Does Fina's in camera argument reveal earlier possession of Schultz e-mails?

Prosecutor Frank Fina's references to e-mails containing metaphors and "illusions" (sic) to Jerry Sandusky, as well as Corro's testimony, provides evidence that the OAG had versions of the 1998 and 2001 e-mails prior to April 13, 2011.

by
Ray Blehar

The statements of prosecutor Frank Fina on April 13, 2011 appear to negate the obstruction of justice charges filed against the three Penn State administrators in the so-called Conspiracy of Silence.

The November 2012, Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment (pages 38-39) stated that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were charged with obstruction of justice for failing to turn over documents and e-mails  that would have been responsive to Subpoena 1179.  Former Attorney General, Linda Kelly, charged that "pertinent emails and other key evidence were never turned over until April 2012, after these men had left their jobs."

However, the April 2011 statements made by Frank Fina during his in camera response to Baldwin's oral motion to quash the subpoena indicate his contemporaneous knowledge of what Louis Freeh called "the most important documents in this investigation."  That reference was to the e-mails between Schultz, Spanier, and Curley that Freeh  lied about making "independent discovery" of when he grandstanded at the July 2012 press conference.

This revelation of Fina's knowledge of the 1998 and 2001 e-mail evidence appears to rip the cover off of the suspected conspiracy/collusion between the OAG and Freeh -- and perhaps PSU and the NCAA.

First and foremost, Fina argument is in support of the subpoenas from 1997 and earlier, thus you can deduce that e-mails from 1998 and forward are already in the state's possession.

In order to bolster his argument, Fina described the characteristics of "metaphors and masked comments" that were found in the e-mails from 1998 and 2001.

• On page 15, lines 1-4 of the Spanier colloquy, Fina discusses those characteristics as follows: "they write off-hand comments, they write masked comments and metaphors may prove very worthwhile for us to review and see if there is any information related to what we are looking for."

• On page 26, lines 6-10, Fina futher justified the request that PSU provide "any of those e-mails, subsets of those e-mails that relate in any fashion, whether they are illusions (sic) or direct statements to Mr. Sandusky, that those would be culled out by the University and provided directly to the Office of Attorney General."  

In 1998, a metaphor -- the word "Coach" -- was used on two occasions to describe an individual involved in the discussion about the Sandusky investigation.  In 2001, the metaphors "individual," "agency," and "other one" were used to describe persons and organizations involved.

It appears, based on Fina's statements, that the e-mail evidence giving rise to the obstruction of justice charges was handed over in March or April of 2011, nearly a year before the OAG and Freeh claimed they initially possessed them.

One of the unwritten rules in this investigation is not to put much stock in the dates provided by the OAG.  Dates appear to be changed in an attempt to explain away the foot-dragging that went down in the Sandusky  investigation.

Baldwin foot-dragging

While it is true that none of the three men provided any e-mail evidence to the OAG, it is anything but certain that they were told to search for the information by then-PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin.  Given that Subpoena 1179 asked for e-mails about the 2002 incident, it is difficult to explain why Spanier, Curley, and Schultz all testified that the incident occurred in different years.

Someone's not telling the truth, and that person is likely Baldwin.

According to the testimony of John Corro of the PSU IT Department,  Baldwin did not approach him about searching for the e-mails requested by the Subpoena until March 2011.  The delay by Baldwin was likely part and parcel with the overall foot-dragging of the Sandusky investigation, which really was not undertaken in earnest until Spanier and Corbett sparred over PSU's budget.

Up until that point, the newly hired PSU lawyer's likely mandate was to stonewall the investigation to ensure nothing about crimes related to Jerry Sandusky were revealed.  Baldwin's history as Vice-Chair and Chair of the PSU BOT, as well as her experience working for former AG LeRoy Zimmerman, and appointment to the bench by former Governor Rendell, indicated that she understood the stakes involved in this investigation.  

Baldwin's and the OAG's best course of action was to avoid prosecuting Sandusky, but it is highly likely that Corbett eventually let his emotions get the best of him and decided to use the arrest of Sandusky to have Spanier fired.

When Corbett "threw the switch" 27 months into the investigation, everyone was put behind the 8 ball in terms of explaining why the arrest took so long.

OAG Foot-Dragging

Psychologist Mike Gillum, in the book Silent No More, stated that Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eschbach and Trooper Scott Rossman informed him in June 2009 that had received information about a 1998 incident, but would not share details with him.

According to press reports, the police were tipped to the 1998 incident after Sara Ganim gave contact information of the investigators to the mother of Victim 6 in November or December of 2010.  After that, it took police until January 3, 2011 to get the police file from PSU.

Gillum also wrote that Eschbach told him in March 2010 that an arrest was imminent, but then reversed course and said that her boss, Tom Corbett, had nixed the arrest.  In May 2010, six months before Mike McQueary would be interviewed, Eschbach told Gillum other victims had been identified.  The public records state otherwise, considering the "unknown" victim in the McQueary incident reported in November 2010 became Victim 2.

At a June 2010 meeting, Eschbach promised an arrest in the summer - but that never came.  As Gillum had pointedly argued, Corbett was delaying the arrest until after the election.

Gillum appears to be partially right -- the delay was about election and a few more things.

Corbett and the OAG needed that time to ensure that the case against Sandusky not only resulted in a conviction, but they needed to construct a story that would (falsely) blame PSU's lack of cooperation and attempted cover as the reason behind the delay of the investigation.  The story also had to deflect attention away from DPW's and The Second Mile's failures to protect children.

As more facts are revealed, that story is falling apart under its own weight.

From the fantastic story of Agent Sassano determining the date of the McQueary incident by using TV Guides to the factually challenged testimony of janitor Ronald Petrosky, lie after lie is being revealed.

The collapse of this travesty of justice is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.