Early thoughts (and finds) on Moulton's Investigation

Moulton's investigation signals the beginning of the end of the charade known as the "Penn State sex scandal"

By
Ray Blehar

Special Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Moulton's investigation of the Sandusky investigation didn't deliver a fatal blow to Governor Tom Corbett.  Of course, once it was known that Moulton didn't have subpoena power and that the investigation was an internal review, everyone's expectations should have been tempered.

At least one criminal investigation is underway by the Feds at the present time and it will bring us closer to finding out the truth about the role of The Second Mile and, most likely, government entities involved.

As for the key findings -- they were almost exactly as I had predicted on the day before the release of the report.  Moulton found the pace of the investigation to be to slow, with "inexcusable" delays in getting warrants and in the failure to establish a multidisciplinary task force.  Not to blow my own horn, but I was first to coin this investigation as "inexcusable" last July (and PS4RS, Eileen Morgan, and I were mentioned in the footnote on page 4 of the report).

While Moulton's investigation was comprehensive, it lacked many of the details that were included in Report 3, such as the fact that many of the victims had "dockets" in the court system that investigators could have used to find them (sooner).  Also, it did not point out the failures by police to identify Victims 9 and 10, even though both individuals were named on camper lists and had asterisks next to their names.

The timeline was most beneficial in really understanding what happened in the investigation.  Again, it was very similar to the timeline in Report 3, which showed investigative activities ramping up in April.  Moulton's report revealed the investigation got busier in January, but the most activity occurred in May.  This fact supports the conclusion that electoral politics did not have as much of a role as perhaps other influences (more to come on that).  The Moulton report also concluded - in conflict with the Patriot News -- that additional resources were not significant in finding additional victims.

Finally, this report is far from the complete story.  It bears repeating that Moulton lacked subpoena power and could not compel anyone to testify.  The Pennsylvania State Police refused to make their officers available, thus the report relies on paper police reports (which may not be entirely accurate).

Abuse During Investigation

The bombshell of the day came when AG Kathleen Kane announced that two victims had been abused in the fall of 2009, while the investigation was still lagging.  That led to an outcry by the reporters, who strangely forgot that victims names should be kept confidential, and eventually by police and prosecutors, who challenged the veracity of Kane's statement.  Fina, McGettigan, and Noonan denied any knowledge of a victim being abused in 2009 in statements to the press.

The press then went on the attack today, decrying the error in Kane's statement.  Kane had mispoke, stating the victimization may have been prevented with an earlier arrest, however, she was incorrect on at least one of the victims (Victim 9 who had suffered continuous abuse from 2005 to 2009).   In any event, Victim 9 could have been spared from some abuse had Sandusky been apprehended sooner.

 As for the second victim, Kane stands by her story.  The later victim came forward in 2012.

The Patriot News is not only NOT expressing any moral outrage, but continues to deny Victim 9's abuse into 2009, stating "there is no evidence that the worst case scenario occurred."  This blog reported on Victim 9's abuse during the Sandusky investigation and its cover-up by the Patriot News in a number of blogposts.

It will continue to do so at every opportunity.

Finds

After just a cursory review of the 336 page report, some interesting information pops out.

1.  In a June 3, 2011 email, Agent Anthony Sassano complained about then-PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin stonewalling and filing motions to thwart subpoena requests.  This evidence will come in handy should Curley, Schultz, and Spanier ever go to trial.

2. Trooper Scott Rossman received a thumb drive of Penn State emails on July 7, 2011.  This is significant for several reasons, but first among them is that it is more evidence that Louis Freeh lied about making "independent discovery" of the email evidence on 20 March 2012.  The second issue is that it shows an apparent time lag between the turnover of the emails by PSU (in April 2011) to the OAG and the OAG's release of them to the police.

3.  Victim 5 was first identified in January 2011, but not interviewed by police until June 7, 2011.  He was one of the original four possible victims identified by the mother of Victim 6 and her daughter.  The report gives no explanation for the delay in finding him, however, Report 3 revealed he had a "court docket" in the system that could have been used to find his address.

4.  A New York Times reporter knocked on the door of Victim 1's home and was asking pointed questions in November 2010.  Review of the Sandusky trial transcripts revealed that the reporter was a male who first contacted a neighbor of Fisher's.  The neighbor, Josh Fravel, directed the reporter to the new address. (CORRECTION: Eshbach's email about a CDT reporter was not correct.  The reporter was from the New York Times)

5. The police interviewed janitor James Calhoun, however, the police reported he suffered from dementia at the time of his interview.  They also interviewed several other janitors.  Ironically, only one janitor testified at the trial.  Also, it is notable that none of Calhoun's three children testified to support the story.  I am keeping this incident in the hoax category.

6.  Despite the fact that two victims were abused by Sandusky in 2009, The Second Mile Executive Director continues to stand by his assertion that Sandusky was removed from all programs involving children in 2008.  See rebuttal, page 339.