Patriot News: Part 9 of 9: Chapter 1, Leaks

Sara Ganim: "I just followed the facts, piece by piece, as they came to us."

By

Ray Blehar

When the Patriot News broke the story of the Sandusky grand jury investigation in March 2011, many people believed it was a result of grand jury leaks.

Those people were right.

The 1998 University Park Police Report was leaked to the P-N sometime in January 2011 – right after the police investigating the 2008 Sandusky allegations had obtained it from PSU two years into the probe.  January 2011 coincidentally, is the same month that Sara Ganim took her Patriot News reporting job in Harrisburg.

However, the most famous leak in the Sandusky case was the November 2011 grand jury presentment.   

The presentment was ready on November 4^th, approved, and put under seal by the supervising grand jury judge, Rolando Jackson.    

However, it is not clear if the P-N possessed it on November 4th as Ganim's reporting did not provide evidence or special knowledge of its contents.

The Sandusky criminal charges (or court docket)  was the “other” leak that wasn’t described a leak.  Allegedly it was accidentally posted online.  

Early in the afternoon of November 4, the Centre County magisterial judge, Leslie Dutchcot, approved the affidavit of probable cause in the Sandusky case and completed the docket sheet for the Sandusky charges.  

At approximately 12:21PM the docket was (allegedly) mistakenly posted to the magisterial court system by her office.  

Sometime later that afternoon, Sara Ganim received a phone call (likely from one of the AG prosecutors) informing her of the pending charges in the Sandusky case.  Ganim assumed she was being leaked the information and promptly wrote her “scoop” at 2:26PM.  

Her statement that the charging paperwork hadn’t made it to Centre County is the “giveaway” that she thought she had received another “leak.”

The charging paperwork has not yet made it to the District Magistrate Judge's office in Centre County. However, felony charges of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse of someone under 16, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault of someone under 16, indecent assault of someone under 13, and corruption of minors charges have been filed in the state court docket system.

Dockets are approved by the magisterial judge before being posted to Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial system, therefore what Ganim wrote was an impossibility.

That afternoon, Ganim received a phone call from another reporter that the docket had been posted. The reporter noted that Ganim "shrieked" when she found out the charges were in the public domain.  Ganim updated her column at 3:54PM  to report that Centre County posted the charges.

Ganim later linked a copy of the docket in a later column, but the time stamp on the docket in the bottom right corner of the page read 2:21PM – five minutes prior to her original report.  The magisterial district number, 49-201, was on the docket, identifying that it was from Centre County and Judge Dutchcot’s magisterial district.  The date/time stamp therefore disproved her “scoop” that the charges were on a “state website” but that they didn’t make it to Centre County.

How did she make that mistake?  

Most likely, she never visited a “state court” web site to find the docket. Instead, she wrote the column on the charges based on information she got from someone else (likely an AG official).   Even after being told that the docket was posted, her articles over the next three days reveal that she didn't check the unified judicial system to verify any information. 

The next day, Ganim reported that the charges had been accidentally posted and the OAG’s Nils Frederiksen only confirmed that the state police and OAG officials were not at fault.

Continuing with her bungling of crime information,  on Saturday Ganim -- the "crime and courts reporter" -- incorrectly reported that charges had been filed against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.  While this was in agreement with the OAG’s November 5^th press release, a check of the magisterial docket system would have revealed no charges were filed against the two men until November 7^th (see Schultz docket search result below).

The evidence presented reveals that Ganim may not have been the “gumshoe” she was made out to be and simply relied on others to provide her with information.  It was also rather obvious that she had a limited knowledge of the court reporting system.

First, as I noted earlier,  it would have been impossible for the Sandusky court docket to be found on a “state court web-site” without first being processed by the District Magistrate’s office. 

Next, the state court website is organized to perform searches for dockets in four categories: magisterial, common pleas, appellate, and the city of Philadelphia.   To find the Sandusky charges, Ganim would have had to type his name and one other characteristic (e.g., DOB, status of case, county of case, etc) into the query to find the docket.   

A typical query screen is shown below.

Upon entering the Sandusky information, she would have gotten the docket with a Centre County identifier at the top. The number 49 is the identifier for Centre County and 49201 is Judge Dutchcot’s district. 

Thus, her story that the docket and details had not made their way to Centre County at 2:26 PM was impossible. 

