Part I: The Insider
Apparently one of these individuals chose to be more unbiased than the rest of the group. This person may have been a strong advocate for preventing child abuse, thus he/she would want the public to know which organization really needs to improve how they do business. Note: This is not the leaker of the e-mails prior to release of the report.
This individual took advantage of Freeh’s lack of knowledge and experience with e-mail and PSU’s agreement not to review the document before publication, to alter e-mails, insert evidence Exhibits and text at or near the last editorial review of the report that points the finger at DPW for dropping the ball in 1998 and how PSU officials (beyond the four identified) were complicit in covering for DPW. The most damaging evidence includes:
- A DPW e-mail on 13 May 1998, just 10 days into the investigation, informing PSU that they wanted to “resolve the matter quickly.” (Exhibit 2B)
- Exhibits 2H and 2I, indicating 14 signs of suspected child abuse that were uncovered on the first two days of the investigation and turned over to DPW on May 5th. This exhibit also contained the first name of the other child and the name of the apartments in which he lived.
- Tom Harmon providing an update to Gary Schultz in which he expresses concern over DPW’s role in the investigation due to a conflict of interest with Second Mile. (Page 49)
- Exhibit 6A, an affidavit from former PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, who does not identify DPW as having a role in the 1998 investigation, yet reviewed the 1998 University Park Police Report that clearly identified DPW and Lauro.
Part II: Chronology of time and date stamps
Page 11 of the Freeh Report states: The University Staff provided a large volume of raw data from computer systems, individual computers and communication devices. The Special Investigative Counsel performed forensic analysis of this raw data independent of the University Staff.
This sounds great in theory, but did not work well in practice.
On Exhibit 2B from the Freeh Report below I have added two arrows labeled “A” pointing out the date stamps that are out of order. Chronology of e-mail either flows up the page or down the page. If you go to Exhibit 2C (farther down the page) of the Freeh Report, you’ll see a more correct, but not complete, flow of e-mail between Curley and Schultz regarding the updates. Conclusion A: Exhibit 2B is not raw data and has been altered. This e-mail was examined by government computer security and cyber experts who confirmed it was altered. It is also a signal that other e-mail evidence may be altered.
The more critical piece of evidence is at “B,” which states that DPW has decided to resolve this quickly. This e-mail was sent just days after the DPW brought in an unlicensed counselor, John Seasock, to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of the Victim 6. It was three weeks before DPW investigator Jerry Lauro finally got around to interviewing Sandusky.
The conclusion that inclusion of this e-mail is the work of an “insider” is drawn from the fact that the footnote referencing it as the source to the passage “coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Exhibit 2C, below, could have been used to source the information about “coach is anxious” because it provides a more correct, but not complete, chain of correspondence between Curley and Schultz. Conclusion B: Exhibit 2B serves the purpose of leaking damaging information about DPW (that Freeh did not explore otherwise in the text of the report).
Part III: “Landscape” Notes Contain Signs of Abuse/Child’s First Name
The other evidence that the insider(s) placed to get the reader’s attention are Exhibits 2H and 2I that were place in “landscape” format in Appendix 2. The remainder are in “portrait” layout or as you would routinely read a page of a book. Mostly, people flip through an appendix, if they read it at all, therefore the “landscape” layout was there to make the reader stop and look. While the handwriting is difficult to read (translated here), it ends up that 14 signs of abuse, plus the first name of the other child are revealed on those pages. The information in those pages was revealed to DPW investigator, Jerry Lauro, when he took over the case from John Miller of CYS. It was a part of Det Schreffler's police report.
Conclusion: The insider likely made this change at the last minute, as evidenced by 2H being the first of the exhibits footnoted in the text. The order of the footnotes is 2H, 2A, 2I, and so on. Exhibits 2H and 2I provide exculpatory evidence in terms of PSU officials being responsible for concealing Sandusky’s behavior from the public. PSU officials were not trained investigators of child abuse. The DPW and CYS investigators had the training to recognize the evidence and know Sandusky exhibited sighs of grooming children for abuse as Dr Chambers reported.
Part IV: Tom Harmon’s Concern about DPW and Second MileIn 1998, Penn State Director of Public Safety, Tom Harmon had the role of relaying information from Detective Schreffler to Gary Schultz. What went up the flagpole to Schultz is likely not the full and complete accounting of the facts, but what Harmon thought Schultz needed to know about the investigation of Sandusky. One of the things Harmon relayed to Schultz was his concern about DPW’s role in the investigation and a potential conflict of interest with Second Mile.
