Monday, June 2

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

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 23rd .

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. 


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.



  1. Don't be too hard on the Patriot News. Some of the stories in this fiasco had more gaping holes than Yucca Flats, yet not a single PA newspaper squeaked. Frank Fina suborned perjury from victims 5, 9, and 10, who's stories were so outrageous that a child of 12 would smell a rat, yet nary a PA news reporter smelled anything. Fina's Janitor Hoax, used to enrage the media and implicate PSU Football culture, would have been smelled out by a second year journalism student as something that did not compute, yet not a single PA reporter saw any anomalies in the story. From looking at the data, at least a couple judges were in collusion with Fina. Are the PA newsmen that inept? Where are the gumshoes????

    1. Agree. Entire media apparatus was asleep at the wheel, however, they had a pack mentality and simply followed the story lines that were being run by Ganim and the Patriot News.

      Note that not a single media outlet reported that the mother of Victim 9 complained to her son's counselor about Sandusky's abuse and that he failed to report it.

  2. I agree that OAG apparently violated the law if they gave any evidence to Freeh, such as Schultz's file on Sandusky.

    "The Criminal History Record Information Act Handbook" for PA states that

    "Investigative and treatment information shall not be disseminated to any department, agency or individual unless the department, agency or individual requesting the information is a criminal justice agency..."

    Freeh's law firm was not a "criminal justice agency."

  3. Ray,
    Thank you for your time and intellect for sharing the facts with the citizens of PA.

    Frank Fina perfected his "art" during the Bonusgate, Ramaley, Veon II, Computergate and Sandusky trials. His work must be looked at in the whole and he must be brought to justice. He influenced Attorneys General and many judges.

  4. "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 23rd. " Correct me if I'm wrong but must you not first be aware of the file's existence before being able to notice it's missing? How and when did the OAG first become aware of the Schultz file? When did Schultz hand over his copy of the file and was the OAG aware of its existence before then?

    1. mhentz,
      Yes. The Cook testimony implies that the OAG possessed the Schultz file at least by March 2012. Baldwin's grand jury testimony as well as Corro's revealed the Schultz emails was turned over in April 2011.

      The Schultz "secret file" handwritten notes were turned over to the OAG by Schultz some time in April. I don't have an exact date. Belcher testified that she handed her notes in one day after Schultz. Belcher was interviewed a second time by Freeh on April 12, 2012. I suspect the April 12 meeting was after she gave the original files to the OAG -- Freeh probably interviewed her after the fact.

  5. Ray - Do you have any idea if Moulton is looking at issues involving Freeh, Baldwin, Spanier, Curley and Schultz or will he restrict his inquiry just to the Corbett/Kelly investigation up until Sandusky's arrest in Nov. 2011?

    1. Kane said no stone unturned. Freeh was definitely mucking around in the Sandusky investigation prior to the trial. I would think the review will cover from 1998 to the convictions in 2012. I heard Schreffler and Ralston got interviewed, so 1998 is part of it.

  6. I think that you are very naive to expect anything out of Kane. I do not read her as someone capable of telling the whole truth. It would take big time courage to do that. If she were at a poker table with me, I'd call her bluff. Simply stated, if she told the whole truth, she would have to give Sandusky a new trial. Not going to happen. She and Bremmer also think they can get convictions of PSU administrators. They seem to be chomping at the bit to get them to trial. Of course, if Frank Fina gets charged with 5 counts of suborning perjury, I'll forgive her the other sins. And how about the Grand Jury leaks to Ganem and Freeh?

    1. Perhaps Kane is a better poker player than you think. My crystal ball shows that Fina is in a heap of trouble. Kane took the heat over not prosecuting the bribery case. I don't think she's afraid of a retrial of Sandusky.

    2. Even if Kane reveals lots of misconduct by Fina or other law enforcement doesn't mean any judge will grant Sandusky a new trial. The normal rules don't seem to apply to child molesters.

      Then again, there seems to be a lot of selective prosecution by the Attorney General's office. I don't understand why Dr. Dranov wasn't charged with perjury and failure to report, same as Curley and Schultz.

      I don't understand why victim 1's wrestling coach wasn't charged with failure to report. He admitted that he was suspicious of Sandusky and victim 1 after he found them alone together in a compromising position and didn't believe Sandusky's explanation.

      I don't understand why officer Leiter wasn't charged with perjury for testifying that he never led Sandusky victims during questioning. There were two witnesses plus an audio tape proving he led victim 4.

    3. There are quite a few unanswered questions about why certain people got charged and others didn't. Under the law, Dr. Dranov and the wrestling coach weren't required to report -- same for Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. The only way the Commonwealth couldn't charge Raykovitz was if the child was not in his care -- one of the reasons why Victim 2 was deemed to be unknown. But if you can't charge TSM if V2 was unknown, then the same rule should have applied to PSU. The child was not under its care.

      Perjury is a whole other story. That Rossman and Leiter didn't get charged was a travesty. I'll have more about that later.