The docket posted to the P-N had a time/date stamp of 11/4/2011 at 2:21PM, which revealed that Ganim could not have seen it on-line before she wrote about it (otherwise, she would have known the charges had "made it to Centre County"). 

On Saturday, November 5^th, Ganim’s 12:25PM and 5:59PM columns (captured from a blog) repeated information from the OAG’s 8:00AM press release of the Curley and Schultz charges.  Ganim didn’t verify the information herself.  

If she had, she would have seen that the charges were pending on the 5^th and not filed until the 7^th (in Dauphin County).  Ganim updated that column one last time on November 7^th at 1:22PM, but did not change any of the content (verified by blog entry below).  I presume the update was made because Ganim learned the charges were filed on that day.  As a result, the phrase “and this morning” would now be accurate with regard to when Curley and Schultz were charged.

Expecting Leaks

Ganim believed the Sandusky court docket was released accidentally because she, like others in the media, was told to expect it to be released on November 7^th.    As a result, she likely believed that the information she received on the 4^th was “leaked” in advance of the charges being filed.   As noted earlier, she "shrieked" when she was told the charges were actually filed in the judicial system.  Her reaction  suggested she was working with the expectation that she would be (exclusively) provided with information and tips about the case before the rest of the public was informed.

After being taken by surprise by the public release of the Sandusky charges,  she contacted Nils Frederiksen, the OAG press official to find out what had happened.  According to another local news reporter, the P-N then called Dutchcot’s office to complain about the posting, which resulted in it being temporarily removed from the internet.  

At that point, Ganim had the “scoop” that she expected to get about the charges and wrote the following column.

As with the news of the grand jury investigation back in March, many assumed the P-N’s possession of the court docket was them benefiting from another leak.   The truth was that it only became a “scoop” for the P-N after they complained to Judge Dutchcot, who ordered its temporary removal from the magisterial docket system.  

The Leak That Broke the Case:  

The 1998 University Park Police Report

According to the investigative report of Geoffrey Moulton of the Sandusky investigation, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) obtained the 1998 UP police report on January 3, 2011.  However, there is some evidence that the OAG knew about the 1998 report much sooner than it was obtained.  Mike Gillum, the psychologist of Aaron Fisher, revealed the OAG may have had knowledge of the 1998 incident as early as June 2009.  Meanwhile, Ganim and the P-N reported in two columns in November and  December 2011   that the PSP obtained the report in late 2010.   

The actual date the OAG learned of the 1998 Sandusky incident remains a matter in some dispute.

In a November 23, 2011 column, the PN reported it had obtained the police report in early 2011 and used it to break the story of the Sandusky grand jury investigation in March.  Another source revealed that Ganim had repeated the report verbatim over the phone in a conversation that took place in January 2011.

In an article accompanying the grand jury column on March 31^st, 2011, that explained how the P-N investigated the Sandusky grand jury, it made no mention of the 1998 police report.  Instead, then-editor David Newhouse, a Benjamin Bradlee Editor of the Year winner in 2011, wrote that Ganim had knocked on the doors of 26 people and had found five persons who had knowledge of the grand jury.

He noted that they used “other information” to corroborate the information gathered by Ganim.   “Other information” could be a veiled reference to the 1998 police report or it could be other information obtained from government officials.

In retrospect, Newhouse’s article seems a bit on the defensive regarding how the P-N came by its information.

No names were provided for the five persons who had knowledge of the investigation. According to the book, ­Silent No More, Ganim contacted Aaron Fisher, Dawn Daniels, and Mike Gillum in February 2011 – three of the five people with knowledge of the investigation. 

My email exchange with the mother of Victim 6 revealed that Ganim used the 1998 police report to track her (and her son) down in January 2011.  That brings the total of persons with some knowledge of the investigation to five.  

The P-N disclosed its possession of the 1998 police report in late November 2011.   However, either they forgot to tell Ganim or she forgot about the disclosure.  On December 3, 2011 and March 22, 2012 she wrote columns implying that she did not have knowledge of the report.

December 3, 2011 screen capture:

March 22, 2012 screen capture:

The significance of the latter story is that Ganim, who possessed the police report at the time, had to have known Lauro was lying to her about his knowledge of the evaluations of the boy (victim).  Rather than challenge his assertions, Ganim published a known falsehood by accepting Lauro’s version of events.  The rest of the media then followed Ganim’s lead story when the police report was released to the public on March 23, 2012 – stating that Lauro never saw the reports. 

And what were Newhouse and the P-N legal team doing when Ganim was perpetrating the ruse that she didn’t know what was in the 1998 police report? 

The deceptive practices continued on – and once again, Newhouse would expose the P-N when he made a second attempt to defend the paper’s reporting on the Sandusky scandal.

Newhouse’s Timeline Ruse

Much like his column on March 31, 2011, Newhouse wrote a column on November 10 (revised November 12) about how the P-N broke the story.

 He defended the paper’s reporting on the “Penn State child sex abuse scandal,” stating had they known anything prior to 2009 they would have “investigated with vigor.”   The evidence does not support that a rigorous investigation ever occurred.  Coincidentally, like the police, the P-N staff didn’t think to check the source of Sandusky’s child victims – TSM – for leads.  

I have yet to find evidence that either Sara Ganim or Jan Murphy developed a solid lead prior to 2011, however, that didn’t stop Newhouse from fabricating a story that Ganim had tracked down one of the mothers while she was working for the Centre Daily Times (CDT).  

Apparently, Newhouse wanted to make it appear that Ganim had uncovered information prior to her hire and that she simply didn’t benefit from leaks.  But the truth was that Ganim contacted both mothers after she was hired away from the CDT.

It is unclear who the “other sources” were who could talk about both the 1998 and 2008 investigation, however, the most likely candidates with knowledge of both incidents were Supervisory Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale, Agent Sassano, Trooper Rossman, Corporal Leiter, Supervisory Agent Randy Feathers, and OAG prosecutors Fina and Eshbach.  One other person of interest is OAG press officer Nils Frederiksen.

Evidence suggests that Sassano or Rossman can be ruled out, as they appeared to be kept in the dark on many aspects of the investigation.   Also, it is doubtful that Fina was leaking information, given that he was one of the primary foot-draggers on the case.  

Feathers is suspected of leaking email information to CNN's Susan Candiotti, as the two were former high school classmates.  However, it is unlikely that Feathers was Ganim's source.

Other evidence found in my investigation revealed that grand jury transcripts had been leaked to at least one other newspaper in Central Pennsylvania, which happened to be in close proximity to Sunbury, PA, where Feudale presides as a judge.  

Given that Jonelle Eshbach was frustrated with the pace of the investigation and the failure to file charges, she would be among the candidates for leaking information to Ganim.  As would Nils Frederiksen, given his role as a press official.

There may be more than one leaker in this case and the top three candidates are Eshbach, Frederiksen, and Feudale.

The P-N’s Possession of Leaked Information About Seasock

On March 21st, one day before Ganim misled the public about Lauro’s lack of knowledge of the psychology reports, she penned an “exclusive” report that former DA Ray Gricar may have closed the 1998 case due to a report from then unlicensed counselor, John Seasock.  Curiously, Seasock’s last name appears in paragraph four of the March 21^st, 2012 article with no previous mention of him in the article.  The use of less that Seasock’s full name the first time it appeared in the article was an obvious giveaway that something had been deleted.

An internet search found the missing text, which revealed information that was NEVER made public – specifically, that Seasock’s report made it to DA Ray Gricar two days before he closed the case.   

A web-archive version provides the deleted text, and again, Ganim conceals that she had possession of the Seasock report at the time the column was published and that she had somewhat exclusive knowledge of the discussions regarding documents under seal. 

Information made public in a searing grand jury presentment showed that Sandusky allegedly admitted to touching the boy known as Victim 6 while they were both naked and saying, “I wish I were dead.” 
    
What wasn’t made public until now was that two days before Gricar closed the case, a psychologist concluded Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky. 
    
The psychologist — John Seasock — was identified in court documents by Sandusky’s attorney as he asked a judge to force prosecutors to hand over the document, along with juvenile records and current and past addresses and phone numbers of the alleged victims. 
    
The judge ruled that the defense can have them. But he made an exception. Unless prosecutors can convince the judge otherwise within the next week, Amendola can read through the psychological evaluation, but he can “make no use of the information contained in the reports without prior authorization of the court.” 
    
A source who reviewed the documents and has knowledge of the case said he believed Seasock’s report was the reason the investigation was closed. 
    
However, the source said, Seasock was not the only psychologist to make an evaluation.

The P-N’s attempt to cite an alternative source of the information in its March 21st column was actually foiled when the leaked information from NBC on March 23^rd failed to reveal any information about the report being released two days prior to Gricar's decision.  

Other information scrubbed from the column included this passage regarding the psychology report of Dr. Alycia Chambers (who in a familiar pattern, is not mentioned by name).

The day after Victim 6 came home from a tour of the football building with then-defensive coordinator and charity founder Jerry Sandusky and told his mom Sandusky had showered with him and a friend, the mother called police. She also called a psychologist. 
    
“And that psychologist concluded that this incident, what the boy described, and I’m paraphrasing ... the psychologist concluded that what the boy described was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” the source said. 
    
Amendola confirmed that Seasock’s report and another psychologist’s report have been referenced in several other pieces of evidence turned over by prosecutors, but Amendola said he hasn’t yet seen the reports. 
    
The source reviewed the entire police report from 1998. The investigation, which was done by Penn State University police, took a few weeks. It included a sting in which police set up a meeting between the boy’s mother and Sandusky as officers hid in another room. 

Note: Full article can be obtained either by search of archive.org/web or by paying for archived version on PennLive.

The McQueary Handwritten Statement

When Ganim didn’t have the benefit of lawyers watching her every word, she sometime bragged about digging up information that was likely leaked to her.  Such is the case of the McQueary hand-written statement to the police.

The tweet by Ganim was in conflict with her November 16^th story that she had only viewed the handwritten statement of McQueary’s.   Her report also contained an error regarding the content of McQueary’s statement.

In his expose’ about McQueary, titled The Whistleblower’s Last Stand, ESPN’s Don Van Natta obtained McQueary’s hand written statement and reported it verbatim in the story (confirmed by Van Natta).  It contains nothing about Curley and Schultz.

 Full text of the statement follows:

On the Friday before spring break in either the year 2001 or 2002, 2002 I think, at approx 10 pm in the Lasch Football Building on the Penn State campus I witnessed improper behavior by Jerry Sandusky in regards to a male juvenile. As I walked in to the staff locker room I heard rythmic [sic] slapping sounds. The locker room lights were on & I did hear the showers running [a second "running" is crossed out].  Upon my entry I turned immediately to my right to open my locker.  While placing items in my locker I looked into the mirror at a 45 [degree] angle; in the reflection I could see a young boy approx. 10/11 yrs old facing a wall with Jerry Sandusky directly behind him. I did not see actual insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic].   I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker.  I proceeded out of the locker room.  While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction. After leaving the locker room I proceeded to my office, made a phone call to my father and then immediately left the building.

I drove to my parents house.  Spoke with my father about the incident and received advise [sic]. On the next Saturday morning at roughly 8 am -- less than 12 hrs after the incident -- I alerted Coach Paterno -- my superior at PSU -- at his house in person as to what I saw!

To be clear: From the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was maybe 1 minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered.

I would not be able to recognize the boy. Both individuals were wet and the looks were quick -- I had not seen the boy before nor have I seen him after to my knowledge

<end statement>

Much like the court docket of November 4^th, this is another instance of Ganim receiving information from an inside source sight unseen and reporting what she was told.  

McQueary's written statement eventually made its way to the P-N.  On December 11, Ganim reported that it was in the paper's possession.

Dr. Dranov’s Testimony

Ganim’s tweet stating the McQueary’s handwritten statement supported the testimony of Dr. Dranov is clearly false.  There is nothing in the handwritten statement confirming Dr. Dranov’s testimony of an arm pulling the boy back from around a corner.  

Ganim’s article on Dr. Dranov again cites an unnamed source with knowledge of his testimony.  Who that source might that be is likely a person from within the previously mentioned, small group.  

On February 2013, Judge Barry Feudale ordered an investigation into the grand jury leaks associated with the 33^rd state-wide investigating grand jury (Sandusky), the 2006 Dauphin County Grand Jury that investigated the slot machine licensing to Louis DeNaples, and the yet to be impanelled 36^th state-wide investigating grand jury.  The probe was to end by August 8, 2013, however, nothing to date has been reported on the progress of these investigations by Special Prosecutor, James M. Reeder.   

Why should we be surprised that another Sandusky related investigation is going nowhere?

Conclusion

The evidence in the case reveals that quite a bit of leaking was going on and not just to Ganim and the P-N.  However, the P-N appeared to use the leaked information to persevere on its theme of a "Penn State sex scandal" and to quash competing information before it could gain traction with the other media.

The reporting of leaked information and the back-tracking by the P-N also revealed that Ganim was much too inexperienced to take on the reporting of the scandal by herself and needed a lot of help from the P-N's lawyers and editors David Newhouse and Cate Barron to ensure the paper's reliance on leaked information was not exposed.   

As the evidence shows, their attempt to cover-up the leaked information was far from "adept." 

In the end, they failed.

Tom Harmon: The Untold Story

Gary Schultz's not so "secret file" continues to unravel the false charges of a cover-up by PSU

By

Ray Blehar

As I mentioned previously, seasoned analysts sometimes detect missing information -- information that should be found, but is conspicuously missing - that leads to solving a case.

In this propaganda campaign by the Attorney General, omissions and false statements have been the norm from the release of the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment to the most recent testimony at the preliminary hearing.

The AG's accusation of a PSU cover up to avoid bad publicity or preserve the Penn State brand is held together by a web of lies and omissions, a number of which involve PSU's former police Chief, Tom Harmon.

The questions not asked of Harmon (at the preliminary hearings), his apparent false statements, missing witnesses, altered evidence, and the absence of key evidence are all part and parcel of the propaganda campaign.  When you put the pieces together, circumstantial evidence points to Tom Harmon as the person who likely reported the 2001 incident to Centre County CYS and blows up the false narrative of a cover-up by the indicted PSU officials.

I suspect the most important lie, among the suspected lies told by Harmon, is that Schultz never told him about the 2001 incident.  When you look at the evidence, Harmon's contention that he was never told about the McQueary incident just doesn't hold water.

In short, Harmon - like Cynthia Baldwin - is a very likely a cog in the wheel of the Commonwealth's false narrative that deflects the blame from the state's child protection agencies and instead places it squarely on PSU. 

Harmon's Testimony  

Here's a recap of Harmon's testimony:

-- On February 12, 2001, Schultz inquired about the 1998 case (via an e-mail that has not been released publicly).

-- Harmon responds via e-mail that the police report is in the imaged files  (Freeh Report, Exhibit 5D).

-- Harmon also testifed that he knew the file Schultz was asking about was in reference to the Sandusky 1998 child abuse investigation.

-- Harmon testified that he didn't ask why Schultz was inquiring about the file.

-- Harmon testified that he didn't recall Schultz asking for the file and he didn't recall providing it to him.

-- Harmon later testified that if Schultz would have asked him for it, he would have remembered that fact.

-- Harmon testified that Schultz didn't say there was another Sandusky incident in 2001, otherwise Harmon said he would have opened an investigation.

However, the prosecutor never asked if Harmon, himself, had retrieved the file or bothered to look at it.

Nor did they ask him if he ever discussed the contents of the 1998 police report with Schultz.  To be fair, the defense team didn't ask those questions either.

They are interesting questions because Schultz's handwritten note from his personal file says: "reviewed 1998 history."

How did Schultz do it?

Schultz's Review of the 1998 Incident

Schultz could have gotten the 1998 police report from someone else in the University Park police department.  That's possible, but not likely, considering that if someone else provided the file, they'd have been identified as a witness in the case to lock down the pejury charge.  Schultz was charged with perjury because he claimed he was not aware of the 1998 police report.  The charge was made in March 2012 - before Schultz and Belcher turned over the file formerly known as the "secret file."   Therefore, that charge was likely made based on the e-mail evidence, which was turned over in March 2011 according to OAG forensics expert Braden Cook.  The e-mail Exhibit reveals Harmon informed him of the existence of the police report.  Barring the possibility that the OAG already possessed the "secret file," the e-mail is the only evidence of Schultz's knowledge of the 1998 police report that could have substantiated the perjury charge.

Schultz also could have reviewed the 1998 history from his review of the contents of the "secret file."  The file contained at least five pages of hand written notes on the 1998 case, including  Freeh Report Exhibits 2H (2 pages), 2I (2 pages), and one page that contained five bullet points on the investigation.   In addition, Schultz also could have accessed his e-mails from 1998 rather easily.  If the e-mails and notes were the 1998 history reviewed by Schultz, then it would mean he testified truthfully about his lack of knowledge of the 1998 police report.  This scenario is highly probable, given that the Sandusky file was in a drawer in his office and the e-mails were accessible (the system turnover occurred in 2004).

A third alternative was that Harmon pulled the file and provided the information to Schultz verbally.  I find that this is a highly probable scenario, given the evasiveness of the prosecutions questioning, the evidentiary omissions, and behaviors typical of a police officer.

So, let's play this out for a moment in this hypothetical conversation.....

Schultz:  Tom, do we have a record of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky?

Harmon: "Regarding the incident in 1998 involving the former coach, I checked and the incident is documented in our imaged archives." (Actual Reponse)

Schultz:  Thanks, Tom, I just felt like checking on that today - kind of hit me out of the blue.

Harmon: Anytime, Gary.

Rather implausible, wouldn't you say?

Harmon testified that Schultz rarely involved himself in police investigations and could not recall Schultz asking to review other police files.   Schultz also testified that he didn't customarily review police reports.  So, this was not a routine question by Schultz and it was something that Harmon recalled from memory.  Harmon then testified that to his recollection, Schultz did not ask for the file nor did he provide it to Schultz, and that he (Harmon) wasn't curious about why Schultz asked about it.

But what is the reality here? 

Harmon's Inconsistent Behaviors 

The reality is that any policeman worth his or her salt would at least ask the reason for the inquiry -- and suspect something was going on with Sandusky again, given Harmon's knowledge of the 1998 case.   It is also highly likely that Harmon, who checked the imaged archives for the existence of the file and would have retrieved it, considering that his boss was asking about it.

The other curious (or should I say, false) statement by Harmon is his contention that if Schultz told him Sandusky had showered with a child that it would have caused him to immediately open up an investigation.  That statement is incongruent with his behavior in 1998, when a mother came to his police force with an allegation of a sexual assault against Sandusky. Given that Schreffler had opened up an investigation (which Harmon probably would have squelched), Harmon's alternative was to label the file as "administrative information."   It's also notable that Harmon thought it important to notify Schultz about Chambers' psychologist's report generating an incident number with DPW.   However it is unlikely that Harmon chose to label the file as "administrative information" to avoid the media finding out - rather, he did it to likely protect his fellow church goer and former neighbor, Jerry Sandusky, from public scrutiny. 

Harmon's alleged rationale of PSU avoiding bad publicity (not so ironically, the Commonwealth's story of PSU's motive in this case) is also incongruent with his behavior as the Chief of the University Park police, when his police force was arresting PSU football players one after the next from 2000 up until and after the time he retired in 2005.   It's quite an impressive record of arrests - 60 over 8 years (according to a June 11, 2008 blogpost on BlackShoeDiaries) and many of those, including the high profile Maurice Humphrey case, occurred on Harmon's watch.

The evidence indicates that Tom Harmon and the University Park police didn't give a whit about bad publicity for PSU or the football program.

The AG's rationale of a cover-up to avoid bad publicity never made sense.  Now it makes even less sense when you know the history of Tom Harmon's policing activities.

Detailed Timeline Highlights Facts About 1998, Second Mile

A detailed analysis of the 2001 timeline indicates that Schultz did not remember the 1998 report until after talking with Spanier on the afternoon of February 12, 2001 -- and likely after speaking with Harmon about the 1998 and 2001 cases.  Given all of the above, it is likely that Harmon was the person who jogged Schultz's memory about the 1998 case and who was asked by Schultz to report the incident to CYS.

The 2001 Detailed Timeline 

Bold italics indicate suspected activity
 Times in italics are approximate

2/9      McQueary witnessed incident in Lasch. Tells his father & Dr. Dranov - and possibly his girlfriend.

2/10    9:00 AM McQueary told Paterno about the incident. (AM)

2/11    9:00 AM Paterno informs Curley and Schultz of incident (AM)

2/11    Schultz consults with Wendell Courtney.  Courtney later claimed no knowledge of 1998 incident.

2/12    Schultz phones Harmon and instructs him to contact CYS regarding 2001 incident.

2/12    2:30PM Schultz and Curley meet with Spanier.  Spanier was not told about 1998 incident. 

2/12    Schultz e-mails Harmon regarding the 1998 case. (Not admitted as evidence)

2/12    4:57PM Harmon replies that the 1998 police file is in the imaged archive.  

2/12    Schultz discusses 1998 incident with Harmon.  

2/12    Schultz writes note outlining the following:  

           Met with TMC. Reviewed 1998 history. TMC to meet w/JS on Friday. Option to call DPW.

2/13

2/14

2/15

2/16    Postponed TMC meeting with Sandusky.

2/17

2/18

2/19    Schultz and Curley meet with Mike McQueary

2/20

2/21

2/22    Schultz e-mail to arrange meeting with Curely and Spanier. (Not admitted as evidence.)

2/23    Spanier sends e-mail to confirm meeting.  (Not admitted as evidence in preliminary hearing.)

2/24

2/25    Handwritten note from Schultz outlining next steps.  

2/25    Spanier meets with Curley at his residence to discuss next steps.

2/26    1:57PM Schultz e-mails Curley 

           1. Talk to subject ASAP about not using facilities with TSM.  2. Contact TSM.  3. Contact DPW.

2/27    8:10PM Curley e-mails to pitch revised plan.  10:18PM  Spanier confirms plan. 

2/28    2:13PM Schultz confirms plan.

The (Possible) Schultz/Harmon Discussion

The not so "secret file" states that Schultz "reviewed 1998 history."  I suspect that the review by Schultz included his files on the 1998 report, e-mails, and a discussion of the 1998 case (police report) with Harmon.  

One of the more interesting facts in the e-mail evidence is a passage on the e-mail (Exhibit 2C) of June 8, 1998 from Schultz to Harmon, which states:  "I recall the last time we talked you indicated that there was some aspects of this that you felt you should review with me when we had a chance to talk."

The history of the 1998 case shows that CYS punted the case to DPW after the first day of the investigation, after "realizing" they had a conflict of interest with The Second Mile.  CYS also arranged to bring in John Seasock to perform the evaluation of Victim 6.  The police report demonstrates that Detective Schreffler was critical of Seasock's interview and questioned him about his knowledge of the case.   (Note: The file also appears to have alterations on the page regarding the fateful psych interview conducted by Seasock.) 

At the July 2013 preliminary hearing, Harmon revealed that on May 27, 1998, CYS called the University Park police to request that Schreffler not interview Sandusky without DPW's Lauro being present.  

Given the above, Schultz may have gotten the impression that CYS was not operating on the up-and-up when dealing with Sandusky and that DPW may need to be called in "as an independent  agency concerned w child welfare."  Why would Schultz call out DPW's independence in the matter if it wasn't for the fact he had reservations about CYS? 

Critical Point On Timeline:  Wendell Courtney Consultation

Wendell Courtney's legal review of the incident is the critical point on the timeline that makes the scenario of Harmon as the designated reporter very likely.  While we don't know how he advised Schultz, we do know that the law on child abuse reporting requires a report to be made within 48 hours.

A fair reading of the 2001 law would have provided PSU with two options that would have required them to "make or cause a report to be made" of the incident.  The first option would be directly reporting the incident to child protection authorities and the second would be to inform The Second Mile (Sandusky's charity) with the expectation that they would file the report. 

Schultz's note makes clear that contacting The Second Mile was not the option selected.

If Courtney determined that the "time clock" started upon McQueary's report to Paterno on 9:00 AM Saturday, February 10th, the deadline for making a report would have been Monday, February 12th at 900 AM.  Thus the hypothetical of Schultz directing Harmon to report to CYS on Monday morning would fit the timeline for making the report in the legally required time.  It is also entirely logical that Harmon, as the Chief of Police, would be the individual Schultz would direct to initiate a report.

The option of reporting the incident to The Second Mile didn't arise until February 26th, according to available evidence. It is then logical to conclude, based on the available evidence, that Courtney advised that PSU contact CYS.  The contact of DPW referenced on Schultz note was outside the legal time limit, thus was likely a back-up plan (as I alluded to earlier).

Follow up discussions focused on Sandusky's behavior

Note that while there was a legal requirement to report Sandusky (which appears to have been resolved by Monday, February 12th)  PSU officials still had to resolve the issue of Sandusky' inappropriate behavior as an emeritus employee.  It was clear that Schultz and Curley needed to gather facts from McQueary to know what exactly was observed, assess the situation, and determine further actions.

The evidence in the case indicates that Schultz had a greater sense of urgency about resolving the matter than did Curley, considering his actions to consult Courtney about the incident, his contacts with Harmon, and his management of the situation involving his administrative assistant, Joan Coble.

The 25 February e-mail from Schultz to Curley likely originated because of Coble's  "tickler" file.  As Coble testified, she put pending actions in the file and reminded Schultz about them at various intervals.  The March 7, 2001 e-mail from Coble to Curley would be indicative of her use of the "tickler file" to ensure that Curley closed the loop with Schultz on the matter.

Based on this information, Freeh's conclusion that Curley met with The Second Mile on March 19th would be contradicted by not only the March 7th e-mail, but by Spanier's statement (Exhibit 2J) that Curley had met with Sandusky and The Second Mile within days of their February 26th meeting.

Schultz and Courtney Recall PSU Contacted CYS

At the December 16, 2011 Preliminary Perjury Hearing, Gary Schultz made at least six references (starting on page 227) in which he recalled or referenced a report and/or investigation of the 2001 incident by the "the agency" or "the child protection agency" that handled the 1998 investigation.  At one point during the questioning, prosecutor Frank Fina lied to Schultz, telling him that the police handled the investigation in its entirety (page 228).  Here is the transcript from which it is clear that Schultz believed the incident was turned over to the "child protection agency" and that Frank Fina lied.

Wendell Courtney also recalled that Penn State had contacted CYS in 2001.  Page 84 of the Freeh Report states:  "..However, I recall that someone (I don't think it was me, since if it was I would have written documentation of the contact) contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation so that they could do whatever they thought was appropriate under the circumstances, while being apprised what PSU's actions were, i.e., advising JS to no longer bring kids to PSU's football locker rooms."

The AG's press release of the Sandusky indictment and grand jury presentment, incorrectly stated that Courtney represented both The Second Mile and Penn State in 1998 and was apprised of the details of that case.  Courtney corrected the record, stating he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, a report of a rape in 2002, and did not represent TSM as it's counsel until 2009.

The AG's (Nils Frederikson) response to Courtney's corrections (incredibly) was: "If he wants to engage in semantics, so be it."

TSM confirmed that Courtney was not hired as their legal counsel until 2009.  

In summary, two PSU officials recall a report was made to CYS in 2001.  It would be fantastic if PSU could produce a record of this contact and end this entire mess.

Unfortunately, it appears that Chief Harmon, who didn't want to have a crime log report on Sandusky in 1998, would have been the guy to make such documentation of a report to CYS.

It's likely we now know why PSU doesn't have a record of the 2001 report anywhere in its files. 

What Would Other Missing "Evidence" and Testimony Prove?

Missing E-Mail Evidence

Why has the Schultz e-mail "request" for the 1998 case information never been released or viewed as evidence?  What language does it contain that is so damaging to the state's case that neither the prosecution will introduce it as evidence at proceedings or that Louis Freeh would exclude it from his report?

Did it contain instructions for Harmon to open an investigation or contact child welfare?  Did it mention the 2001 incident?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Another piece of evidence that should be bolstering the Commonwealth's case (of a failure to report by PSU) is the testimony of a case worker or similar individual from CYS.  

But we haven't heard from those people either.

Carol Smith/CYS

The Commonwealth has relied on Agent Anthony Sassano to testify on CYS's behalf in this matter.  Sassano stated he contacted Carol Smith, the Director at Centre County CYS, who informed him that she did not recall any report nor have knowledge of a report in 2002 (sic).   Sassano stated that Smith recalled the 1998 case, but none after that.   

Of course, Carol Smith has quite an incentive to lie, as does anyone else working at CYS who may have decided not to investigate the case.  I suspect that's why she nor anyone else at CYS has been called to testify in this matter.  

There is little doubt that someone at CYS knows about PSU's 2001 report, but hasn't the courage to step forward and tell the truth.

Jerry Lauro/DPW

Similarly, the Commonwealth has not asked DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, or anyone else to take the stand to testify to the lack of receipt of a report.  I can understand the Commonwealth's reluctance to call Lauro, considering he made statements to the press about never seeing either psychology report in 1998, yet was responsible for arranging one of the interviews.  He's not a credible witness.

Agent Anthony Sassano

 Interestingly enough, Sassano actually let slip (on page 170) that DPW had records of the report (see below)

At the July 30, 2013, Preliminary Perjury Hearing, Sassano was cross-examined about whether he rechecked for the existence of records regarding the 2001 incident.  Originally, Sassano and everyone else (except Sandusky) believed the crime occurred in 2002.   Sassano answered that he checked with CYS, but not DPW. Then he incorrectly stated that he did call DPW and they had no report (page 26).  Therefore, Sassano has yet to close the door on the issue of the 2001 report still floating around at DPW.

Sassano then made the case that the absence of a police report at the time of the 2001 incident was proof of a failure to report because investigations are always conducted jointly between police and child care caseworkers.  Sassano then stated he checked with the University Park police department and they had no report of an investigation in 2001.

And why would they?  

The person who would have opened up that investigation (and report) was none other than Tom Harmon.