Thursday, December 26

Does Fina's in camera argument reveal earlier possession of Schultz e-mails?

Prosecutor Frank Fina's references to e-mails containing metaphors and "illusions" (sic) to Jerry Sandusky, as well as Corro's testimony, provides evidence that the OAG had versions of the 1998 and 2001 e-mails prior to April 13, 2011.

by
Ray Blehar

The statements of prosecutor Frank Fina on April 13, 2011 appear to negate the obstruction of justice charges filed against the three Penn State administrators in the so-called Conspiracy of Silence.

The November 2012, Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment (pages 38-39) stated that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were charged with obstruction of justice for failing to turn over documents and e-mails  that would have been responsive to Subpoena 1179.  Former Attorney General, Linda Kelly, charged that "pertinent emails and other key evidence were never turned over until April 2012, after these men had left their jobs."

However, the April 2011 statements made by Frank Fina during his in camera response to Baldwin's oral motion to quash the subpoena indicate his contemporaneous knowledge of what Louis Freeh called "the most important documents in this investigation."  That reference was to the e-mails between Schultz, Spanier, and Curley that Freeh  lied about making "independent discovery" of when he grandstanded at the July 2012 press conference.

This revelation of Fina's knowledge of the 1998 and 2001 e-mail evidence appears to rip the cover off of the suspected conspiracy/collusion between the OAG and Freeh -- and perhaps PSU and the NCAA.

First and foremost, Fina argument is in support of the subpoenas from 1997 and earlier, thus you can deduce that e-mails from 1998 and forward are already in the state's possession.

In order to bolster his argument, Fina described the characteristics of "metaphors and masked comments" that were found in the e-mails from 1998 and 2001.

  • On page 15, lines 1-4 of the Spanier colloquy, Fina discusses those characteristics as follows: "they write off-hand comments, they write masked comments and metaphors may prove very worthwhile for us to review and see if there is any information related to what we are looking for."
  • On page 26, lines 6-10, Fina futher justified the request that PSU provide "any of those e-mails, subsets of those e-mails that relate in any fashion, whether they are illusions (sic) or direct statements to Mr. Sandusky, that those would be culled out by the University and provided directly to the Office of Attorney General."  

In 1998, a metaphor -- the word "Coach" -- was used on two occasions to describe an individual involved in the discussion about the Sandusky investigation.  In 2001, the metaphors "individual," "agency," and "other one" were used to describe persons and organizations involved.

It appears, based on Fina's statements, that the e-mail evidence giving rise to the obstruction of justice charges was handed over in March or April of 2011, nearly a year before the OAG and Freeh claimed they initially possessed them.

One of the unwritten rules in this investigation is not to put much stock in the dates provided by the OAG.  Dates appear to be changed in an attempt to explain away the foot-dragging that went down in the Sandusky  investigation.

Baldwin foot-dragging

While it is true that none of the three men provided any e-mail evidence to the OAG, it is anything but certain that they were told to search for the information by then-PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin.  Given that Subpoena 1179 asked for e-mails about the 2002 incident, it is difficult to explain why Spanier, Curley, and Schultz all testified that the incident occurred in different years.

Someone's not telling the truth, and that person is likely Baldwin.

According to the testimony of John Corro of the PSU IT Department,  Baldwin did not approach him about searching for the e-mails requested by the Subpoena until March 2011.  The delay by Baldwin was likely part and parcel with the overall foot-dragging of the Sandusky investigation, which really was not undertaken in earnest until Spanier and Corbett sparred over PSU's budget.



Up until that point, the newly hired PSU lawyer's likely mandate was to stonewall the investigation to ensure nothing about crimes related to Jerry Sandusky were revealed.  Baldwin's history as Vice-Chair and Chair of the PSU BOT, as well as her experience working for former AG LeRoy Zimmerman, and appointment to the bench by former Governor Rendell, indicated that she understood the stakes involved in this investigation.  

Baldwin's and the OAG's best course of action was to avoid prosecuting Sandusky, but it is highly likely that Corbett eventually let his emotions get the best of him and decided to use the arrest of Sandusky to have Spanier fired.

