than it was a choice made by "career prosecutors."  

More importantly, however,  the response stated that the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to justify a search warrant for Sandusky's home until police interviewed Victim 7 (February 2011) and Victim 4 (April 2011) -- who provided the "fresh evidence" to justify a search warrant.

There are several credibility issues associated with the Corbett response.   Notably, the "fresh evidence" obtained in 2011 pertained incidents that occurred in Sandusky's home from 1996 through 2000, thus were of incidents five to thirteen years earlier than those reported by Fisher.   

Next, if this "fresh evidence" of "use of his residence for pedophilia" provided the basis for an airtight search warrant, then why did it take until June 20, 2011 to request it?

Finally, and most importantly, if there was not sufficient evidence to justify a search warrant of Sandusky's home until the spring of 2011, then Corbett's assertion that the Sandusky grand jury was inpaneled to prove a cover-up was a lie.

But don't expect an "insider" and ace reporter like Brad Bumsted to ever figure that out.

Saturday, February 27

"Freeh source materials" confirm the Curley File

Freeh Report source materials already in the public domain, combined with other evidence, confirm that Tim Curley had a file on Sandusky -- and its contents found their way into the so-called Schultz "secret file"

Ray Blehar 

Even though the alumni-elected members of the Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) have succeeded in gaining access to the Freeh source materials, the court sided with Old Main to keep the information from being publicly disclosed.

Regardless of that ruling, and likely unknown to the public, some of the Freeh source materials  are already in the public domain - and they prove that evidence was manipulated and/or tampered with in order to railroad PSU officials (i.e., Curley, Schultz, and Spanier).

However, when the source materials are combined with other existing evidence, the totality of the evidence confirms that former PSU Athletic Director (AD) Tim Curley had information related to the Sandusky matter -- and that information was illegally placed into the so-called "secret file" of former PSU VP for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz.

The Key Evidence?

What appears to be a seemingly insignificant document -- a February 11, 2001 computer printout that lists the names of the Board of Directors of The Second Mile (TSM) and its date/time stamp -- turns out to be a very key piece of evidence.

According to the Freeh Report (at 71), on "February 12, 2001, at about 11:10 AM, Schultz researched the internet about the Board members of The Second Mile, the charitable organization Sandusky founded."

The passage is referenced to End Note #303: Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12), however this printout -- that was printed at the exact same time "Schultz researched the internet" -- was not included in the Freeh Report.  Had it been included, most reasonable people (not Sally Jenkins) would have concluded that Freeh was making quite an evidentiary leap to tie an unlabeled computer printout to a specific individual.  In short, Freeh excluded the print out as a matter of maintaining his (alleged) credibility.

The document wasn't introduced as evidence in any legal proceeding to date -- for a very good reason.

The timeline of evidence does not support Gary Schultz searching for the names of members of the TSM Board on February 12, 2001.

Curley, Not Schultz, Concerned About TSM

Freeh Report Exhibit 5C, the February 12, 2001 "Confidential" hand-written note of Gary Schultz outlined an early plan for addressing the 2001 incident.  Schultz made no mention of  TSM in that plan.

According to the grand jury testimony of Curley (at 181 and 188), he originated the plan to inform TSM about the 2001 incident  and proposed it during the February 25, 2001 meeting with former PSU President Graham Spanier and Schultz.

Freeh Report Exhibit 5G, Schultz's February 28, 2001  email  also confirms Curley proposed informing TSM: "we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed)."

Schultz also memorialized Curley's plan, which included discussions with TSM, on February 25th and 26th, in handwriting (Exhibit 5G) and by email (Exhibit 5F), respectively.

Finally, Freeh Report Exhibit 2J, the notes of Graham Spanier, also confirm that Curley was very concerned about his impending interaction with TSM.

In summary, this evidence reveals that Curley came up with the plan to talk to TSM and had concerns about the charity's reaction.  Given the evidence, it was Curley - not Schultz -- who printed out the names of the TSM board members on February 12th.

While the printout turns out to be a very significant document in the grand scheme of things, it's not the only "source" document that provides evidence of manipulation and/or tampering.

March 7, 2001 Email Manipulation/Bias

A March 7, 2001 email allegedly obtained from the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz, memorialized a discussion between  Curley and Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble, regarding Curley's follow up on the plan to address the incident.

Freeh Report's Exhibit 5I of the email is on the left, while the source document (introduced as Commonwealth's Exhibit 18 at the July 2013 preliminary hearing) is on the right.

The evidence shows that the Freeh Report exhibit was printed from an email file and was not the full email discussion between Coble and Curley.  The Freeh Report excluded any mention of Curley's affirmative response that he had followed through on the plan by March 7th.  Note that March 7th is the circled date at top of the full email.

