The contents of the (original) Schultz's "secret file" may be the reason PSU is fighting the release of the Freeh source materials..
by
Eileen Morgan
For three and
a half years now, former Penn State officials have been awaiting their day in
court. As most following this story are
aware, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier have been criminally charged
for their alleged roles in the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
The Freeh
Report and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) have convinced
most of the world that:
1) Gary
Schultz obstructed justice by hiding a ‘secret file’, which contained
information on the 1998 & 2001 incidents involving Jerry Sandusky and young
boys, that he kept hidden from authorities,
2) Louis
Freeh ‘discovered’ this ‘secret file’ and other emails which became the smoking
gun allegedly ‘proving’ that Curley, Schultz, & Spanier, along with Joe
Paterno were involved in an elaborate cover-up that allowed Sandusky to molest
children for 14 years.
The evidence, however, seems to prove that
Schultz actually made this Sandusky file known to authorities, but those
authorities – Cynthia Baldwin and the OAG - are the very ones who kept the file
a secret until it was safe for Louis Freeh to ‘discover’ it.
CHARGES
On November 4, 2011, Gary Schultz and
Tim Curley were charged with Perjury and Failure to Report in connection with
the Sandusky scandal. About a year later,
more charges were added and Graham Spanier was also indicted. Note that the initial Failure to
Report charge has a statute of limitations of 10 years.
Let’s start with the original charges
filed in November 2011-Perjury and Failure to Report. Analyzing the two charges we find that:
1) Perjury
was based only on Curley
and Schultz's testimony that they were not told of sexual abuse by McQueary; and,
2) Failure
to Report would have had to occur on or after November 5, 2001 to keep within
the 10 year statute of limitations.
Perjury is:
1.
A
false statement.
2.
On a
material issue.
3.
Made willfully and with knowledge that it was
false.
4.
Under
oath.
5.
Before
an authorized tribunal, officer, or person.
According to
the Grand Jury Presentment, the only basis presented for perjury was that the
Grand Jury found Mike McQueary’s testimony to be ‘extremely credible’ and found
‘portions of the testimony of Curley and Schultz not to be credible.’
But is one witness’s word against another
witness’s word enough evidence to file perjury charges?
According
to defense attorneys for
Curley and Schultz, perjury has to be ‘more than a he said/she said’ and cannot
be just an ‘oath against an oath’ as stipulated under the PA statute Section
4902, Section F.
This means
the OAG used McQueary’s alleged ‘credibility’ as a front for the perjury charges,
but had some other knowledge that Curley and Schultz were not giving truthful
statements in their testimonies.
But, some other knowledge of what?
(I would like to clarify that I am not
claiming Schultz’s notes or any emails actually prove any PSU official
committed perjury or conspired to cover up Sandusky’s crimes. To this day,
there has been no evidence of such crimes. The courts will rule on the charges
if these cases ever go to trial. My
desire is to examine the steps taken by all involved and shed light on the
malfeasance of this case, in particular the apparent malfeasance of Cynthia
Baldwin and the OAG.)
SCHULTZ’S FILE AND THE MARCH
2012 PERJURY PARTICULARS
Let’s begin
with the fact that a file, compiled by Schultz between 1998 and 2001, and containing information
on Sandusky’s behavior with young boys in 1998 and 2001 did exist in a drawer
in his former office at PSU up until November 2011.
This file was
neither ‘secret’ nor ‘discovered’ by Freeh in May 2012 because we now know
copies of the file were turned over to the OAG in April 2012 by Schultz and
also by his assistant Kim Belcher. However, I believe a hard copy of this file
was in the hands of the OAG in January 2011 before
the PSU officials testified.
It is
important to remember that Schultz retired from PSU in June 2009. When he was subpoenaed in January 2011, he
was no longer employed at the university and thus had no access to his former
office.
HE SAID, SHE SAID
In late 2010,
PSU general counsel Cynthia Baldwin was handling subpoenas issued by the OAG for
the PSU officials instructing them to turn over information relating to
Sandusky and to appear in court to testify at the Grand Jury hearing.
