The Silent 18's Settlement Decision Is Driven By Secrecy

The recent 18-6 vote to settle with Sandusky victims is further confirmation that the controlling majority of the PSU Board of Trustees will spend large sums of money to keep the truth hidden.

By
Ray Blehar

The vote in favor of the settlement resolution was 18-6.  

The 18 who voted for the resolution didn't provide any reason for their support.  The six who opposed all did and it was trustee Anthony Lubrano's statement that struck at the most likely reason PSU has decided to settle the pending lawsuits.

“Unfortunately, Penn State continues to pay almost three years later, and today we look to pay again.  But I say no more.  No more resolutions to approve settlements while denying trustees access to the materials used to prepare the Freeh Report; no more feeding at the trough of Penn State."

According to two independent sources, Penn State (in 2013) provided settlements to all claimants who would accept below the $2 million per instance or $3 million aggregate limits, as provided by the University's liability insurance.   26 of 32 claimants were awarded settlements. Of the six claimants that were denied, three had requested more compensation than the the limit.  The University stated that the three other claims that were denied lacked merit.  However, it is more likely those claims were denied because the abuse fell in the period during which Sandusky was under investigation by the Attorney General (e.g., D.F. lawsuit).


Victims 6 and 9 were among the three claimants whose attorneys were not satisfied with accepting the "chump change" the University was offering.  Their attorneys pressed on with civil litigation and, as a result, were granted access to the documents used as source material by Freeh, as well as other information which could prove harmful the trustees who control the power base.  

Victim 9's lawsuit resulted in access to all 3.5 million documents used as source materials in the Freeh Report.  While PSU appealed the ruling to the Superior Court, the schedule called for the turnover of all documents by May 4, 2015, which was eventually extended to 29 May.  The pressure was on "silent majority" to make something happen to keep that information under wraps.

What Records Are Being Withheld and Why?

Some might recall that in the early stages of the investigation, Freeh vowed to investigate activities dating back to the mid-seventies.  However, according to documents obtained from Old Main, Freeh requested every "record ever created back to '69."  1969 was the year Sandusky was hired as a full-time assistant football coach.  Information from 1998 forward was used in the report, thus simple math reveals 29 years worth of information was excluded.  

Note that Freeh's charter was to investigate and report on the causes for all of the allegations that were published in the Sandusky grand jury presentment.  He failed to do so by excluding the incidents involving Victims 7 and 10, which predated 1998.  The reason for the omissions was obvious -- there was no evidence linking those crimes to Paterno or other PSU officials. 

In addition, the criminal proceedings in the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier case established that Freeh excluded a number of emails and documents from his report that would have shed light on the failures of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) during the 1998 investigation.  Among omitted documents were a handwritten note by Schultz that reported DPW had received the report from Dr. Alycia Chambers (denied by DPW's Jerry Lauro) and an email revealing CYS remained involved in the case until late May.  The Freeh Report stated CYS recused itself from the case in early May, citing a conflict of interest with The Second Mile.  

A full document dump could also result in exposure of the full, unadulterated, "critical" emails that were used by Freeh and the Attorney General as evidence against the PSU Three. Questions have been raised regarding the provenance on those documents because at least six different dates were provided for when they were turned over to the state police and/or Attorney Generals office.  The testimony of the Attorney General's forensics expert regarding anomalies in the emails was less than convincing.  If it is shown the "critical" emails were subjected to tampering, the narrative of a PSU cover-up scandal would be over (and replaced by the big question of who was behind the tampering).   

FYI: the top candidates would be Cynthia Baldwin and Louis Freeh.  Former officials from the PA Attorney General's office would be co-conspirators.

Other Information

While Victim 6's lawsuit did not yield access to all the Freeh documents, however it has resulted in obtaining a lot of other important evidence.   The court ordered Penn State to provide, among other things, the names of people who talked to Freeh investigators about any Sandusky shower incidents with boys from 1990 to 1998, complaints of sexual misconduct against any employee at the University Park campus from 1990 to 1998, and documents between Penn State and the NCAA from the time Sandusky was indicted to the issuing of the sanctions.

The documents between Penn State and the NCAA are likely among the information Penn State wants most to hide.  While the Corman v. NCAA lawsuit provided many emails between the two entities, Senator Corman stopped short of releasing all the documents obtained through discovery.  Those documents would likely provide more evidence confirming that Ken Frazier and Ron Tomalis had instrumental roles in authoring the Freeh Report and additional  evidence confirming that the University and the NCAA had an agreement from the outset to use the Sandusky scandal to penalize PSU football and Paterno.  No doubt, those revelations would send a shock wave across the country and lead to the end of the professional careers of Freeh, Emmert, and others who were involved in the deception.