This is significant because the Freeh Report stated, without equivocation, that Curley met with TSM on March 19, 2001.  However, the Freeh Report's March 19, 2001 date is based on a hearsay statement from an unnamed legal representative for TSM.

The Freeh Report's conclusion of the March 19th meeting between Curley and TSM was also refuted by Spanier's notes (Freeh Exhibit 2J).  Spanier wrote that he met with Curley shortly after their late February meeting that the former AD had followed through on the plan to speak with TSM.

The Freeh Report made several inferences that Spanier had been less than honest with the Freeh investigators, thus excluding the critical evidence of the March 7th date was two fold:  to support the Freeh Report conclusion of a March 19th meeting and to undermine the credibility of Spanier.

As shown in email obtained by PSU alumnus, Ryan Bagwell, Freeh made it a point to alert personnel conducting Spanier's background investigation for a security clearance about evidence found during the (criminal) investigation.  Spanier would eventually lose his clearance as a result of the charges against him.

The evidence manipulation to persecute PSU officials certainly was more widespread than those documents.  Over 80 documents cited as sources in the Freeh Report were excluded, and most importantly, some of the most critical missing evidence is tied to the Curley/Schultz files.

Curley's Notes Turned Over In February 2011

The grand jury questioning by Frank Fina revealed he was not yet aware that Tim Curley possessed any information about Sandusky.  Fina didn't ask a single question whether Tim had taken notes during any of the meetings about the 2001 incident.  In fact, Fina didn't even ask Curley (or anyone else) if they had searched for documents responsive to Subpoena 1179.  Clearly, Fina knew that Baldwin didn't tell these men to search for documents.

According to the Freeh Report (at 84), on February 15, 2011, Baldwin met with members of the football coaching staff to discuss their knowledge of Sandusky.  The next day, OAG investigators were present and conducted more interviews.  It is likely that the search for documents from the football coaches and AD officials occurred then or very shortly thereafter.

OAG special agent, Anthony Sassano later testified that the legal team of Duane Morris delivered boxes of information (he presumed was from Schultz's office)  that contained Sandusky's retirement paperwork.  Duane Morris was the former employer of Cynthia Baldwin -- and she brought in members of that firm in to assist her.  According to a notation on one of the retirement papers (Freeh Report Exhibit 3H), it was received (by someone, but certainly not Louis Freeh) on February 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm.

While the public has been led to believe that the retirement paperwork came from the Schultz file, it is clear that Curley had a copy of it.  As noted on the letter, Sandusky was instructed to return his signed copy to Curley (see below).  This indeed confirms that Curley and/or the AD's office had information related to Sandusky in its possession.

But that's not the only significant issue regarding the Curley file.

More Tampering?
According to the testimony of Joan Coble, she had no specific knowledge of anything in the bottom drawer of Schultz's filing cabinet.  She testified she never looked in the drawer.  As such, Coble's testimony provided no legitimate information regarding the contents of the Schultz file.

Based on the evidence cited previously, by the time Kimberly Belcher removed the file from Schultz's bottom drawer in November 2011, it had been touched by so many hands that the authenticity/integrity of the contents would be compromised.

It also appears that one of the "hands" involved may have tampered with the retirement letter.

Under magnification, it appears that Schultz's signature has been overlaid on a previous signature block. Note that the words "BY UNIVERSITY OFFICER: and "for Finance" do not have shadowing or aliasing around them.

For the purpose of comparison, here is top of page two at similar magnification, showing the clear, bolder, non-shadowed type as the authentic typeface.

It is highly probable that those who tampered with the evidence did so thinking that Freeh's impeccable reputation would prevent anyone from questioning the authenticity of the evidence and that they could get away with railroading the PSU 3.

Under the patently ridiculous narrative of the Freeh Report, it was the lure of the Penn State football facilities that provided the "very currency" that Sandusky used to attract his victims. With Schultz's signature affixed to the document, each of the PSU 3 (and Paterno) would be tried in the court of public opinon for enabling Sandusky's sexual abuse.

Freeh publicly smeared PSU officials for allowing Sandusky to be on campus after there were no charges or findings against him in 1998.  Moreover, Freeh ignored the evidence that no crimes occurred on campus after 2001, instead stating that abuse continued on the PSU campus through 2009.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly, evidence timelines or chain of custody of evidence can be counted on to undo the false narratives of the cases prosecuted by the PA Corruption Network.

The Chain of Custody of the Schultz Files

According to OAG officials, the notes of Schultz were not provided to them until April 2012 -- by Schultz and his former administrative assistant, Kimberly Belcher.

Louis Freeh claimed, during his highly publicized press conference, that "we found them in conjunction with the Attorney General."  The Freeh Report notes the date of discovery as May 1, 2012.