When Corbett "threw the switch" 27 months into the investigation, everyone was put behind the 8 ball in terms of explaining why the arrest took so long.

OAG Foot-Dragging

Psychologist Mike Gillum, in the book Silent No More, stated that Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eschbach and Trooper Scott Rossman informed him in June 2009 that had received information about a 1998 incident, but would not share details with him.

According to press reports, the police were tipped to the 1998 incident after Sara Ganim gave contact information of the investigators to the mother of Victim 6 in November or December of 2010.  After that, it took police until January 3, 2011 to get the police file from PSU.

Gillum also wrote that Eschbach told him in March 2010 that an arrest was imminent, but then reversed course and said that her boss, Tom Corbett, had nixed the arrest.  In May 2010, six months before Mike McQueary would be interviewed, Eschbach told Gillum other victims had been identified.  The public records state otherwise, considering the "unknown" victim in the McQueary incident reported in November 2010 became Victim 2.

At a June 2010 meeting, Eschbach promised an arrest in the summer - but that never came.  As Gillum had pointedly argued, Corbett was delaying the arrest until after the election.

Gillum appears to be partially right -- the delay was about election and a few more things.

Corbett and the OAG needed that time to ensure that the case against Sandusky not only resulted in a conviction, but they needed to construct a story that would (falsely) blame PSU's lack of cooperation and attempted cover as the reason behind the delay of the investigation.  The story also had to deflect attention away from DPW's and The Second Mile's failures to protect children.

As more facts are revealed, that story is falling apart under its own weight.

From the fantastic story of Agent Sassano determining the date of the McQueary incident by using TV Guides to the factually challenged testimony of janitor Ronald Petrosky, lie after lie is being revealed.

The collapse of this travesty of justice is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.





Posted by at 32 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, December 23

Breakdown of Original Footage of the Immaculate Reception (41st Anniversary)

 And I'll throw in what happened after the catch because that's fun too.

by
Ray Blehar


As the play gets underway, Franco stays in to "block" on the play.

With no one to block, Franco turns to see two Raiders bearing down on Quarterback Terry Bradshaw.


Instinct takes over and Franco released to become a receiver.




The "Collision" between Tatum and Fuqua.  Physics experts confirm that the trajectory of the ball resulted from it hitting Tatum, who had forward momentum.

 Ball leaves the frame and then Franco re-enters the frame carrying the football (below).
































Click here for NBC original footage.

 Happy 41st Anniversary -- Immaculate Reception!





Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, December 22

Who's telling the truth: Baldwin or everyone else?

This is not a case of he said, she said, with Spanier and Baldwin; it's a case of Baldwin's word against everyone else's.

By
Ray Blehar

Attorney Elizabeth Ainslee, who represents former Penn State President. Graham Spanier, released a rebuttal to the grand jury testimony Cynthia Baldwin.  The embattled former PSU General Counsel was quoted in several media reports, alleging her former boss, Spanier, "was not a man of integrity" and had "lied to her."

Spanier's attorney shot back that Baldwin's testimony was "shamefully inaccurate," that she was testifying in an attempt to avoid her own prosecution (likely for obstruction of justice) and that she had signed a proffer letter with the OAG.  Ainslee included a copy of Baldwin's interview from the Office of Personnel Management for Spanier's security clearance, in which Baldwin said she trusted Spanier as a person and also trusted his judgment.  Furthermore, she stated Spanier "was a man of integrity" and "was forthcoming and open with the BOT."



Baldwin's lawyer, Charles DeMonaco, stated Baldwin's opinion changed after she read the Freeh Report and learned of the e-mail evidence and other documents.

“Much like the public at large, Justice Baldwin learned for the first time in the summer of 2012 about the conduct of the defendants as a result of documents and e-mails which were discussed for the first time with the release of the Freeh Report in July 2012."

And that is where the story breaks down.  This is not a case where Baldwin had a revelation about Spanier's honesty after the Freeh Report was issued and that her honesty should be weighed on that revelation.

It is a case where nearly all of Baldwin's grand jury testimony was refuted by practically everyone else who has testified in the case.  Everyone includes John Corro, Braden Cook, Frank Fina, Lisa Powers, the PSU Board of Trustees, Anthony Sassano, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier.  

