Thursday, August 9

Altered E-mail Found in Freeh Report Contains Damaging Info About DPW's Role in 1998 Investigation

Insider leave trails of evidence suggesting Freeh and others are covering for DPW’s failure

by
Ray Blehar


Part I: The Insider


Louis Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel’s (SIC) diverse “membership included men and women with extensive legal, law enforcement and child protection backgrounds who were experienced in conducting independent, complex, and unbiased investigations.” 


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. 
The clues left behind by the insider included: the odd numbering scheme of Appendix A that was ordered 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10; footnotes referencing exhibits that were out of sequence; turning the pages in Exhibit 2H and 2I on their sides; and including exhibits that provide information that undermines Freeh's findings rather than supporting them. 
.
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 Mile

In 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 1998

 Detective 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 Report

On 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):









1) Find what PSU officials did wrong in responding to child abuse allegations by Sandusky, and make sure everyone knows about it;
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.
It is clear to anyone who has taken the time to fully examine the evidence in this case, that DPW could have and should have stopped Sandusky in 1998.

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.

 


53 comments:

  1. "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 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."

    You say that the reason for the "railroading" of Paterno et al can be discerned by "following the money". The clear implication is that the "operators" of the railroad benefited financially. You say that Kenneth Frazier, CEO of Merck, was one of those "operators".

    Do you have any reason to believe that Frazier actually received any cash as a result of this "operation". Frazier is a very wealthy man. It would have to be a huge amount of cash. Most of Frazier's wealth is tied up in Merck stock. Have you discovered some correlation between his railroading "operations" and the price of Merck stock?

    I'm sure that you wouldn't accuse someone of railroading innocent men for financial benefit without a strong basis for doing so. I'm just curious what it may be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ironically, the media and the Freeh group accuse innocent men of covering for a pedophile to protect a football program's image (with no proof)....Call me crazy, but I'm putting my money on money (and political gain) being at the heart of the reasons why Jerry Sandusky wasn't charged in '98! Like you though, I'm very interested to hear the rest of the story.

      Delete
    2. I agree, Linda, it may not be money changing hands, it may be potential loss of money. Or... political pressure? There has got to be something WAY bigger at stake, to have the BOT roll over on $60 million in sanctions, plus loss of face, prestige and reputation at one of the major universities in the nation. What on earth is way bigger?

      I'm really intrigued by the Lambs and Wolves article, pointing out the various sex / pedophile rings that were NOT investigated by the various and several PA Attorneys General.

      Delete
    3. What is way bigger to someone that they would give up $60M? Life in prison.

      What is being covered up? What are they diverting attention from? Who is under duress to make this go away?

      Delete
  2. Follow the money....Ken Frazier - CEO of Merck. John Surma, CEO of US Steel. Other board members CEO's of publicly traded companies. Cynthia Baldwin, former PA Supreme COurt Justice. Imagine the internal turmoil on the Merck BOD if it came out that Frazier was informed about the 2001 incident back in 2001. That is the type of news that would effect shareholder value. Or, it comes out Baldwin knew about 2001 back in 2001. A former PA State Supreme Court Justice helped cover for a pedophile.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's not about individual wealth.

    In 2011, Spanier fought Corbett over his proposed $168M cuts to PSU's funding. Spanier got it reduced, found some efficiencies ($30M), but PSU still had to raise tuition to cover the rest.

    In 2012, PSU got their 2011 funding. That is the deal that was cut, to take the fall for Sandusky. Otherwise, Corbett is going to drop the budget axe on PSU. So, PSU takes the $60M fine over four years and takes the hit for the scandal (estimated at $100M), however, some of the cost can be defrayed through insurance and the remainder amortized over a period of years. That alternative is better than a $100M hit to funding in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been wondering about that... I wondered if the BOT were told by Tom Corbett - suck it up or I'll axe your funding. I totally figured that's exactly what happened at that first meeting where the BOT didn't vote on Erickson's acceptance of the sanctions. Or told just Erickson... The BOT says they were told it was NCAA sanctions or death penalty. That NCAA member Ray says the NCAA didn't say anything about death penalty. What if it were Corbett's Death Penalty of NOT funding PSU for four years? THAT would be big enough for the whole BOT to roll over, that would.