As shown above, the information that might be revealed through discovery would be ruinous to Rod Erickson, Cynthia Baldwin, members of the PSU BOT inner circle, Mark Emmert, Louis Freeh, and Frank Fina.   All of those people took part in scapegoating PSU officials and/or Paterno for Sandusky's crimes.

Conclusion

In the cases of Victim 6 and Victim 9, the information being sought would most likely blow up the credibility of the Freeh Report.  Ironically, both of their lawsuits borrow heavily from the Freeh Report to make their claims that PSU was culpable for the crimes committed by Sandusky.  

Penn State could easily defend against the lawsuits by publicly rejecting the Freeh Report and then going into litigation with the evidence that undermines Freeh's findings.  Meanwhile, the plaintiffs would be in receipt of the evidence that disproves their cases -- and be left with nothing.  

When you get down to it, the Silent 18 voted to pay a large sum of money to settle cases the University would win.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/03/18/4091149_some-freeh-investigation-material.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

What the Sandusky family statement doesn't say

The Sandusky family statement, through attorney Al Lindsey, doesn't say that Jerry Sandusky is innocent and reveals that Dottie Sandusky is in denial.

By
Ray Blehar

In response to Matt Sandusky's appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Network, the Sandusky family released the following statement.

The family's statement that they never witnessed or heard of inappropriate behavior is a far cry from saying that Jerry Sandusky is innocent.  However, the fact is that the statement is untrue.

Dottie Sandusky admitted that Jerry told her exactly what happened in 1998 and, that when pressed by Matt Lauer, admitted that she would have considered it inappropriate if one of her children was hugged by an adult in the shower.

Lauer: One of the victims said he showered with him and hugged him. In the shower, while they were naked in the shower. Someone did that to one of your children and your children came home and told you that, wouldn't you think that's inappropriate?  That's hugely inappropriate.

Sandusky: I would. Yes, but.I would..I...I..I don't necessarily know that that happened. And maybe it did. Maybe Jerry said (trails off).

Next, while I can't speak for the rest of the family, Dottie is clearly in denial because she knew exactly what happened in 1998.  Her own words are below.

Lauer: Can you give me an example of something that he told you that he was truthful about that hurt? What were you referring to there?

Sandusky:  Gee that's hard to decide. To say. Of the...I can't really think of anything.  He told.. I guess..maybe it was the 98 incident.  He told me about that. He told me exactly what happened when that happened. 

However, I will agree that the statement "it is what we lived" reveals that at the time Sandusky's abuse was going on, the family was not likely aware of it.  Like the majority of people who knew Jerry Sandusky, they didn't believe he would be capable of such behaviors.  After the trial concluded, I suspect that some of the family realized that Jerry had committed crimes, although they may not fully believe all the victim's stories.

I agree with the final paragraph of the family statement.

There is no benefit to attacking Matt Sandusky because there is no way to disprove that he's a victim.  While many of the things Matt has said don't add up or make sense, even if someone was to somehow prove Matt was not abused, Sandusky remains guilty of many counts of child sexual abuse.  In addition, many Sandusky accusers/victims were never presented as witnesses at the trial.

Finally, I am in the same camp as many Penn Staters on the payment of victim settlements.  Matt Sandusky is not unique in that regard, as the University should not have paid anyone before its culpability had been established.  While it was explained that it was done for expediency and to avoid bad publicity, the fact is that bad publicity was going to continue as other lawsuits against PSU and the NCAA progress.

PSU has sued the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association Insurance Company because of its refusal to pay the settlements.  The policy in effect in 1992 and later excluded coverage for sexual abuse and molestation.  As a result, the $59.7 million in settlements was paid from University funds, according the PSU's 2013 financial statements.


At June 30, 2013, the University has accrued $59.7 million for 26 of 32 known claims, 24 of which have been settled subsequent to June 30, 2013. Such costs are included in institutional support within the consolidated statement of activities. Of the remaining six claims, two have been deemed to have no merit through the due diligence process. Without having knowledge of the number and nature of unknown claims and in view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of our remaining four known claims, each with their own unique circumstances that give rise to their alleged claims, and given the various stages of the proceedings, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the ultimate legal and financial liability, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the 2013 financial statements for these claims although a loss is reasonably possible in future periods which could have a material adverse effect on our current and future financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 

In closing, Matt Sandusky's interview should be viewed as a reminder bad decisions made by the PSU Board of Trustees in agreeing to pay settlements.  By Matt's own admission, he was abused prior to anyone at PSU being informed about Sandusky's abuse.  It is truly puzzling why the PSU BOT would have entertained paying any abuse settlements for incidents prior to 2001, given that the University was told Sandusky did not commit any crimes in 1998.