What exactly
was discussed between Baldwin and the PSU officials is not known, but on November
1, 2012, Schultz filed a
pre-trial motion claiming, among others things, that he informed Baldwin in
early January 2011, in response to the aforementioned subpoenas, that he ‘thought
there might be a file relating to Sandusky in the office of the senior vice
president’ (his former office to which he no longer had access) and that ‘reviewing
such notes and documents would help his memory and allow him to testify more
accurately.’ In her legal opinion, he
said, she told him not to look for or review any documents or discuss the case
with anyone.
Ironically, on
October 26, 2012, just days before this very motion was filed, Baldwin
testified under oath that she was never informed by Schultz of the existence
of any file. On page 20, OAG prosecutor
Frank Fina said that ‘we also know that Mr. Schultz had a file regarding Jerry
Sandusky in his office’ and that ‘there were handwritten notes and emails
pertaining to the 1998 and 2001 crimes of Mr. Sandusky.
Did he (Schultz) ever
reveal to you the existence of that Sandusky file or any of its contents?’ Baldwin answered,
‘Never. He told me he didn’t have anything.’
Within days
of each other, Baldwin and Schultz gave the court two opposing accounts
regarding Schultz’s disclosure of the Sandusky file back in early 2011. Only one account can be true. The other is a lie. Given the information we have to date, we can
vet both accounts and reasonably conclude which account passes the litmus test.
PROCESS OF ELIMINATION
Vetting Baldwin
Let’s assume
Baldwin is telling the truth. That means
Schultz never mentioned the file to her in early January 2011 when Baldwin alleges
she went to Schultz, Curley, and Paterno with Subpoena 1179 asking for any and all
information regarding Jerry Sandusky, as well as with a subpoena for each man
to testify before the Grand Jury. If Schultz and the others were in fact
covering up for Sandusky, as alleged by Freeh and the OAG, then at this point
in time, they would have been on heightened alert to deny any knowledge of Sandusky’s
crimes and to make sure any evidence that could be used against them was
suppressed. Assuming there was a
cover-up, it makes perfect sense that Schultz would never have informed Baldwin
of this file in January 2011.
It makes
sense except for one pesky little fact.
As I
mentioned earlier, in June 2009, Schultz retired as senior VP of Finance and
Business after almost 40 years of service at PSU. However, in September 2011 he was temporarily rehired and named interim senior VP
for Finance and Business while the University conducted a national search to
fill the position.
So, eight months after Schultz was
subpoenaed for information and testified at the Grand Jury hearing, he was back
in his office at PSU: the very office that contained the Sandusky file.
Again, assuming Baldwin is telling the
truth and Schultz never mentioned the file-for ‘obvious’ reasons, this would
have been the most fortuitous break in the entire cover-up. Schultz now had access to the ‘secret’
Sandusky file with the means and motive to destroy all incriminating evidence that
could be used against him and the other PSU officials.
The only problem is that during those
two months back at PSU, with complete access to the ‘secret’ file, Schultz
didn’t remove it and he didn’t destroy it.
We know this because his assistant Kim Belcher testified at the July 2013 hearing that Schultz had called her in November 2011,
after he had been charged, and asked her to get his ‘transitory file’ from his
office. She retrieved that file for him and
on her own found the Sandusky file. She made a copy of the Sandusky file, accidentally
gave the original to Schultz and kept the other copy for herself. They both turned over their files to the OAG
in April 2012.
Belcher’s testimony, of course, blows
holes in Freeh’s claim that his team ‘discovered’ Schultz’s Sandusky file. Freeh said, “He (Schultz) actively
sought to conceal those records. We found them in conjunction with the attorney
general. They’re very critical notes, very critical records … it was an active
case of trying to conceal evidence, you know. You don’t do that. It’s a dumb
thing to do.”
At this point, it is clear, that Freeh
did not ‘discover’ anything; the OAG (or Penn State) gave Freeh a copy of the
file that Schultz turned over. And, the PSU IT department found and turned over
the emails to the OAG who then handed them over to Freeh. The fact that Schultz
had the opportunity to alter, remove, and/or destroy his Sandusky file when he
was rehired in the fall of 2011 but didn’t, suggests very strongly that he was
not protecting a ‘secret’ file, was not concerned about his grand jury
testimony, and was not part of some elaborate cover-up.