      Delete
  4. Ron Tomalis is merely an ex officio member of the BOT by virtue of being PA Secretary of Education. In 2001, he had absolutely no connection to Penn State. So how did he know about the 2001 incident back in 2001?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tomalis co-led the Special Task Force with Kenneth Frazier, who decided to hire Freeh.

    The 2001 incident is inconsequential compared to 1998. In 1998, DPW had Sandusky in the showers with 2 children, one of whom said Sandusky showered with him twice. DPW also knew that there were other children in Sandusky's circle in 1998.

    Had 1998 been thoroughly investigated, 2001 never happens.

    I don't think Tomalis knew about 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So Baldwin, Tomalis and Frazier railroaded innocent men at the request of the governor in order to maintain Penn State's funding? In order to do so, they would have had to be aware that the governor had cause to deflect scrutiny by railroading innocent men. Otherwise, why was railroading necessary? Why would a man like Frazier risk his reputation, his corporate office, financial well-being and his family's happiness by getting involved in something so dark at the governor's behest merely in order to save Penn State some funding?

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's the best answer I have based on the evidence. Just let me say that there are a couple other reasons out there that have yet to be confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But at the time Frazier hired Freeh to write the "railroading" report last November, he had no idea what the eventual costs of the railroading would be. He certainly didn't know that the NCAA would impose a $60M fine. For all Frazier knew, the NCAA could have imposed the four-year death sentence originally favored by the NCAA Presidents, the lost revenue from which would have made $60M appear trivial. He had no idea what financial steps the US DOE or the Big Ten or Penn State donors would take.

      But I have a more fundamental problem with this argument. In order for Frazier to risk, in effect, his entire life as he then knew it by agreeing to the governor's scheme simply to protect a line item on Penn State's income statement, Frazier must have been devoted to Penn State. At the time of Freeh's appointment by Frazier, Penn State's reputation was being dragged through the gutter at the mere unsupported accusation of a cover-up by Paterno et al.
      Why would someone as dedicated to Penn State as Frazier was commission an investigation of such accusation which he knew would produce a report which would have an even worse effect on Penn State's reputation? So it came down to: a hit to the Penn State budget vs an indelible stain on Penn State's reputation. Why would someone who, like Frazier, had spent the better part of his adult life serving his alma mater in one role or another, and who obviously had great affection for his alma mater, choose the indelible stain? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. Dear Unknown,
      I really appreciate your discussion here.

      I agree that the PSU BOT didn't know what would happen with the NCAA, however, part of the reason PSU's name was getting dragged through the gutter was that the PSU BOT rolled over when the GJ Presentment was released and stated that PSU was a football factory and Paterno had too much power. That narrative was false -- the football team had an 87% graduation rate and was never had a violation. Paterno wasn't wielding any power in key decisions at PSU, although they used him to raise money.

      Frazier, as an attorney, should have informed the PSU BOT of the child abuse reporting statutes (circa 2001) and defended PSU's position in going to Second Mile. The law is what it is. The statute does not require that you go to the police.

      It requires the organization in the care of the child (Second Mile) to report the abuse to local or state child welfare organizations. Had Frazier, A LAWYER, pointed this out to his fellow BOT members, they could have defended PSU, denied there was any cover-up (since the incident was reported outside PSU), and shot back that any morale outrage should be directed at Jack Raykovitz, the Second Mile CEO, who didn't do a damn thing when PSU told him Sandusky was showering with kids.

      So, knowing everything that I just typed, why was Frazier as quiet as a church mouse when the GJ Presentment was released in November instead defending PSU?

      Delete
    3. You didn't accuse Frazier of failing to give adequate legal advice to his fellow trustees; you accused him of participating in the "railroading" of innocent men. Railroading of innocent men is a profoundly despicable and immoral act. You are cavalier, almost casual, in you attribution of the most evil of motivations to a man who had honorably served Penn State as an alumnus and a trustee. Your explanation for this sudden transformation on Frazier's part is that Frazier was protecting the Penn State budget from cuts by the governor and did so by savaging Penn State's reputation through the commissioning of the Freeh Report. You find that explanation adequate for the character assassination of a man like Kenneth Frazier? Frazier so loved Penn State that he destroyed its reputation to save it a few bucks? That explanation is laughable and you know it.

      Delete
    4. Sorry to disagree with you, but the way Kenneth Frazier participated in railroading innocent men was to not carry out his duty as a trustee and perform due diligence in the face of a crisis. Kenneth Frazier, an attorney on the Penn State Board of Trustees, did not review the relevant statutes when PSU officials were charged with crimes nor is there anything on the record that he sought advice of a criminal attorney during the deliberations in November 2011.

      Do you really call Mr. Frazier's service to Penn State honorable when Penn State needed him the most?

      Did Mr. Frazier forget everything he learned in law school and in his years of practicing law?

      I think Mr. Frazier's actions speak very well of his character.

      Delete
    5. But you didn't accuse Frazier of failing to act when Penn State needed him. You said that he "decided" to bring in Freeh to "hammer nails in the coffin", that is, that he actively organized the "railroading" of innocent men. Is your explanation for this monstrous act still Frazier's desire to save Penn State a few bucks at the cost of its reputation?

      You seem to be trying to back away from your original accusation of intentional railroading towards one of negligence or nonfeasance on Frazier's part. Is it because you recognize the hideousness of your original accusation?

      Delete
    6. First, it's not an accusation about Frazier's failure to act in November. It is the truth. And I said it on Kevin Slaton's show on Wednesday. Frazier cannot deny it because he knows it's true.

      Second, Frazier states that in a matter of ten days, his team reviewed the resume's of 50 different firms before choosing Freeh. Freeh's new firm had absolutely no track record. It was their first big investigation. Freeh's failure at FIFA was well known and recent. Yet, Frazier selected Freeh.

      Finally, Frazier set up the investigation to be inherently biased against PSU (read page 8). Again, as a lawyer, he failed to ask Freeh to do what he himself would do to defend a client in a court of law -- look at the facts and determine responsibility.

      Delete
    7. So you're reaffirming your original accusation of intentional railroading of innocent men by Frazier?

      Are you also reaffirming your explanation that Frazier did this horrible thing to save Penn State money even though it savaged Penn State's reputation?

      It's hard to believe that Frazier acted (or failed to act) other than in good faith when the reason given for his acting in bad faith is so patently stupid.

      Delete
    8. Until I have evidence that it something more than a budget deal, that's what I'm going with. Now, the second part, which you clearly don't understand, is that the brunt of this scandal is being taken by the football program...the Trustees, like Frazier, have kept their positions. And, there will be a change in power structure to boot...as the President's role will be diminished.

      Of course, there are worse reasons he could be doing it...what do you know about the personal lives and relationships of our present and past BOT members?

      What do you know about the personal life and relationships of Jack Raykovitz of Second Mile?

      What do you know about the business dealings of the BOT and the local power players in Central PA?

      There are a lot of dots left to connect.

      Delete
    9. "Until I have evidence that it [is] something more than a budget deal, that's what I'm going with."

      In other words, you're going to continue to smear people on the basis of a patently stupid budget theory until a less stupid theory comes along?

      If you can't explain why Frazier risking his personal freedom and defaming Penn State in order to save Penn State a few bucks isn't a stupid idea, stop using the damn theory or at least stop using it to make despicable attacks on people.

      Who the Hell clings to a stupid idea just because they don't have another one?

      Delete
    10. The possibility that some future investigation of the private and business lives of trustees and others "may" reveal something does not excuse the use of a ridiculous theory NOW to defame people.

      Delete
    11. Dear Unknown (or should I call you Kenneth?)