"Harmon continued to provide Schultz with information about DPW's role and their potential conflict of interest with the Second Mile."Harmon provided an update to Schultz on May 8, 1998 reporting that Lauro "indicated that it was his intent to have a psychologist who specializes in child abuse interview the children. This is expected to occur in the next week to week and a half. I don't anticipate anything to be done until that happens." According to the Freeh Report (page 49) it was the local CYS that had the conflict of interest with Second Mile. Both CYS and DPW had conflict of interest issues with Second Mile. Both were receiving services that reduced the burden on state and local tax coffers. But the real reason Lauro was assigned to the case was because DPW was responding to the Child Abuse Hotline Call from Dr. Alycia Chambers. Hotlines and customer service lines all work the same. You call, get a number, and someone resolves the problem. Jerry Lauro was assigned to take care of the incident – it was that simple.Freeh’s group twists and contorts the facts about Alycia Chambers’ report. On May 4th, 1998, Chambers interviewed the mother of Victim 6 and her child, who she had been seeing for some time before the incident. Chambers knew that Victim 6 was not a foster child. Freeh has made this up out of whole cloth. Freeh mentions a referral sheet about this foster child but does not provide this "referral sheet". Freeh p 43
“ However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case” (e.g., CYS had various contracts with Second Mile - including placement of children in a Second Mile residential program?" the Second Mile's executive director had a contract with CYS to conduct children's evaluations?’ and the referral sheet from Chambers indicated the case might involve a foster child).°"In light of these conflicts, the Department of Public Welfare (“DPW") took over the case from CYS on May 5. DPW officials in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania took the lead because of Sandusky's high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro.”
Conclusion: These lines of text could easily be slipped in by the insider without Freeh or anyone on his team catching it – and its and important piece of information about DPW’s interest in strongly pursuing the case. It’s worth repeating that Freeh’s story on DPW taking over the case due to a conflict of interest is false.
Part V: Altered police report from 1998Detective Ronald Schreffler compiled the police report in chronological order of events and in meticulous detail. The first eight pages are numbered, 1 of 8, 2 of 8, and so on, up to 8, but after that the pages are not numbered, with the exception of two pages relating to one of the stings set up for Sandusky.
Careful examination of the police report, reveals that the police report was altered. More specifically, several dates and times appear to be out of sequence in the timeline of events surrounding Jerry Lauro’s scheduling of the interview of the “psychologist” who would evaluate the child now known as Victim 6. The cant of the minutes 57 and 55, as well as the 5 at the solid arrow indicate that they were cut and pasted into position off a hard copy, then re-imaged (scanned to a pdf). Finally, the time of Schreffler’s pick-up of the psychiatric report from Alycia Chambers was does not fit chronologically.
Conclusion: DPW was calling the shots in the investigation, as evidenced by Karen Arnold stating on May 7th to hold off, then DPW moving forward a day later. May 5th was the first day Lauro worked the case, thus the changed date (from May 8 to May 5 doesn’t fit). The changes to the times on May 8th do not fit the chronology of events. Further investigation required
Part VI: Baldwin’s Affidavit Recalling 1998 Police ReportOn January 3rd, 2011, University Park Police officials provided the Pennsylvania State Police with a copy of the 1998 police report.
Upon learning of this, former PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin also requested and reviewed a copy of the police report, which includes details of the roles of CYS, DPW, the University Police and the District Attorney’s office. Baldwin who previously came under fire earlier for her dual representation of PSU and defendants Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, was asked to brief the PSU Board of Trustees in May 2011. Baldwin’s affidavit of January 16, 2012 (Exhibit 6A, below) states the many things she briefed to the BOT, but omits that DPW had a role in the investgation.
Conclusion: January 2012 may be a year or so removed from Baldwin’s first review of the 1998 police report, however the Grand Jury Presentment was released just months earlier and only mentioned DPW as the child abuse investigative agency. Is this an oversight by Baldwin or is it intentional? It is more likely the latter, given Baldwin’s dual representation issue at the grand jury.
Did PSU and Paterno get railroaded?The evidence leaked in the report by insider, and other evidence omitted, such as the police report and Chambers psychology report, (i.e., missing Exhibits 1 and 4) are indications that Louis Freeh’s group started an investigation with two predetermined conclusions (by design):
2) Ignore what everyone else did wrong, even if it what they did was worse than PSU, and do your best to make sure no one knows about it.
If DPW had done so, there would have been no 2001 shower incident for Mike McQueary to see and report to Joe Paterno. Obviously, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley would not have been involved either.
It appears more and more likely that Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley got railroaded to cover up for DPWs failure in 1998. It also appears that some of the operators of this railroad include PSU Counsel Cynthia Baldwin and PSU Special Task Force co-chairs Kenneth Frazier and Ronald J. Tomalis, among others, who were part of the group that decided to bring in Louis Freeh to drive nails into the coffin.
So, the remaining question is “why?”
Just follow the money.