Based on Schultz’s actions from
January-November 2011, there is no evidence that he concealed or wanted to
conceal the Sandusky file, just the opposite actually. And therefore, there is no reason why he
wouldn’t have mentioned it to Baldwin.
But, let’s dig deeper.
Vetting Schultz
Now let’s
assume Schultz is telling the truth about the file.
In January
2011, Baldwin’s primary directive, ordered by the OAG, was to make sure the PSU
officials turned over anything and everything related to Sandusky.
Schultz
claims he told Baldwin there may be a file relating to Sandusky in his former
office. According to Schultz, she told
him not to look for it. But, it was her
legal obligation to the courts to turn over any evidence disclosed to her. As an officer of the court (and a former PA
Supreme Court Justice) it is hard to imagine that she would shirk her legal
duties and not check out every lead the PSU officials told her. Therefore, it
is highly likely that she did indeed check for a Sandusky file in Schultz’s
former PSU office, then occupied by Al Horvath. If she did, she would have
found it, because we now know it was there.
A few days
later on January 12, 2011, after meeting with Baldwin, Schultz testified under
oath at the Grand Jury hearing. He was
asked: ‘Do you believe that you may be
in the possession of any notes regarding the 2002 incident that you may have
written memorializing what occurred?’
Schultz answered: ‘I have none in my possession. I believe that there were probably notes
taken at the time. Given my retirement
in 2009, if I even had them at the time, something that old would have probably
been destroyed. I had quite a number of
files that I considered confidential matters that go back years that didn’t any
longer seem pertinent. I wouldn’t be
surprised, in fact, I would guess if there were any notes, they were destroyed
on or before 2009.’
In essence,
he is saying that notes were probably taken and that he did keep confidential
files, but by this point in time, in conjunction with his retirement, they
probably were destroyed.
That sounds
very similar to what he claims he told Baldwin just days earlier: that there
might be a file relating to Sandusky in his former office.
In addition,
the following email shows that on January 10, 2011, Baldwin called Wendell
Courtney, PSU legal counsel in 2001, after she first spoke with Schultz
regarding the subpoena. Courtney tells Schultz that Baldwin asked ‘what I
remembered about JS issue I spoke with you and Tim about circa 8 years
ago.’ It appears not only did Baldwin
know to call Courtney but presumably knew for a fact that he spoke with Schultz
back in 2001 regarding Sandusky. In
other words, Baldwin didn’t call Courtney asking if he ‘knew anything about
2001,’ but asked precisely what ‘he remembered’ about the 2001 Sandusky
discussion.
The email
also reveals that Schultz and Courtney had recently ‘chatted about this’ 2001
issue. That makes sense because Courtney
was PSU legal counsel in 2001 and Schultz had conferred with him at that time.
After being subpoenaed, it is understandable that Schultz would call him regarding
the 2001 incident.
It certainly wouldn’t
be out of the ordinary for Baldwin to call the former legal counsel from 2001
to ask him what he might have known. But,
the wording in the email comes across as if Baldwin knew for a fact that
Schultz spoke with Courtney back in 2001 and she was calling him specifically
to ask ‘what he remembered.’
This would
suggest that when Schultz spoke with Baldwin and mentioned the possibility of a
Sandusky file, that he also mentioned the 2001 discussion he had had with
Courtney, especially since Schultz had just recently spoke to Courtney as per
the email.
In any event,
this email confirms that Baldwin was actively gathering information regarding
Sandusky, either on her own or by following up on a lead that Schultz most
likely disclosed to her. She also retrieved the 1998 police report around this
same time period. If she retrieved the police report and made a call to
Courtney, wouldn’t it be logical, as her duty to the court, to follow up on the
Sandusky file lead as well?
At this point
it appears the truth is in favor of Schultz.
But there is one more analysis I believe shows beyond all doubt that
Schultz did indeed inform Baldwin of the file.
GRAND JURY ANALYSIS
When you
analyze the questions the OAG asked Paterno, Curley and Schultz, it seems to be
clear that Schultz’s file was in the hands of the OAG, and they were using it
as a guide (perjury trap) during questioning.
If the OAG did indeed have this file, it can only mean that Baldwin
followed up on Schultz’s lead and retrieved the Sandusky file in his former
office, made a copy for the OAG, and returned the original file back to the
drawer.
