In the November 1, 2012 Conspiracy of Silence presentment, Linda Kelly's Office of Attorney General (OAG) made the case that Cynthia Baldwin had done her utmost to gather information responsive to Subpoena 1179 and blamed the PSU administrators for obstructing the investigation. Subpoena 1179 requested “[A]ny and all records pertaining to Jerry Sandusky and incidents reported to have occurred on or about March 2002 and any other information concerning Jerry Sandusky in inappropriate contact with underage males on and off University property.”
Curiously, page 24 of the presentment mentions that "no independent efforts were made to search the paper files of Athletic Director, Tim Curley, the Vice-President for Business and Finance Gary Schultz or President of the University, Graham Spanier. The "independent" efforts -- that allegedly weren't made -- would have been done at the direction of Baldwin.
One day after Baldwin obtained the 1998 University Park Police Report about the investigation of Sandusky, she met with Schultz to discuss his grand jury appearance. In Schultz's affidavit, he stated that he told Baldwin that he might have a file pertaining to Sandusky in his old office and asked if he should obtain it to refresh his memory. The affidavit stated that Baldwin told him that was not necessary and advised him NOT to search for documents. However, the line of questioning by the OAG and answers by Schultz suggests that Baldwin may have obtained the file.
Schultz's file note, dated 2-12-2001, has a line that states "Reviewed 1998 history." That phrase appears to be the motivation for a series of questions that were asked Schultz.
Schultz's response seemed to throw off the prosecutor, who likely expected th answer to be in the affirmative. Schultz's next answer after that probably confused the prosecutor even more, emphasizing that the University Park Police didn't conduct the investigation in 1998. The prosecutors then had to backtrack and get Schultz to agree that the PSU police were involved before they could continue their focus on Schultz's review of the 1998 report.
Schultz then stated he believed the child protection agency had some law enforcement authority, which appears to cause the prosecutors some frustration. In response, they appear to torment Schultz a bit about his memory.
It is notable that the prosecutors never bring up the proper name (Centre County Children and Youth Services) of the agency Schultz is trying to remember nor do they ever mention the name of police Chief Tom Harmon, during the questioning. Were prosecutors trying to avoid mentioning anything that might jog Schultz's memory of his actions in 2001?
Note the level of surprise in Schultz's response, indicating he hadn't seen the police report. Tom Harmon's testimony in July 2013 was that he didn't recall Schultz asking for the file nor did he recall giving the file to Schultz. Given this information, the phrase "Reviewed 1998 history" appears to have a very different meaning than was derived by the prosecutors and Louis Freeh. Schultz's review of the 1998 history may have been nothing more than a review of his own notes and emails -- and perhaps a telephone discussion with Harmon about the 1998 investigation.
And of course, Schultz's reaction about the 1998 report also reveals that Baldwin didn't share the police report with him, even though she had it in her possession. This is another example of Baldwin's misconduct by not preparing her "client" for his grand jury appearance. The November 2012 presentment's assertion that Baldwin met with Gary to discuss the case simply doesn't hold water.
Incredibly, it appears she never told him a thing about it. The tone of this PennLive report indicated that they, like most people following the case, also didn't believe that Baldwin didn't discuss the case with Curley and Schultz (especially when she drove them from State College to Harrisburg for their grand jury appearance).
I don't know what's more amazing here. The fact she didn't tell them anything on that 90-minute ride or that Lanny Davis actually told the truth during this interview.
From the article:
"Did Baldwin talk to the two men later — for example, during their 90-minute ride together back to Happy Valley — to clarify her role.
'She said no,' (Lanny) Davis said.
In other words, the series of events, as described by Baldwin through Davis, played out like this:
• December 2010: Baldwin tells Curley and Schultz she “represents the university” and they can get their own attorneys.
• January 2011: Baldwin drives them to the grand jury. On the trip, the three apparently do not discuss the investigation or who will represent the two men."
Baldwin's performance as the attorney for Schultz was worse than anyone could have imagined.
Lack of General Knowledge of 2002 (sic) Incident
Again, 1179 requested documents and information about the 2002 (sic) incident and any other instances of alleged misconduct by Sandusky. Schultz's statements and other answers during the course of his grand jury appearance also confirm that he was not the least bit prepared and likely was never shown and/or told about Subpoena 1179.
Schultz's affidavit revealed that Baldwin had told him the questioning would be about an incident that occurred in the early 2000s. A January 10, 2011 email (Freeh Report, Exhibit 5B) between Schultz and Wendell Courtney revealed that they believed the date was around 2003 - which Schultz would later testify to when he likely alluded to the Anwar Phillips case. The email also noted that Baldwin had reached out to Courtney to ask him what he knew about the incident - without telling him the reason for her call. Clearly, Baldwin was keeping everyone in the dark. If she didn't tell Schultz the date of the incident; it is extremely unlikely she told him to search for documents.
Very early in his testimony Schultz mentions that his first memory of the 2001 meeting with McQueary was just that morning, during his pre-grand jury interview.
Schultz also gets the location of the meeting wrong. According to the testimony of McQueary, the meeting took place in a conference room in the Bryce Jordan Center, not in Schultz's office. Schultz then incorrectly testified that the meeting with Paterno and Curley also took place in his office.
Given Schultz's lack of knowledge of the Sandusky incidents it is clear he was not prepared to testify. The reason he wasn't is because Baldwin stonewalled him about the investigation.
Did Baldwin decide to do this on her own, did she do it at the direction of the OAG, did she do it at the direction of members of the PSU BOT, or a coordinated effort of all parties?
The evidence suppression and deception in this case suggests it was a coordinated effort.