However, both of those claims are refuted by the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson.  On 31 January 2012, which was three months before the Schultz notes were either turned over to the OAG or "found" by Freeh, Erickson wrote that he was to get copies of the notes of Curley and Schultz.

PSU alumnae Eileen Morgan's excellent analysis of the evidence surrounding the grand jury questioning of Curley, Schultz, and the late former PSU football Coach, Joe Paterno almost certainly proves that Frank Fina received the Schultz file from PSU (i.e., Baldwin) prior to the January 12, 2011 proceeding.

While Erickson's notebook confirms that he knew that Freeh's alleged discovery of the Schultz file and the OAG's pretense that the files were not turned over until April 2012 were both shams, it also confirmed that he was aware of Fina's strategy to get Curley and Schultz to flip.

Based on the analysis of the evidence, it is highly probable that Fina, et al, decided to throw the whole kitchen sink of evidence at Schultz, rather than Curley, in an effort to produce the flip.

The Truth

PSU, under Erickson and new puppet President Eric Barron have paid out untold millions to keep various litigants, including some of its own trustees,  from accessing the Freeh source materials.

In doing so, Old Main and the Old Guard utilized specious arguments or protecting employee confidentiality and that the Freeh Report didn't impact University decisions as a means to keep the alumni trustees from finding out the truth.

The reality of the matter is that Erickson, Baldwin, and others know that it is only a matter of time before the Freeh source materials expose the truth about the Sandusky matter.

And the only thing Erickson, Baldwin, Harmon, Fina and numerous others fear more than the truth is what the truth will eventually do to them.

Friday, February 26

Wendy Silverwood: 2/26/2016 Public Comment to BOT

At the core of any community is its values -- the shared ideals about how people should act toward one another, the standards to which we hold ourselves, and those beliefs we find important.

I wanted to address two of these Penn State core values out of the six that are published.

INTEGRITY: We act with integrity and honesty in accordance with the highest academic, professional, and ETHICAL standards.

Conversely the integrity, professional and ethical standards of individuals within our former Office of Attorney General ran counter to those of the University.

Frank Fina was the star prosecutor in that office — the guy who made Governor Corbett’s career.

Fina, along with other officials including those involved with the Sandusky case are caught up in what we now know as ‪#‎PornGate‬ and ‪#‎HateGate‬.

Among the hard core pornography Fina circulated from his office, much of it included images of women engaged in anal sex, oral sex and group sex.

Images of women being VIOLATED with various objects.

Recall that prosecutor Fina supervised that inflammatory grand jury presentment indicting Tim Curley and Gary Schultz with failing to report a crime of violation.

A crime acoustically and physically impossible as described, and later born out as untrue by evidence and testimony to a jury in the courtroom.

Yet nevertheless the media has repeated this singular lie as if it were the unassailable truth.

Prosecutors have a license to lie. It is not a stretch to see who was behind that lie.

Not once has Penn State ever paused to reflect on the established ethics, honesty and integrity of Tim, Gary, Graham & Joe – instead you chose to question and disbelieve.

Perhaps you should seriously question the ethics, honesty and integrity of Frank Fina.

RESPECT: We respect and honor the dignity of each person and embrace civil discourse.

Civil discourse ceased the moment John Surma stepped over Steve Garban’s body to ax Joe in an ill-timed, late night press conference carrying out a personal vendetta.

Civil discourse was replaced by verbal and physical harassment, death threats, vandalism and horribly flawed, sensationalist reporting in a media stampede.

Respecting the honor and dignity of Joe, Tim, Gary, Graham, the Lettermen, the student/athletes and the Penn State community at large, vaporized when a former prosecutor with a License To Lie indicted and smeared us all on July 12th, 2012.

Fina and Freeh chose to dishonor by selectively leaking to the media, even including a few Board members to carry out their deeds.

I ask that you respect and restore that honor to these people and their families and you insist on civil discourse by the media and the public.

Frank Fina and his fellow gunslingers in the Office of Attorney General reigned with fear & intimidation. It meant there were no holds barred on anybody who worked there.

These same prosecutorial bullying tactics were used to silence and discredit Tim Curley and Gary Schultz – suppressing evidence, falsely charging them and corruptly cooking up a scheme to charge Graham Spanier.

Appallingly, your own General Counsel helped with the deception.

Frank Fina’s email scandal of #hategate and #porngate has ripped open a constitutional crisis in our commonwealth.

It has exposed a network that ascribes to core values of Intimidation, Misconduct, Malfeasance, Dishonesty & Deceit.

A set of values that are antithetical to the values of Penn State.

Values that have destroyed lives, livelihoods and reputations, and shaken the very core of the community.

Is this our new standard?