And even herself.

Corro, Cook, and Fina Refute E-mail Stories

According to the testimony of John Corro, of the PSU IT Department, Baldwin approached him in March or April 2011 and showed him part of Subpoena 1179, which requested all e-mails back to 1997.   Corro made no mention of the "preservation order" Baldwin testified about on page 16, lines 13-25.

According to Baldwin, she sent the order to preserve all e-mails and documents related to the Sandusky case to  all concerned parties at PSU.  This "preservation order" did not surface in any of the e-mails or documents provided as evidence in the Freeh Report nor was it mentioned in the presentment that added charges for  Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

The November 2012, "Conspiracy of Silence" grand jury presentment stated that Subpoena 1179 was allegedly provided to PSU/Baldwin in December 2010 -- although other evidence obtained in the investigation appears to set the date as October 2010.  Nevertheless, Baldwin had the subpoena in her possession for several months before finally deciding to request that the IT department perform e-mail searches.

Also, according to the subpoena, the e-mail evidence was to be turned over by January 10, 2011.  Baldwin missed this date without filing a motion to quash the subpoena.  It was only after Baldwin was in the judge's chambers on April 13 that she raised an oral motion to quash.  Interestingly, the OAG did not file a contempt  motion from the point that Baldwin had missed the due date until April 13, 2011.  At the same session, Baldwin then agreed to turn over the e-mails, which she said would be on a single USB key, to the OAG that Friday.

John Corro testified that the provided three USB keys to Baldwin, one containing all the e-mails and two containing information based on key word searches (e.g., Schultz, Paterno, Curley, Spanier, etc).   However, Corro's most important testimony was that Schultz had taken special effort to preserve his e-mails dating from before 2004 - the system switchover at PSU - so that they would be migrated to the new system.  As a result of Schultz's actions, the most important e-mails in the case were easily recoverable from Schultz's e-mail archive.

There is little doubt that the e-mails that Baldwin stated she didn't see until July 2012 came into her possession in March or April 2011.   Thus Baldwin appears to be claiming she never saw or examined the e-mails that the PSU IT department turned over.

 But that story just doesn't hold water based on the testimony of Braden Cook.

According to OAG computer forensic expert, Braden Cook testified that all evidence reviewed by his unit was provided back to PSU for privilege review before being admitted into evidence.   Someone at PSU saw those e-mails long before the Freeh Report was published and, as legal counsel, Baldwin would have been responsible for approving their release.

Finally, Deputy Attorney General and chief prosecutor, Frank Fina, noted during the in camera argument about Baldwin's oral motion to quash Subpoena 1179, the use of "masked comments and metaphors" in e-mails.  Louis Freeh, in his report, called it "coded" language.  Fina's comment suggests that he was privy to the e-mail evidence prior to Baldwin's official "turnover" on 15 April 2011.

Powers, BOT, and Sassano Refute Baldwin on Seriousness of Investigation

On page 61, lines 7-11 of Baldwin's grand jury testimony, she stated that  "there was no doubt in my mind, I mean, that Mr. Sandusky would be part of a presentment and the only issue was how many would be involved in that presentment.

Lisa Powers testimony from July 2013 is in direct contradiction of Baldwin and backs Spanier's story that Baldwin downplayed the seriousness of the investigation.  After receiving an inquiry from Jan Murphy of the Patriot News in October 2010, Powers reached out to Baldwin for information.  Baldwin, as she did with Spanier, told her it was the fourth grand jury that had looked into Sandusky and that the case was a "fishing expedition."  See transcript below.






























A number of BOT members were quoted in a January 18, 2012 New York Times article about the May 2011 briefing on the Sandusky investigation that was provided by Spanier and Baldwin.  Surma stated the briefing was so brief no one remembered it or asked any question.  Another BOT member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Baldwin downplayed the seriousness of the investigation.  The member recalled it as "no big deal."

Finally, at the Sandusky trial, OAG Agent Anthony Sassano remarked that PSU was slow to get information to them in response to subpoenas.  Sassano specifically mentioned Subpoena 191 for the names of the Office of Physical Plant employees (janitors) that was requested in May 2011.

