In the previous blog about the "missing" documents from the Schultz file regarding the 2001 incident, correspondence between Senior V-P for Business and Finance, Gary Schultz, and Police Chief Tom Harmon were not made public.
It is more of the same with the 1998 incident.
Confirmed "Missing" DocumentsThe Freeh Report contained a hand-full of references to documents and notes that should have been part of the Schultz file or the e-mail records, but were not made public or included in the Appendices of his report.
Control #00649354, Refs. 149 and 150: This document provides information regarding Harmon's decision not to classify the incident as a crime or make a crime log entry.
Schultz Confidential File Note (5-1-12), Ref. 159: Harmon provided Schultz with information about his concerns that DPW had conflicts of interest with The Second Mile.
May 8, 1998 e-mail, Harmon to Schultz (page 49 of Freeh Report): 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 and a half. I don't anticipate anything to be done until that happens."
The latter is an interesting piece of information because it is in conflict with the 1998 police report in several ways. First, the e-mail contradicts the police report that stated Lauro's supervisor (Richard Houston) ordered the investigation. Next, the "psychologist," John Seasock, was not an expert in child abuse and worked with primarily adult offenders. And, finally, Seasock only interviewed one of the children.
On May 13, 1998, 4:48PM, Harmon e-mailed Schultz (Freeh Report Exhibit 2B) to inform him that the interview with the child was complete. There was no mention of the interview with the second child. Harmon also stated in the e-mail that "they (DPW) want to resolve this quickly."
Suspected "Missing" DocumentsBased on the 1998 investigation timeline and Tom Harmon's testimony at the Preliminary Perjury hearing (page 120), it is likely that at least two documents memorializing conversations between he and Gary Schultz are missing from the file.
Harmon stated he had at least four phone conversations with Schultz regarding the 1998 incident, two of which likely occurred on May 4 and May 5 and are memorialized in Freeh Report Exhibits 2H and 2I, respectively.
Given Harmon's position as the Chief of police, it is highly probable that he telephoned Schultz after Schreffler conducted the two stings at the home of Victim 6.
Note memorializing conversation regarding May 13, 1998 sting. Officer Schreffler and Detective Ralston hid in a adjoining rooms to listen to a conversation between the mother of Victim 6 and Sandusky. The Freeh Report references this sting as Penn State Police Report 41-98-1609 at 14, however that is likely an incorrect citation because the summary of the May 13 sting is available on the public record. The sting occurred around 4PM, thus it is likely that Harmon called Schultz later that evening to report on it.
Note memorializing conversation regarding May 19, 1998 sting. Officer Schreffler and Detective Ralston again hid in adjoining rooms to between the mother of Victim 6 and Sandusky. The Freeh Report references this sting as Penn State Police Report 41-98-1609 at 14, however that page is missing from the publicly available report.
A June 8, 1998 e-mail between Schultz and Harmon noted concerns over some aspects of the investigation. As noted earlier, one other document expressed concern about DPW's conflict of interest with The Second Mile, thus it is possible that this was an ongoing concern throughout the investigation.
Moreover, the public record reveals no investigative activities by DPW or Centre County CYS from May 8 (the Seasock interview) until June 1 (the Sandusky interview). It is also very possible that Harmon raised concerns over the lack of activity or progress from the state and local agencies involved in his discussions of the stings with Schultz.
As noted in the previous blog post, it is probable that exculpatory evidence that cleared PSU officials in the 2001 incident was removed from the Schultz file. It also appears that evidence indicating PSU officials were concerned about DPW's conflict of interest with The Second Mile and its slipshod 1998 investigation were also removed from the file.
I find it appalling that the former-Attorney General, Freeh, and/or the PSU officials may have removed evidence from the Schultz file in order to shield Pennsylvania's failing child protection agencies from criticism, and, in doing so, are keeping the Commonwealth's children at risk.