      I'm not clinging to a stupid idea. I'm looking at facts in evidence.

      Please review the budget history of PSU from 2011 to 2012. Who controls the supplemental funding from the state? Who is gets sued if the state is responsible for Sandusky?

      Look at Penn State's funding profile.

      As I said earlier, Frazier's actions speak for themselves. He screwed up in November when he didn't defend Penn State and he screwed up by hiring Louis Freeh.

      Delete
    12. Unknown - Is it any less stupid of a theory than the one stating Joe Paterno - a man who served PSU a lot longer and just as honorably as Frazier and someone who has shown character and honor at the highest levels for 60 years with the University - would cover for a child pedophile just to save the reputation of the football program? Seriously??? I still don't even get how the reputation of the football program would have been harmed by Joe or anyone at PSU busting a retired coach for terrible acts? I think it would have shown them and the University to actually BE honorable men in sending this retired coach to prison.

      Delete
  8. Once again Mr. Blehar, THANK YOU! The inconsistencies of the e-mails and logs have been bothering me as well. I have read them several times just trying to reconstruct the timelines so they would make sense. I've been this >< close to printing out the whole report and cutting it apart to put everything in its proper place so I could wrap my brain around conversations and ferret out the facts.

    I'm still scratching my head over $6.5 million dollar report which is some of the shoddiest work I have seen in a long time. As an administrative assistant, for a school I might add, if I would have turned in documents horribly constructed, completely unclear and inconsistent, I would have had my ass handed to me.

    ~WhyKnot

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you. I printed out everything....police reports, psych reports, Freeh Report, Grand Jury presentment. It helped greatly in comparing the evidence to the report.

    I agree that the report was terribly done, but as I note in my post, some of this is intentional by our friend on the inside.

    Here's another thought. Those allegedly learned University Presidents who sat on the NCAA committee would certainly not have accepted this piece of crap if someone submitted it as a doctoral dissertation or a master's thesis.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Any idea why Seasock's report was not part of Freeh's research and exhibits? If NBC had access to the report in March 2012, certainly Freeh could have included it. Even I could find it on the Internet! Why wouldn't he have included it? Was it left out on purpose?

    Also, any update on whether Schultz's request for the documents from Freeh have been granted?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Freeh did not include many documents in the Appendices because easy access to them would have undermined his report. The top two are the police report and Chamber's psych report. When you compare those document's contents to how Freeh characterized the contents, you will see that Freeh soft-pedaled the damning information that investigators had at their fingertips. There was no way the 1998 investigation should have stopped without interviewing the six other children in Sandusky's circle.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you for this! I was really thinking I was crazy in never understanding why DPW would have taken over due to "conflict of interest" because of the CYS contracts with TSM. You would think if that conflict would exist that Chamber's report surely would not have read what it read. CYS could have lost that contract and a lot of money. Why would she have found in favor of the child? Sounds like the only conflict was really DPW's conflict in the investigation going any further.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If it can be proven that somebody falsified or altered evidence in the Freeh Report, the proof should be sent by certified mail to:

    Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    100 Pine Street Suite 400
    Harrisburg, PA 17101

    ReplyDelete
  14. If, as you say, Cynthia Baldwin railroaded Paterno et al at the request of Governor Corbett in exchange for restored Penn State funding, she obviously knew that Corbett was motivated by a desire to deflect attention from his own role in the affair. Perhaps someone with knowledge of PA politics could explain to me why Corbett, a Republican, would ask Baldwin, a life-long Democrat, to commit a felony, which is exactly what the intentional railroading of Paterno et al is. Why would Corbett put his political life and, indeed, his personal freedom, in the hands of his political enemy, Baldwin?

    Baldwin's intentional act of railroading raises the same question of motive as Frazier: Why would she harm Penn State's reputation to save it money? It also raises an additional question : Why would she help her political enemy at the risk of her own freedom and do so just to save Penn State a few bucks?

    None of this makes any sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 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.

    UNKNOWN's anonymous attacks are becoming pedantic and silly. Of course we don't have all the answers WHY something as shoddy and ill advised as the Freeh Fiction was contracted and allowed. We ask questions and offer possibilities but we are not privy to the information required to make a case or final judgment on these matters. All we can do is point out the anomalies we find and hopefully raise enough interest with these questions to inspire someone with authority and access to deliver the answers i.e. a federal investigation of this entire situation.
    It is clear to us from the evidence that Joe Paterno at the very least was unfairly smeared so we don't feel the least bad about suggesting the some of these people who had a hand in allowing that to happen "appear" to be culpable. They were culpable in the capitulation of the BOT at the very least when the BOT threw Joe under the bus based on Kelly's obvious LIE that began the media frenzy leading to Joe's removal as Head Coach. It killed him and made the final two months of his illustrious and admirable career a a living hell. Our mention of Frazier or Kelly or Corbett in these pages doesn't hold a candle to that outrage.

    So as you "fight" for "justice" for these people you believe are being smeared - remember that. IT APPEARS you couldn't care less

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All we can do is point out the anomalies we find and hopefully raise enough interest with these questions to inspire someone with authority and access to deliver the answers i.e. a federal investigation of this entire situation."

      You may get that federal investigation sooner than you think. Radaronline has reported the following:

      "Both the FBI and a criminal investigative division of the United States Postal Service are looking into the possible existence of a pedophile ring that involved Sandusky sharing boys with other men connected to Penn State."

      “The new investigation is also looking at if boys from the Second Mile charity were shared by Sandusky with other men,” the source told RadarOnline.com. “The name of at least one very rich and powerful man connected to the university has come up in this new investigation.”

      Anybody know any rich and powerful men connected to Penn State who knew Sandusky well? Let the nominations begin.

      Delete
  16. You didn't "mention" Frazier. You didn't say that he "allowed" innocent men to be smeared. You accused him of ORGANIZING the railroading of innocent men. When called to task for it, your defense is : "We're only asking questions." "We're only trying to 'inspire' people." "We're only making suggestions." That's weasel talk.

    How does the smearing of Joe Paterno excuse the smearing of Frazier and other trustees on the basis of an indefensibly stupid budget theory?

    IF YOU ADMIT THAT YOU DON"T HAVE ANSWERS, WHY ARE YOU SMEARING PEOPLE?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only "weasel"like thing in this discussion comes from the anonymous Mr. Unknown who is treading very close to the edge when he resorts to name calling and ad hominem attacks. They will not be tolerated.

      Delete
    2. Our position is clear. We KNOW the BOT bought the FactFREEH Fiction and Kelly's bald faced LIE in her presentment. These proven to be flawed documents led to Joe Paterno's defamation. The entire BOT is culpable and "IT APPEARS" to have been deliberate. We are perfectly within out rights to hold that opinion and to express it. If you don't like it find another place to launch your tirades. God knows there are plenty of places on the web where attacks on Joe and his supporters are welcomed. This is not one of them.

      Even you should be capable of figuring that out.

      Delete
  17. Mr. Blehar, I am very appreciative of all the work you’re doing to critically analyze the Freeh report. Like many of us who read the report, I feel the lack of evidence is stark and Freeh's conclusions given this paper thin evidence are ludicrous. However, since the report is weak in its own right, I get nervous when I see your discussion about an “insider" leaving clues in the report and Freeh manipulating the e-mails. If this is suggested and then can't be proven, it just makes a stronger argument for the media and uninformed public that the Paterno supporters are delusional. As an example, when I review the chronology of the e-mails, is it possible that Schultz was on vacation (which I believe was discussed in the report) and is in a different time zone? I realize you’re a highly experienced investigator and are aware of all the possibilities, but my point is that one faulty conclusion on your behalf will discredit your entire findings by a blood-thirsty media. For those of us who believe that the Freeh Report actually provides zero evidence that Paterno was involved in a cover-up, your angle on this case is concerning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. very, very well put sarajmk.
      I feel the exact same way,