Schultz and the Schultz "Secret" File

If there is one piece of evidence that exonerates Penn State in this case, it is the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz.  While the file was irresistible to the prosecutors and Louis Freeh because it contained bombshell language such as "Pandora's Box" and "sexually inappropriate," it also contained considerable evidence that the DPW caseworkers overlooked at least a dozen signs of possible child sexual abuse during their 1998 investigation of Sandusky.

During Baldwin's grand jury testimony she made several false statements concerning Schultz and the "secret" file.  First, she stated (page 13, lines 11, 12) she could not immediately serve the subpoena to Schultz because he was "on vacation." The fact of the matter is that Schultz was retired and that the subpoena for documents could have been directed to numerous current PSU employees.  Schultz was not rehired by PSU until September 2011 and Baldwin made no statement to the effect that she reminded Schultz to look for documents after he was re-employed.

Baldwin also stated she had never heard of and that Schultz never mentioned the file to her.  Again, this is clearly refuted by the fact that Schultz testified to the grand jury that he may have had a file on Sandusky in his office -- and Baldwin was present during his testimony.  Schultz, in an affidavit, also stated that he informed Baldwin of the possible presence of the file in his old office, which was being occupied by Al Horvath.

Paterno Subpoena And Lack of Seriousness

While we're on the topic of subpoenas, Baldwin also falsely claimed (page 13, lines 10, 11) she could not provide the subpoena to Curley or Paterno because they were at a bowl game - and had asked Spanier to do so on her behalf.  However, according to Scott Paterno, Baldwin was in attendance at the Outback Bowl and was staying in the same hotel as Spanier.  When Scott Paterno went to Baldwin to obtain his father's subpoena to testify at the grand jury, Baldwin told him that he "was making too big a deal out of this."



According to another source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, Baldwin was quite upset that Paterno had retained his own counsel for his Sandusky grand jury appearance.


"Yes, I represent the University, solely."

Of all the statements that Baldwin made at the grand jury, the statement that may be the most important in this case was said to Judge Feudale in his chambers, when Graham Spanier was not present.   Baldwin stated that she represented "the University solely."




That statement alone puts Baldwin's credibility in serious doubt because, as an attorney, she knew or should have known, that she should not have entered into the grand jury room when Spanier testified.  Moreover, if Baldwin believed that she was permitted to sit in on the testimony of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz, while solely representing Penn State, why didn't she enter the grand jury room when Joe Paterno testified?  Paterno testified on the same day, January 12, 2011, as Curley and Schultz.

It's a rhetorical question, of course.

Baldwin knew she could not get away with sitting in on Paterno's testimony with his counsel present.  Joshua Locke and Scott Paterno would have called her (and Judge Feudale) on it.

One thing is more than certain in this case, Cynthia Baldwin's behavior was highly unethical and dishonest when she let Spanier believe she was representing him as counsel -- when just moments before said she told the judge she was not.

















Cynthia Baldwin's dishonesty appears to be a matter of public record.


Posted by at 18 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, December 19

Baldwin Highlights of Grand Jury Testimony from Twitter

By Ray Blehar, Jimmy W, and No.1 Lion 99

Bold Black indicates erroneous or contradicted statement of Baldwin's.  There are many.
Red type indicates important statements from Frank Fina.

The biggest news to come out of the proceeding was that Sandusky was accused of a sexual abuse  in 1984.  The OAG didn't find any police record of it.  To date, few media outlets have done little more than make mention of it.

A full summary of the proceeding will appear in this space soon.



  2. 1h
    1984 allegation surfaces in Spanier colloquy. Connection?
    Expand
  3. 3h
    RT Baldwin GJT, P14, L12,13: Baldwin says Spanier told her to go to GJ with him during Jan 2011 mtg. Spanier was not subpoenaed at the time.
    Expand
  4. 3h
    RT BaldwinGJT: P13, L11,12: Baldwin stated that RETIRED Gary Schultz was "on vacation" when she received the subpoena for his GJ appearance
    Expand
  5. 3h
    Who were Vs 11-17? From CMHS?
      View summary
  6. 3h
    CB said gathering of info back to 1997 was taking time, but would have it in 2 days. Corro tasked in March. S1179 was issued 12/11?
     View conversation
  7. 3h
    Corro produced 3 USBs for CB. CB said one USB 2b provided on 4/15. Possible one was provided on 4/13/11 of just Spanier's e-mails.
     View conversation
  8. 3h
    If e-mails were due Jan 10 & CB didn't file motion to quash, where was GJ Contempt motion? Something fishy here?
     View conversation
  9. 6h
    Sassano trial testimony: "And Penn State...was not very quick in getting us our information." Ref. Sub. 191 for names of janitors.
    Expand
  10. 6h
    Spanier met with OAG on 3/22/11, before his 4/13/11 GJ testimony. When did Baldwin have her dress rehearsal?
     View conversation
    1. 9h
      (2/2) Baldwin affidavit omitted role of DPW in 1998 & exposed 2002 incident.
       View conversation
    2. 9h
      CB May '11 brief to BOT violated GJ secrecy b/c she disclosed the 2002 incident, which was not public info (1/2)
       View conversation
    3. 9h
      Baldwin was not a witness until October 2012. Illegal for her to disclose testimony.
       View conversation

    4. 9h
      proves could not have known details of 1998 report. Laws made conf.
       Retweeted by 


       Expand
    5. 9h
      Acc to Baldwin GJ testimony, Sandusky eluded arrests in 1984 & 1998 after he was reported. Laws r not the problem
       View conversation
    6. 13h
      All this background was in response to CB's oral motion to quash - rationale for far reaching subpoenas for emails.
       View conversation
    7. 22h
      Spanier, COL, P15, L1-4: Fina mentioned masked comments & metaphors in emails, indicating OAG had the e-mails prior to April 2011.
      Expand
    8. 22h
      Spanier, COL, P9, L20-23: Fina says matter was serious b/c Joe had Tim & Gary come to his home. WRONG. JVP's kitchen table notorious 4 mtgs
      Expand
    9. 22h
      Spanier, COL, P9, L1-19: Fina describes McQ report of 2001 incident, omitting John McQ and Dr. Dranov from chain of reporting.
      Expand
    10. 22h
      Spanier, COL, P8, L14-17: Fina says investigator believed 1998 police report (title) was altered after he filed it.
      Expand
    11. 22h
      Spanier, COL, P7-8: Fina mentions 1984 allegation against Sandusky. No police paperwork on it.


       Expand
    12. 22h
      Spanier, COL, P6. L14-17: Feudale also confident that security of grand jury won't be breached. ROTFLMAO .
      Expand
    13. 22h
      Spanier, COL, P4-5: Baldwin asked why she didn't make motion to quash. She then attempts oral motion to quash.
      Expand
    14. 22h
      Spanier, COL, P3, L13-24: In April 2011, Fina assures Baldwin there will be no leaks of info from the grand jury. ROTFLMAO!
      Expand
    15. 22h
      Baldwin GJT, P73, L16-21: Fina told Baldwin there were only TWO grand juries. Baldwin: "Um--hum" Then CB says Spanier misunderstood
      Expand
    16. 22h
      Baldwin GJT, P73, L6-10: Says Athletics, Finance, & Prez Office had lion's share of data. WRONG. IT specialists needed to retrieve data.
      Expand
    17. 22h
      Baldwin GJT, P73, L6-10: Says VP of Finance was one of three people who didn't respond. Horvath was VP when S1179 issued, but not charged.
      Expand
    18. 22h
      Baldwin GJT, P73, L3-5: So ff they sent directly, how did CB know subpoena was answered? (2/2) Half-assed operation.
      Expand
    19. 22h
      Baldwin GJT, P73, L3-5: CB outlined how subpoenas got answered. They sent it for us to send or sometimes they sent it on, directly. (1/2)
      Expand
    20. 22h
      Baldwin GJT, P70, L17-19: And there it is. Apartment lease ended in June 2012, for a job she was supposed to have until August 2011. !
      Expand
    21. 22h
      Baldwin GJT, P70, L1-12: Baldwin misstated term of her contract, stating it was until Aug 2011 -- when it was until June 2012.
      Expand
    22. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P70, L2-11: CB says Spanier lied to her the whole time to keep things from her. Quite a motive!
      Expand
    23. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P69, L6-14: No awareness of 98 & 01 emails & notes the whole time, but told of possible Schultz file + got emails from PSU IT
      Expand
    24. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P64, L14-18: (2/2) Spanier believed invest concerned 2001 shower incident only. 1998 cleared =no issue. Clinton Cty = Not PSU
      Expand
    25. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P64, L14-18: (1/2) Baldwin answers out of context, confusing Spanier's knowledge (more) with his concern (less)
      Expand
    26. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P64, L2-8: Fina incorrectly stated Sub 1179 referenced 1998 and 2001 - it actually referenced 2002.
      Expand
    27. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P63, L19-22: Baldwin stated told GS knew about 98 & 01 in April b/c she briefed the BOT about those incidents in May.
      Expand
    28. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P61, L7-11: Baldwin stated told GS she was confident Sandusky would be charged. Powers: CB called it a "fishing expedition"
      Expand
    29. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P59, L20-25: Baldwin stated she told Spanier his e-mails would be subpoenaed. Contradicted by Spanier in NewYorker
      Expand
    30. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P59, L1-11: Baldwin stated Spanier had to know other victims were coming fwd b/c of 3/31/11 PN article.
      Expand
    31. 23h
      Baldwin GJT re Subpoenas: Source close to Curley family stated that Baldwin never provided subpoena to Tim Curley.
      Expand
    32. 23h
      Baldwin GJT re Subpoenas: Source close to Paterno family stated that Baldwin did not willingly provide subpoena to JVP.
      Expand
    33. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P51, L20-23: Baldwin stated she told Spanier there were 3-4 grand jury panels. There were just two.
      Expand

    1. 23h
      Baldwin GJT, P45, L1-15: Baldwin lies about Spanier's role to brief the BOT on investigation & arrests. Her job IAW Standing Orders of BOT
      Expand
    2. 18 Dec
      Baldwin GJT, P36, L3-15: Baldwin briefed BOT on 2001 and 1998 incidents b/c they were in 3/31/11 PN article, but 2001 not mentioned in PN.
      Expand
    3. 18 Dec
      Baldwin GJT: Baldwin advised Spanier to disclose his GJ testimony AFTER Feudale issued non-disclosure order in Feb 2011
      Expand
    4. 18 Dec
      Baldwin GJT, P36, L18-20: Baldwin says BOT members asked her Qs at May 2011 BOT mtg. BOT member said no Qs asked b/c Baldwin downplayed it.
      Expand
    5. 18 Dec
      Baldwin GJT, P34, L21-25: Baldwin says her role is NOT to brief BOT on Sandusky investigation. Contradicted by Standing Orders of BOT
      Expand
    6. 18 Dec
      Baldwin GJT, P23, L4-7: Baldwin told Spanier that he would be told about sodomy & pedophila. Spanier contradicted Baldwin in NewYorker.
      Expand
    1. 18 Dec
      Baldwin GJT, P28, L1-3: Baldwin stated she told Spanier everything. Spanier said Baldwin kept him in the dark.
      Expand
    2. 18 Dec
      Baldwin GJT, P27, L14-17: Baldwin stated she told Spanier he was subpoenaed. Spaniers BOT letter contradicts Baldwin

      1. 18 Dec
        (2/2) Apparently, Baldwin believed that included NOT PROVIDING them to the concerned parties.
         View conversation
      2. 18 Dec
        Baldwin revised the OGC Policy to exercise prerogative in sending to other parties. (1/2)
         View conversation

      3. 18 Dec
        p28 Baldwin states she represents the university Feudale: "The university solely?" Baldwin: "Yes.. solely" Spanier not present
         Retweeted by 

         View conversation

        1. 18 Dec
          Funny her email about that & the one to preserve documents were not mentioned/included in the Freeh Report.
           View conversation

        2. 18 Dec
          But she did tell Feudale on 4/13/11 that she would have over a USB by Friday 4/15/11. P27 of colloquy
           Retweeted by 
           View conversation
        3. 18 Dec
          About that 1998 police report:
           View conversation
        4. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P25, L2,3: Baldwin claims Spanier got 1998 info from Tim & Gary, but Harmon stated he never provided 1998 rpt to Schultz
          Expand
        5. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P24, L1-24: Baldwin obtained 1998 police rpt, didn't show it to Spanier, but sez Spanier knew by getting info from "elsewhere"
          Expand

        6. 18 Dec
          So caught up in cya, she could not remember all the lies she told. (To a grand jury nonetheless)
           Retweeted by 
           View conversation
        7. 18 Dec
          Feudale's nondisclosure order was mentioned in transcripts of July 2013 Preliminary Hearing.
           View conversation
        8. 18 Dec
          According to trial verdicts, V9 was being abused into the fall of 2009.
           View conversation
        9. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P21, L7-21: Baldwin said she told Spanier he could tell the BOT anything he testified about. Contradicted by Feudale order.
          Expand
        10. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P20, L12-24: Baldwin denied ever being told about Schultz file. Contradicted by Schultz affidavit.
          Expand
        11. 18 Dec
          People suspected something was up when JS didn't show up at the kickoff event for the 2009 TSM Golf Tournament.
           View conversation
        12. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P19, L7-21: Baldwin said Spanier said he had no e-mails. Spanier said he was never asked to look.
           View summary
        13. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P19, L1-6: Baldwin said Schultz told her he had no documents. Contradicted by Schultz affidavit.
          Expand

        14. 12h

          But it is on the record Baldwin was there when Schultz told the GJ about the file on 1/12/2011. P204&217
          Expand
          Ray Blehar           ‏@RayBlehar18 Dec
        15. 18 Dec
          More about Subpoena 1179 here:
          Expand
        16. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P18, L5-11: Baldwin said specifics about 1179 told to C/S/S, yet all 3 testified to differing dates of 2001 shower incident.
          Expand
        17. 18 Dec
          Agree. Some probably as early as Spring 2009.
           View conversation
        18. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P16, L13-24: Spanier also contradicted Baldwin's preservation story. In New Yorker Mag, said he was not told about Sub 1179.
          Expand
        19. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P16, L13-24: (2/2) PSU IT Dept (Corro) contradicted CB. He testified he was shown part of the Subpeona in March 2011.
          Expand
        20. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P16, L13-24: Baldwin stated she gave preservation notice to C/S/S & PSU IT dept in response to of Sub 1179. (1/2)
          Expand
        21. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P14, L16-20: Baldwin stated she repped PSU & C/S/S as its agents.
          Expand
        22. 18 Dec
            View summary
        23. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT, P14, L12,13: Baldwin says Spanier told her to go to GJ with him during Jan 2011 mtg. Spanier was not subpoenaed at the time.
          Expand

        24. 18 Dec
          BaldwinGJT: P13, L11,12: Baldwin stated that RETIRED Gary Schultz was "on vacation" when she received the subpoena for his GJ appearance
          Expand
        25. 18 Dec
          BaldwinGJT: P12, L10: Fina reminded Baldwin of Sub 1179, issued Oct 2010.
          Expand
        26. 18 Dec
          Baldwin GJT. P11, L19: First learned of JS investigation 12/28/2010. Contradicted by July 2013 testimony of L. Powers. CB knew in Oct 2010
          Expand
          1. 18 Dec
            Later, Powers heard from Al Horvath abt reporter camping out @ Harmon's house in Feb 2011, p14-15
             View conversation
          2. 18 Dec
            But I do imagine she was involved in compiling the list of people aware of this subpoena on 3/1/2010 (Freeh p.82, note 382 p.154)
             View conversation
          3. 18 Dec
            And even though Baldwin didn't start until 2/15/2011, she was never asked about this subpoena in her GJ testimony
             View conversation
          4. 18 Dec
            It seems Horvath, as VP in charge of HR, would've seen 1/7/2010 subpoena for Sandusky personnel records. (Freeh p.82)
             View conversation
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)