OAG’S KNOWLEDGE AS OF 1-12-11
We need to go
back in time and recount exactly what the OAG knew regarding the 2001 Sandusky
incident at the time of the Grand Jury hearings of Paterno, Curley and Schultz
on January 12, 2011.
At this point
in time they had:
·
The
1998 Police Report regarding an investigation of Sandusky with boy(s) in a
shower,
·
Mike
McQueary’s testimony of the 2001 incident and what he allegedly told Paterno, Curley
and Schultz, and
·
Police
Interviews with each man.
It is vital
to remember that the OAG supposedly does NOT have Schultz’s Sandusky file of
notes/emails.
The following
chart shows specific OAG questions asked or not asked of each man during the
GJ
hearing.
GJ QUESTIONS
|
PATERNO
|
CURLEY
|
SCHULTZ
|
RE: Notes,
Memorialization
|
NONE
|
NONE
|
Q Do you believe
that you may be in possession of any notes regarding the 2002 incident that
you may have written memorializing what occurred?
A I have none of
those in my possession. I believe that there were probably notes taken at
the time. Given
my retirement in 2009, if I even had them at that time, something that old
would have probably been destroyed. I had quite a number of files that I considered
confidential matters that go back years that didn't any longer seem
pertinent. I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I would guess if there were any
notes, they were destroyed on or before 2009.
Q Are you aware
of any memorandums or any written documents, other than your own notes, that existed either at the time of
this incident or after this incident about the 2002 events?
A No.
Q Would that be
standard? Would that be the way the university operates when an allegation is
made against a current employee or a very famous prior employee, that nothing
be put in writing?
A The allegations
came across as not that serious. It didn't appear at that time, based on what
was reported, to be that serious, that a crime had occurred. We had no
indication a crime had occurred.
|
|
(Paterno)
|
(Curley)
|
(Schultz)
|
RE: Knowledge of any
other Sandusky incidents/1998 incident
|
Q Other than the
incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through
rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate
sexual
conduct by Jerry
Sandusky with young boys?
A I do not know
of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not
know of it. You did mention -- I think you
said something
about a rumor. It may have been
discussed in my
presence, something else about
somebody. I
don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.
|
Q At the time of
the incident in 2002, were you aware of any other incidents involving
alleged sexually
inappropriate misconduct by Mr. Sandusky anywhere, on university property or otherwise?
A No, ma'am.
Q Since this has
come to light, have you become aware of other allegations of inappropriate
sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky on university property or elsewhere?
A Other than what
was mentioned this morning.
Q Specifically a
1998 report, did you know anything about that in 2002?
A No, ma'am.
Q But the 1998
incident was never brought to your attention?
A No, ma'am, not
that I recall.
Q Have you ever
heard -- anything other than what you heard from Mike McQueary, have you ever
heard anything at all regarding inappropriate conduct between Jerry Sandusky
and young men either on or off campus?
A No.
|
Q You knew the
university police were involved in the 1998 investigation, right?
A Yes.
Q What did you
understand the 1998 incident, in a general way, to allege?
A Again, I
thought that it had some basis of inappropriate behavior, but without any specifics
at all.
Schultz was
asked many other questions regarding the 1998 incident.
|
|
(Paterno)
|
(Curley)
|
(Schultz)
|
RE: Law Enforcement
|
NONE
|
Q Was there a
specific conversation about whether or not to go to law enforcement authorities
about this?
A At the time I don't recall that
because, again, I didn't feel -- at least I didn't feel personally that any
criminal activity had occurred. So my thought was that because a young person
was there, that I needed to take it to the Second Mile.
|
Many
questions were asked whether or not PSU involved law enforcement in
2002(2001) and Schultz had indicated each time that he thought Child &
Youth Services (CYS) was involved in 2001.
|
|
|
|
|
ANALYSIS
NOTES: From
the chart you can see that the OAG only asked Schultz if he was in ‘possession
of any notes memorializing the 2002 incident.’ Schultz said that he was not
currently in possession of any notes, that he may have taken some, and if he
did they were probably destroyed at this point. Later, they asked him again, ‘Are you aware of any memorandums
or any written documents, other than
your own notes, that existed either at the time of this incident or after
this incident about the 2002 events?’ Schultz said, ‘No.’ They then asked,
‘Would this be standard, not to put something in writing?’
As you can see, only Schultz was
asked about notes and he was asked several times. Paterno nor Curley were asked
if they had taken notes or memorialized the incident. That would suggest they had the ‘secret’ file
with Schultz’s notes in hand, otherwise they would have asked the other two PSU
officials the same standard question about notes.
It is interesting to point out in
the second instance, they phrased it, ‘other than your own notes….’ That seems to confirm they indeed were aware
of his notes. Prior to that, Schultz had
only stated that he ‘probably’ took notes and ‘if he did’ they were most likely
destroyed. Also, what ‘other documents’
were they asking about? It must have been
the emails that were also in the file in which they appeared to have had.
KNOWLEDGE
OF OTHER/1998 INCIDENT: Each
man was asked if he was aware of any other incident (besides 2001) that would
have involved inappropriate sexual misconduct of Sandusky with young boys.
Remember, the OAG had the 1998 police report detailing the 1998
investigation, but none of the PSU men are mentioned in the report so the OAG
would not know whether these men knew about 1998 or not. Schultz acknowledged he knew about 1998 but
not the specifics. Paterno said he was
not aware but maybe heard a rumor but could not say for sure. The OAG did not question Paterno any further
on that.
However, when Curley was asked
whether he was ‘aware of any other incidents,’ he said, ‘No.’ He was again
asked, ‘Since this has come to light, have you become aware of other
incidents?’ Curley seemed confused and they further asked, ‘Specifically, a
1998 report. Did you know anything about that?’
Curley again answered, ‘No.’ Again, he was asked, ‘But the 1998 incident
was never brought to your attention?’ he said, ‘No.’ And yet again, he was
asked, ‘Have you ever heard anything, other than from Mike McQueary, about
inappropriate conduct between Sandusky and young men?’ he answered, ‘No.’
The comparison of questions re the
1998 incident between Paterno and Curley is eye-opening. Paterno was asked once, says he was not aware
of anything else, and they moved on.
Curley was grilled over and over five times regarding this prior Sandusky
incident. The only information they supposedly
had at the time would not lead them to believe Paterno or Curley were aware of
1998, so why was Curley grilled?
Schultz’s notes indicate that Schultz reviewed
the ‘1998 history’ with Curley on 2-12-01.
This is the only piece of information at the time that would indicate Curley
possibly knew of the 1998 incident.
Again, this line of questioning suggests the OAG had Schultz’s notes
during the January 12, 2011 hearing.
LAW
ENFORCEMENT: From
the chart you can see that Paterno was not asked about involvement of any law
enforcement regarding the 2001 incident.
Schultz was asked many times and answered each time that he thought CYS/DPW
was involved.
Curley was asked, ‘Was there a
specific conversation about whether or not to go to law enforcement authorities
about this?’ He said that he ‘did not
recall a conversation.’ This may be a standard question to ask, but why wasn’t
Paterno asked? Schultz’s notes/emails
indicated that ONLY Schultz and Curley developed a plan to 1) Tell the Chair of
the Second Mile, 2) Report to Dept. of Welfare (DPW), 3) Tell Sandusky to avoid
bringing children into Lasch Building.
Therefore, if the OAG had these notes, then they knew that Paterno was
not necessarily privy to this plan and hence no questions were asked. The fact that only Curley and Schultz were asked
about law enforcement strongly suggests they indeed had Schultz’s notes (i.e.
the ‘secret’ file).
PERJURY
CHARGES
However, what seems to be even
more evidence that the OAG had this file (from Baldwin) in January 2011, came
on March 30, 2012. The Commonwealth
(OAG) issued
Statements of Perjury which outlined what they believed
were perjurious statements by Curley and Schultz from their Grand Jury
testimonies.
CURLEY PERJURY CHARGES
From the above chart, regarding
the question to Curley re ‘Law Enforcement’, the OAG declared Curley’s answer
to be perjurious.
Remember,
Schultz’s file was not turned over to the OAG (by Schultz and Belcher) until April 2012, so how could this statement
be determined perjurious on March 30,
2012?
There was absolutely no other
corroborating evidence that supported Curley knowing of a ‘specific
conversation about going to law enforcement or not.’
The OAG by
this time (3-30-12) did have the 1998 and 2001 emails from the IT
department. But, the only email from
2001 (from IT dept.) that mentions the steps taken regarding Sandusky was the following
2-28-01 email:
There are references to ‘the other one’, ‘the two groups’, and
‘the other organization.’ However,
without the benefit of Schultz’s notes, these references have no specific
meaning and, even so, do not corroborate ‘law enforcement.’
However, what
is more telling comes from Ray Blehar’s disclosure of
Rodney
Erickson’s notes from
January 31, 2012 in which then PSU President Erickson discussed getting copies
of ‘notes- Curley + Schultz.’
Clearly, this
January 31, 2012 entry proves Schultz’s notes were known well before they were
turned over by Belcher and Schultz in April 2012. The only other person with knowledge of such
notes would have been Baldwin, who most likely, as proven now, gave a copy to
the OAG and (likely) Freeh.
This perjury charge
re Law Enforcement is a strong indication that Law
Enforcement was actually part of the discussion/evidence between Curley and
Schultz that we have not seen. Was this charge based on another email or note from
Curley or Schultz that has been suppressed? If Baldwin did remove
the file in January 2011, she could have excluded pieces of the file that she put back in the drawer -- but gave the full file of evidence to OAG/Freeh.
And, if such
an email or note exists, it means that going to law enforcement was actually discussed
since they charged Curley with perjury on this question. If so, it is likely
the email/note mentioned that Schultz or Curley reported the incident to Tom
Harmon, Director of University Police, i.e. law enforcement.
Remember,
Harmon had emailed Schultz the day after Paterno reported the 2001 incident to
Curley and Schultz (to alert Schultz about the 1998 police report).
According to the testimony of Harmon, Schultz did NOT contact him about the 1998 file. However, Harmon also testified that Schultz never told him about the 2001 incident, so what caused Harmon to email Schultz about the 1998 police report? And what is the truth?
According to another
blog
post from Blehar, he identified an end note from the Freeh Report of a still unknown, unseen communique between Schultz and Harmon:
End Note 304: Schultz confidential
file note (5-1-12). This is a
reference from the report: “On February 12, 2001, Schultz also asked Penn State
Police Chief Tom Harmon if a police file still existed for the 1998 event.”
If this request
was simply for the 1998 file, why wasn't it included in the Freeh Report like
the email above from Harmon? What other information did it contain?
Perhaps Schultz did inform Harmon of the 2001 situation before asking about
1998. That would be entirely logical - and would actually have resulted
in a perjury charge for Harmon.
This document may be one of the pieces of information the BOT is trying so hard to protect -- or should I say "conceal?"
SCHULTZ PERJURY CHARGES
Also in that
filing of Perjury Particulars on March 30, 2012, were Schultz’s alleged statements
of perjury from the OAG.
In this
specific citation, the OAG is alleging that Schultz lied about ‘knowing
specifics’ of the 1998 incident. The
only corroborating documents that detailed Schultz’s specific knowledge of the
case were in his Sandusky file. They
were his handwritten notes that detailed the 1998 incident. No other evidence they had at the time would
support this perjury charge except for his notes-that supposedly weren’t turned
over until April 2012.
(Again, the information from Schultz’s file does not necessarily support perjury, these men testified 10 years after the incident without any review or discussion to refresh their memory.)
REVIEW OF REPRESENTATION
Remember,
Baldwin is the same lawyer who represented Schultz, Curley, and Spanier at
their Grand Jury hearings. She now claims
she was only representing PSU and not the individual PSU officials. However, according to a legal expert, her
claims of only representing PSU don’t actually matter.
Jason Pelt,
defense attorney and former Marine JAG prosecutor, told me, “When it comes to
representation, it does not matter who Baldwin
believed she was representing, it only matters if the individuals believed she was representing them.”
It is clear that
Curley, Schultz and Spanier believed she was representing them. We know this because only their attorney can
be present during testimony and she was indeed present. In addition, each man
verbally identified ‘Cynthia Baldwin’ to the court when the judge asked, ‘Are
you represented by counsel?’
Although she
now contends she was only representing PSU and not the individuals during their
respective hearings, why wasn’t she representing PSU during Paterno’s
testimony, when Paterno had his own legal counsel? Simple answer: she was not allowed to be
present with Paterno because only the witness’s attorney is allowed to be present
during questioning.
Why the back
peddling from Baldwin? Perhaps because
of her blatant conflict of interest and possible malpractice before the court
regarding Schultz’s file.
Regardless of
her legal spin, she was indeed representing Schultz, Curley, and Spanier, as
evidenced by her actions with them before the hearings, her court appearance
with them during the hearings, and their verbal identification of her as their
attorney which she did not object to or correct.
MOST PROBABLE SCENARIO
After vetting
the statements of Baldwin and Schultz, it appears the most likely scenario is
that Schultz did indeed tell Baldwin of a possible Sandusky file and that she
retrieved it and gave a copy to the OAG.
So what does
this mean?
First of all,
if true, it means that Baldwin not only had an obvious conflict of interest
regarding client-attorney privilege, but also has a liability issue. Pelt explained that, “Baldwin would be liable
if Schultz’s position was made worse or if the information was used against him
toward his detriment.” He said, if true,
she is facing ethical issues and possible disbarment from the Pennsylvania Bar
Association.
Secondly, if
true, it means Baldwin committed perjury at her Grand Jury hearing on October
26, 2012.
Finally, if the OAG knew she was lying and allowed the perjured testimony, then
more ethical issues come into question and produce major legal problems for the
OAG and Baldwin. Pelt added, “If the OAG
used Baldwin to get information on her clients to be used against them, then
that evidence could be suppressed at trial.”
CHARGES REVISITED
Remember, the initial charges filed in
November 2011 were Perjury and Failure to Report, wherein:
1) Perjury
was based only on Curley
and Schultz's testimony that they were not told of sexual abuse by McQueary; and,
2) Failure
to Report would have had to occur on or after November 5, 2001 to keep within
the 10 year statute of limitations.
Based on the
above analysis, it is likely that the initial perjury charges were not based on
McQueary’s ‘credibility’ but rather on the notes and emails found in Schultz’s
file.
Regarding the
Failure to Report, if the OAG had Schultz’s Sandusky file in January 2011 then
they clearly knew the McQueary incident happened in February 2001 and NOT March
2002. That would mean that the 10 year statute of limitations for Failure to
Report (FTR) had expired in February 2011. By November 2011, this charge was no
longer enforceable.
It appears
the OAG used the date of March 2002 as a ruse in order to keep FTR within the
10 year time frame in order to charge the men in November 2011, along with
Sandusky. After all, charging the PSU
officials the same day as charging Sandusky helped give birth to the false
narrative that Penn State was to blame for Sandusky’s crimes.
In essence,
the ONLY way for the OAG to charge Curley and Schultz with perjury would have
been with the benefit of Schultz’s notes and the ONLY way to charge them with Failure
to Report in 2011 was to PRETEND they did not have his notes and then choose
the 2002 date (over the correct 2001 date) provided by Mike McQueary.
PSU/BALDWIN/OAG/FREEH WIN, FOR NOW….
Imagine if
Baldwin did indeed hand over Schultz’s Sandusky file to the OAG in January 2011.
Imagine all the legal malpractice taking place at the hands of those entrusted
to uphold the law. How could they possibly get away with it and cover it up? Answer:
Hire a man to ‘discover the secret file,’ write a scathing report of a cover up, and hope that one or both men plead guilty or that one man flips on
the other. Under a guilty plea or flip scenario, NO EVIDENCE is really needed because the
case can be decided on testimony alone.
But what would cause such a scenario to occur?
Welcome to
the Freeh Report.
The Freeh
Report has been the gift that keeps on giving and appears to have protected
everyone with an agenda.
1) The PSU Board of Trustees (BOT) paid Louis Freeh to write an ‘independent
investigative report’ that justified their firing of Joe Paterno and Graham
Spanier. (PSU scores)
2) Freeh received $8 million for writing this ‘report’ that was spoon fed to
him from the OAG. (Freeh scores)
3) The PSU BOT in conjunction with the OAG, I believe, used Freeh to ‘discover’
Schultz’s ‘secret file’ to protect the OAG, Cynthia Baldwin, and Penn State
from legal malpractice. (PSU, Baldwin, & OAG score)
4) Freeh returns favor to OAG and convicts Curley, