JimmyW: Timeline of Access to the Schultz file

JimmyW provided an excellent diagram of who had access to the Schultz file.  The diagram has been re-released in the twitter-verse and on BWI Rivals/McAndrew Board.

This is an excellent supplement to Eileen Morgan's latest article on the so-called "secret file."  The evidence in the case points to removal of the file by then PSU Counsel Cynthia Baldwin right after being informed about it by Gary Schultz.

There is rock solid evidence, thanks to Louis Freeh and the PA OAG, that the entire contents of the Schultz file were not revealed to the public when the Freeh Report was issued and were also suppressed during Sandsuky trial.

There is rock solid evidence that the PSU Board and Erickson colluded with the OAG on the railroading of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier when they withheld this evidence.  However, that's not all they withheld and the story will get worse very soon.

Stay tuned.

Did OAG Violate CHRIA By Sharing Information With Freeh's Team?

The recent response to Bagwell's RTK Request Provided Evidence That OAG's Disclosures to Freeh May Have Violated CHRIA

By

Ray Blehar

Ryan Bagwell’s latest attempt to obtain email correspondence between the former Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) and the Freeh Group revealed that over a dozen emails in the March to April 2012 timeframe could not be released because they may contain communications related to allegations and investigation of criminal wrong-doing, among other reasons.

OAG RTKL Officials obviously relied on the erroneous Freeh press conference and/or  the OAG's "Conspiracy of Silence" presentment when it denied Bagwell's request because "emails from Mr. Freeh's group contained information about potential criminal conduct uncovered by the Freeh investigation."  

While a vast public consensus likely believes that Freeh discovered the critical emails because the former FBI Director used a world-wide press conference to lie to the public on July 12, 2012, this is another case of consensus, or the majority, being wrong.

Freeh stated:

" Our investigative team made independent discovery of critical 1998 and 2001 emails – the most important evidence in this investigation. We also confirmed, through our separate forensic review, that the correct year of the Sandusky sexual assault witnessed by Michael McQueary was 2001, and not 2002 as set forth in the original Grand Jury presentment."

Interestingly, Freeh's statement contradicted the June 14th testimony of OAG Agent Anthony Sassano at the Sandusky trial, who stated that he set the date by triangulating the date of the movie Rudy in TV Guides from 2001.  Not surprisingly, no one in the media pointed out this contradiction when Freeh reported he set the date using emails.  The railroad had been running at full speed since March 2011 and the truth didn't matter.  

Cops didn't lie during the Sandusky trial....they "answered differently under oath." (Ganim, 6/19/21)

Second Mile didn't cover up Sandusky's abuse in 2009 -- they "decided to stay silent." (Ganim, 8/12/12)

It is highly likely that Freeh was assured by the OAG that no one would ever find out he lied about his discovery of the emails.  Fina knew The Patriot News was in his pocket, controlling the narrative -- and he expected Curley and/or Schultz to "flip" on Spanier after the next round of indictments.  In fact, there is documentary evidence that in January 2012,  former PSU President Rodney Erickson had been told that "Fina expected C & S to flip."  It is highly likely that the same information made its way to Louis Freeh.

To Fina's surprise, the flip didn't happen.  He left the OAG's office after Kane's swearing in and the judicial proceedings forged ahead to the preliminary hearings under the guidance of Bruce Beemer.

Once again, the media, led by The Patriot News, "decided to stay silent" about some of the most important testimony revealed at the July 2013 preliminary hearing,  As could have been predicted, The Patriot News never mentioned  Louis Freeh wasn't involved in the retrieval of any of the "critical 1998 and 2001 emails" introduced as evidence at the hearing.

Evidence To Date

To date, 32 evidence exhibits have been introduced into evidence by the Commonwealth for the proceedings of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.  These exhibits include all of the emails from the Freeh Report, emails not included in the Freeh Report regarding deliberations by the PSU BOT and contacts from news reporters, the grand jury transcripts of the PSU Three, and a McQuaide-Blasko billing record from 2001.  

If the emails from March and April 2012 (that were denied from RTK) were pertinent to the cases of the PSU Three, then they would likely have been admitted into evidence at the preliminary hearing in July 2013.

They weren't among those exhibits.

John Corro of the PSU IT Department testified that the scope of his investigation broadened in the November and December 2011 timeframe.  The search was expanded to 60 persons (not named Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier) and included over 100 devices.  Corro reported that he was providing the requested information to the OAG, Freeh, and the PSU lawyers. 

Corro stated the majority of the 30 terabytes information (p.82) he provided after November 2011 was obtained from the Athletic Department and was gathered from the football staff’s computers in the Lasch Building and from the servers in the Bryce Jordan Center and the East Area Locker Rooms (p. 83).  This testimony supports statements of those interviewed by Louis Freeh, who remarked that Freeh’s focus was on PSU football and Paterno.

As the evidence to date revealed, nothing relevant to Sandusky was found in the searches of the Athletic Department's computers and servers.

However, Corro’s most important testimony revealed that he had turned over the emails of Schultz, Spanier, Curley, and McQueary in response to a grand jury subpoena in April 2011.  The grand jury testimony of Cynthia Baldwin also confirmed that she had promised to turn over all of the data related to PSU officials by April 15, 2011.  

Corro’s testimony also didn’t exactly mesh with that of OAG forensic expert, Braden Cook.  Cook testified that he noticed the Schultz file was not accounted for in March 2012 and sought it out from Corro, who allegedly delivered it on a DVD on March 23^rd .

Whether Corro provided the critical emails in April 2011 or on March 23, 2012, one thing is clear – both IT experts made no mention that Louis Freeh had any role whatsoever in the discovery of the email evidence.

In conclusion, the 21 March 2012 email, titled “re: receipt of emails” refers to an exchange of email between the Freeh Group and the OAG outside of the chains of custody testified to by Corro and Cook.  Whether the information is vital to a criminal investigation is unknown, however, Bagwell could appeal the RTKL Officials' ruling based on the lack of any legitimate evidence that Freeh discovered the emails.

The Schultz File

From April 11 to 13, 2012, emails exchanged between the OAG and Freeh were titled “re: seized investigative materials.”  The title surely is interesting, considering that Kimberly Belcher testified that she handed over her copies of the “Schultz files" in April 2012, one day AFTER Gary Schultz provided his copies to the OAG.   

These were hardly seizures.

It appears that the sharing of the Schultz file is another instance of the OAG sharing information obtained during a secret investigating grand jury directly with individuals not in law enforcement.   By its own admission, The Patriot News reported that it possessed the 1998 police report in January 2011 -- months before it was released publicly by MSNBC (ironically on March 23, 2012).  

Given that the Schultz file was criminal evidence obtained in building a case for obstruction of justice charges against the PSU Three, the OAG would have been forbidden from sharing these non-public records -- under the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) -- with Freeh’s investigators because the Freeh Group is not a criminal justice agency.

While the OAG RTKL Officials may believe Freeh turned over the emails to the OAG, I’m quite certain that Special Investigator Geoffrey Moulton has read the testimony of Cook and Corro and isn’t buying Freeh’s or the OAG’s ruse about Freeh discovering the emails. 

Summary

The reasons cited by the OAG RTKL Officers for not sharing emails with Ryan Bagwell also applies to the Freeh Group and to Penn State University.  Earlier emails obtained by Ryan revealed that the Freeh Group and the OAG worked in cooperation on the Sandusky case.  Those emails also suggest that the OAG may have gotten too cozy with Freeh’s team and illegally shared information and evidence outside the CHRIA.

                                          https://www.pennstatesunshinefund.org/donate/

More Prelim: Harmon Never Provided 1998 Police Report to Schultz

In testimony completely overlooked by the lapdog media, police Chief Tom Harmon revealed that  he NEVER provided the 1998 police report for Schultz's review, other files existed, and DPW may have pulled a fast one. 

By
Ray Blehar

The media coverage of the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier preliminary hearings was much like its coverage of the Sandusky trial.  At the Sandusky trial, when the defense scored points, the keyboards were silent.

So too at the preliminary hearing.

To find out that the defense scored major points at the preliminary hearing you had to read about it on FramingPaterno.com or on this blog.  If you relied on reporters from the Centre Daily Times or the Patriot News, you would not have learned that Corro and Belcher discredited a number of Louis Freeh's and the OAG's allegations of obstruction of justice.

Similary, the reporters missed a lot of revelations from police Chief Tom Harmon.

Harmon Never Provided 1998 Police Report To Schultz

In what was the most surprising turn of events regarding the 2001 case, Tom Harmon stated he never provided the 1998 police report to Gary Schultz for his review in 2001.  Thus the handwritten note (Exhibit 5C, dated 12 February 2001) by Schultz, stating "reviewed 1998 history" becomes a very curious piece of information.  What history was reviewed if Schultz never received the police report?  Harmon did not state, under direct questioning or otherwise that he ever provided the 1998 report to Schultz. Harmon's testimony (under cross examination) is below and it appears Schultz only inquired as to the report's existence, but never asked to see the file.

The e-mail evidence in the Freeh Report, specifically Exhibit 5D, confirms that Harmon acknowledged the existence of the police report file but there is absolutely no evidence to date proving that he turned it over to Schultz.  If he had, the Commonwealth surely would have elicited that testimony under direct examination. And if Harmon had done so, the Commonwealth certainly would have clarified this under re-direct.  Thus his testimony confirms Schultz never received the file from him and, very likely, testified truthfully to having no knowledge of the 1998 police report during his January 2011 grand jury appearance.

One of the perjury charges in the case is based on the allegation that Schultz knew the details of the 1998 case when he was questioned about it at the grand jury.

The particulars of this allegation were provided to the courts on March 30, 2012, before the alleged "discovery" of the "secret file" by Freeh in May (or the actual turnover of the file to the OAG in April 2012).  Therefore, the allegation is predicated on either Schultz's assumed knowledge of the case from the police report (which he never saw) or from e-mail evidence turned over to the OAG.  

The e-mail evidence is non-specific, therefore, the basis for the perjury charge when it was made was highly dubious --  unless the OAG possessed the Schultz "secret file" that indicated the level of details known to Schultz about the case in 1998.  That he could not recall details of the 1998 case 13 years later isn't perjury, it's more likely a limitation of Schultz's memory

The "secret file" of Schultz appears to be the gift that keeps on giving....

Additional Information In the Schultz File

As I wrote in this blog post, there were a number of documents referenced in the Freeh Report, pertaining to the 1998 investigation,  that were not included as exhibits in the report.  I also opined that there may have been chain of custody issues with the file and exculpatory evidence removed after former PSU General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin was allegedly alerted to the file on January 5, 2011 or shortly thereafter.

Harmon's testimony revealed yet another document (Commowealth's Exhibit 13) - a handwritten note by Schultz of May 5th, 1998 - that was previously unknown to the public.  The note contained five bullet points, one of which stated  that the  Dr. Alycia Chambers did indeed make her report to the DPW.  See below.

This fact was somewhat muted in the Freeh Report (page 42) as it reported Chambers contact as a "report to the Pennsylvania child abuse line."  This language was pulled from Dr. Chambers report (page 8/25), however, the call was indeed made to the hotline operated by DPW and the report was made early in the investigation.  This can also be confirmed by the handwritten note (Freeh Report Exhibit 2H, 5 May 1998) of Schultz, stating "Mother to psychologist & said she would call child abuse hot line & will generate an incident number - with Dept of Public Welfare."  Thus, PSU officials had knowledge of Chambers' contact with DPW by May 5th, but no details of the report until May 8th.

The police report provides evidence that Detective Ronald Schreffler and Wayne Weaver (who reviewed the report) saw the Chambers report.  Harmon testified to no knowledge of the two "psychologists" being involved in the case when questioned at the December 16, 2011 Preliminary Perjury hearing.  The "secret file" indicates Harmon had informed Schultz about Dr. Chambers, thus Harmon was either lying or had a poor memory (most likely the latter - more on that in a future blogpost).  Schultz was not asked about his knowledge of the Chambers report or its contents. It would be speculative to assume Schultz was shown this file, given there is no evidence (to date)  he ever actually reviewed the 1998 police file.

As part of my investigation, I contacted Dr. Chambers on October 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM and discussed her reporting on the case.  She informed me that she released her report to the University Park police and Centre County CYS.   The report to CYS is very significant because, according to the 1998 police report, DPW's Lauro reviewed the file of CYS's John Miller on May 7 and stayed in contact with Miller at least through May 8, when the Seasock interview was arranged.   In addition, she confirmed that she provided her report orally to ChildLine.

While this does not prove that Lauro actually saw the Chambers report, it is clear that all agencies involved possessed either a written or oral report regarding her assessment of the situation by May 8, 1998 and that DPW possessed the oral report by May 5, 1998.  The investigation did not conclude until June 1, 1998, which certainly provided Lauro and others with ample opportunity to discuss all of the known details of the case before rendering a decision.  The question remains, what did DPW know and when did they know it?

That's not the only thing that is raises questions about DPW's investigation, however.

DPW 1998 Chicanery

Press reporting on the case led the public to believe that the assignment of Jerry Lauro from the Harrisburg office of Department of Public Welfare (DPW)  was a result of a conflict of interest between Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) and The Second Mile (TSM).   The Freeh Report added the twist that DPW from Harrisburg (Lauro) was brought in because it was a high profile abuse case (page 45).

Freeh's statement was easily debunked by reviewing not only DPW's policies and the Public Welfare Code, but by researching the work history of Jerry Lauro.  First, there are no provisions in policy or the code for "high profile" abuse cases.

Next, Had Lauro been this "high profile" investigator, then it would have been reasonable to see his name associated with the high profile Milton Hershey School case involving pedophile Charles Koons, considering Hershey is right next door to Harrisburg.  Not a mention of Lauro anywhere.

Finallly, wouldn't the DPW have dispatched Lauro, their "high profile" investigator to look into the Roman Catholic church abuse case in Philadelphia?  No association there either, even though Lauro was still a fixture at DPW in 2005.

The bottom line here is that Lauro does not appear to be what he was characterized to be, but the more important information that slipped by was that the Altoona/Cresson office of DPW, not Harrisburg, should have been assigned to the case.

Altoona (Cresson) Not Harrisburg

Harmon's testimony (page 77) revealed that in an undisclosed e-mail dated May 5, 1998, he informed Schultz  that the DPW Office of Children Youth and Families (OCYF)  in Altoona was contacted about the case and that he was going to "hold off on making a crime log entry."  This information about contacting the Altoona office is never mentioned in the Freeh Report (pages 20 & 48) or in press reporting about the case.

Yet another piece of missing information surfaced from Harmon's testimony.  This one was a May 6, 1998 e-mail again making reference to DPW's involvement in the case.  On that date, Harmon learned that the DPW office in Cresson would not be handling the case and instead someone from the Harrisburg office would be assigned.  See below.

While there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the assignment of the Harrisburg office, such as Cresson/Altoona's regional program specialist being unavailable, the redaction of this information in the Freeh Report (the e-mails of 5 and 6 May from Harmon to Schultz is not in the exhibits) obviously bolsters the case that Freeh's report was not as "full and complete" as it proclaimed to be on page 8 and raises a question about the assignment of the Harrisburg office to the case.

Conclusion

Harmon's testimony cast serious doubts on the level of knowledge Schultz had about the 1998 case and the validity of the perjury charges.  The press, who obviously have not invested the time to understand the details of the case, missed these facts and others from Harmon that did considerable damage to the Commonwealth's case.



Next:  Harmon may have been responsible for Pandora's Box statement