Monday, July 29

Some "Conspiracy of Silence" Charges Debunked Today

According to John Corro, PSU IT personnel provided e-mails to Baldwin in April and November 2011 - contradicting the narrative in the Conspiracy of Silence Presentment.

Ray Blehar

Obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy charges stemming from  PSU's alleged lack of cooperation in turning over e-mails and the Schultz file took some serious hits today with the testimony of John Corro and Kimberly Belcher.


Corro's testimony contradicted the version of events that was reported in the November 2012, Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment on page 38.  The charge stated:

  • The total lack of compliance with the Grand Jury's requests for information, such as Subpoena 1179.

According to the presentment (page 20-23), PSU did not provide any documents or e-mails in response to Subpoena 1179, which was issued in December 2010.

The testimony of John Corro contradicted the Commonwealth's charge on page 23 that IT employees were never asked to fulfill requests for Sandusky related information.  According to OnwardState, Corro stated that they were asked and complied with requests for e-mail searches on Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno.  Corro stated that they had turned over e-mails to Baldwin in April 2011 and November 2011.

Spanier's letter to the Board of Trustees from July 2012 confirmed that the e-mail evidence was indeed collected by PSU and turned over at his grand jury appearance in April 2011.

The Schultz file 

Given my previous blogging on the Schultz file, I was keenly interested to find out how Kimberly Belcher would testify about its provision to Gary Schultz, the OAG, and the Freeh Group.

A Patriot News article by Jeff Franz reported that Belcher, by her own volition, gathered up the files and delivered the originals to Schultz.  She then was going to tell the Freeh group about the file in January, but balked when a University lawyer was present.  She eventually turned the file over after being subpoenaed in April.

The OnwardState article by Jess Tully reported a similar version, except that the OS version implied that Belcher told the Freeh group about the file in January 2012 and that she was subpoenaed in April 2012, but the article was not definitive on the hand over of the file.

UPDATE  8/2/2013:  Transcripts reveal that Belcher stated Schultz turned the file over to the Office of Attorney General one day prior to her turning it over.  Both reporters missed this not so small fact?

Regardless of when the delivery of the files happened, the key takeaway of each account is that in neither case did Schultz request the file from Belcher, who delivered it to Schultz as part of things she thought he should have.  Also, Belcher testified that Schultz told her to cooperate with the investigation if asked.

Also, it is notable that Schultz testified about the existence of the file in January 2011 at his grand jury appearance, but was not working at PSU at the time and thought it might have been destroyed.  Schultz did not hide the file in any way, shape, or form.

Between the testimony of Belcher and Schultz, there is no basis for the charge (page 38) that:

  • Schultz hid the existence of pertinent files and notes.

My previous blogs on the Schultz file and the antics of Cynthia Baldwin also provide the evidence that the charge of Curley and Spanier hiding the existence of files is also baseless.


Today was the prosecutor's ball game and the testimony of Belcher and Corro didn't help the prosecution's cause.

While McQueary made the biggest news of the day with his revelation about Paterno talking to him about the 2001 incident every so often through the years, reports vary on what was actually said and it's best to wait to see the transcripts.


  1. Aren't we still where we've always been with this... why was the 1998 investigation closed as unfounded and who all agreed to this conclusion; and what did McQueary see AND say he saw? Witness credibility seems paramount in the 2001 incident. As does Dr. Dranov. If he's credible, and if he determined there was no requirement to call the police, then case closed, correct?

    1. The fact is that the 2001 incident is practically meaningless in the grand scheme of Sandusky's crimes.

      PSU officials got an uncertain report from McQ and they definitely reported it to Second Mile. There is also evidence that the report made its way to DPW. The bottom line is that DPW did not act on the report.

      Abuse after this incident did not occur on campus, thus could not have been concealed by PSU officials. Moreover, no abuse incidents were tried and convicted for the years 2002 through 2004, so how was it that PSU officials were endangering children or in a conspiracy of silence?

      There were no crimes!

    2. Then I am confused as to why the BoT is making all these payments. Is it their way of trying to fast forward without the facts?

    3. I recall reading that there are confidentiality clauses with the settlements. Consider the settlments as "hush money."

  2. The BOT is playing CYA and hoping that this goes away. I also hope it goes away after all of those complicit in the outrageous actions of the BOT, the DPW, and all of those in Louis Freeh's investigation (?) and report are held to the standard of TRUTH.

    1. The BOT knows it's not going away. Masser's admissions about Freeh speculating was a slip....but an honest slip. They know their time is dwindling before the TRUTH is exposed.

  3. Ray, do find it suspicious at all that Judge Barry Feudale, who presided over the Sandusky grand jury investigation and Judge William Wenner, who made the decision today to bring the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier cases to trial both were directly involved in Corbett's Bonusgate trials while he was AG?

    1. Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.

      Judges are elected and I'm sure politics played a big role in bounding this over for trial.