      Delete
    2. I will tell you from experience that people who are involved in disinformation campaigns will attempt to tear down anything that reveals the truth. I saw it happen this morning -- a person made wild accusations that Barry had altered the Freeh Report to get the fuzzy images. This person went into great detail about how Barry did it and people believed him immediately. Until other people did what Barry asked and went directly to the Freeh Report to get the same result.

      sarajmk, brought up the time zone question, of which the answer was no, Schultz was not in a different time zone in May 1998. This is a fact she could have checked on her own. Why didn't she check it before she raised the question? Not to ding on sarajmk, but as I said below, I don't post anything I can't back up with fact based analysis.

      I would also ask if you opened the embedded link regarding the "insider" individual, before you questioned why I concluded an insider planted exculpatory evidence? Where you aware this exculpatory evidence existed in the report? And did you thoughtfully consider the list of signs I provided?

      At first, my colleagues waved me off and thought I was being a conspiracy theorist, as you both seem to be doing -- until I showed them the evidence.

      Delete
  18. sarajmk, I understand that people will react with skepticism to many things that I have uncovered in this report. However, I have consulted with experts on my thesis regarding the work of an insider on Freeh's team and they support that thesis. All of the people I work with are seasoned intelligence analysts. The things identified as markers, particularly turning pages to landscape, when you could easily place them in portrait (what is the purpose, Freeh didn't want to exceed 267 pages?), and to include evidence in the appendices that is not referenced anywhere else in the report is clearly what an insider (saboteur) would do.

    Schultz went on vacation in 2001, not 1998.

    The manipulation of e-mails and other documents in this case is pretty evident by simply going to the Freeh Report and zooming in on the text. You will see shadowed/pixelated text and you will see clean text. As I said on the radio show, I don't trust any of the e-mail evidence and believe the actual files should be pulled from the server. I will edit the file above to say the same. I also believe all the documents should be examined by a document forensics expert.

    We are proceeding with caution as we make statements. I have not said or written anything publicly that I cannot defend with evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here's the deal: This is why the board is voting.

    Things are closing in on Corbett & the State:

    - Schultz / Curley Judge ordered that emails be released. Will Validate that Freeh's report is a fabrication.

    - Charges will be dropped next week against Curley & Schultz:
    "Attorneys for Curley argued in a motion filed on Feb. 13 that the law in place when the child sexual abuse was reported to the administrators, in 2001, did not require them to report the possible abuse to authorities, voiding the counts against Curley and Schultz."

    - All that is left is the 1998 incident. Which we KNOW WAS investigated by the State of PA.
    If PSU BOT accepts Freeh, they become the fall guy for THE STATE's FAILURE!

    "Judge may drop Sandusky-related perjury charges against Penn State officials"
    http://www.kpho.com/story/1922...nn-state-admins

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get that link to lead to a post on Fight On State premium access board. Can you find the kpho.com story and link it?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  20. Hi Ray, Hi Barry!

    There's an interesting five part article Re: Sandusky and the Second Mile on PennLive by Sara Ganim - posted yesterday - did you get a chance to read through it?

    http://topics.pennlive.com/tag/second%20mile%20investigation/index.html

    One thing mentioned in the article that stuck me is that, Sandusky "...lost his clearance from Childline — the state sex abuse registry and reporting center." I have no idea what "clearance" would mean. Could he access files? or???


    The Childline sex abuse registry and reporting center is run out of the PA department of public welfare.

    I also gather from another article that I read awhile back that it was the Department of Public welfare that cleared Sandusky to be a foster parent?

    Thanks for all your enthusiasm and also the huge amount of time and effort!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ray, Hi Barry, I appreciate your efforts here, but one question continues to nag at me.

      I get all of this.... I get there are more people who screwed up.... bottom line, though, is that 2001 did happen. The email traffic in Feb 2001 between Spanier, Curley and Schultz indicate that due consideration was given to reporting McQueary's sighting in the shower to C&Y. The decision was made not to do so and Paterno was cited by Curley's email as agreeing to that decision. Not proof of Paterno's involvement in the decision byt any means.... but any answer to Curley's phone call the evening before other than, "Tim, are you nuts? You guys gotta report this!" was the wrong answer - isn't it?

      Bob Mooney

      Delete
  21. Bob,
    That's what Freeh wants you to believe, but legally it wasn't wrong to not report to DPW and morally it was not wrong either.

    1st: Legally: Under the statute, child abuse should be reported BY the organization responsible for the welfare of the child. PSU fulfilled this obligation by telling Sandusky's employer (Second Mile) about the incident.

    2nd: Morally: PSU officials had a vague account on an incident occurring in the shower between Sandusky and a child. PSU officials pulled the 1998 police record, that reported Sandusky had showered with 2 other children. Schultz and Curley also knew that Sandusky was suffering from mental health issues (see Exhibit 3E), therefore the decision they made was to contact the CEO of Second Mile as a way to get Sandusky some help. Freeh castigates the PSU officials for this "humane" approach, however, I believe it is an approach that ANYONE would choose if a close friend or family member was caught doing something so completely out of character.

    For example, let's say you visit your elderly mother or grandmother, and notice that she has suddenly accumulated a lot of material things that you believe she has stolen. Would you call the cops and have her arrested? Or would you get her some help first, then worry about the renumeration and the police later?

    Where PSU screwed up was not having someone, like an OHR person, monitoring the Second Mile to ensure the information was properly acted upon. That's on Spanier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two aspects of the Freeh report seem worth further comment. Both of these elements are potentially relevant to the determination of the motives of some of the individuals involved in the needless ruination of PSY's reputation and football program.

      First, too many people regard such so-called independent counsel investigations as authoritative and independent. The fact is that the lawyers have a client, in this case the BOT. Before a single word is said between attorney and client, the lawyer knows that the client is hopeful (i) that the investigation will cast a shadow of blame on one or more individuals or entities that are not objects of the client's bounty, (ii) that the investigation will exculpate the client and others whom the client wishes to be exculpated and (iii) that the investigation will demonstrate that the client is diligent and cooperative with law enforcement, resulting in little or no punishment even if the client is considered guilty. The lawyer may well attempt to perform in an unbiased manner, but will nevertheless be biased in favor of the result that the client desires. The result may be that the eventual report includes errors and omissions of various levels of importance. When the investigation is conducted simultaneously with law enforcement activity, as was the case here, the inability to access witnesses and documentary evidence renders the whole exercise futile. Reports that various key figures were not interviewed despite their availability, if true, cast a real blanket of doubt over Freeh's work. This being the case, it is shocking that the NCAA based sanctions on the Freeh report and that the University accepted the result without question. The more recent statement released by the accredidation body is beyond belief.

      Second, it is well understood that liberal academe is the natural born enemy of college athletics, a situation that produces peculiar results. A moment's scrutiny of the performance of the professors and other liberal groups at Duke University during the well known lacrosse debacle bears this out. (That the Duke president and board remain in place is, of course, another travesty.) In the PSU/Sandusky situation, it should be seen that the liberals have scored a shutout: the football program has been ruined (hopefully not eternally); the athletic establishment of PSU has been vilified, disgraced and, in Coach Paterno's case some might say, executed; and a $60 million penalty has been exacted; and, even this was the work of a former employee, the football program is to blame for the whole mess!

      Delete
  22. questions - Sandusky and Rakovitz were both told in 2001 that Sandusky was no longer allowed in the Lasch facilities? Or that he was no longer allowed to bring kids into the Lasch facilities?

    And Sandusky was told in 1998 that he couldn't shower with kids? or that he needed to wear swim trunks when he showered with kids?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dolly,
    PSU said he was No longer allowed to bring kids into Lasch....but, Sandusky told Rnykovitz it was limited to the locker rooms.

    1998 - police told him not to shower with kids.

    Allegedly, Raykovitz told Jerry he should wear swim trunks if he showered with kids. Not that I believe anything Raykovitz says.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete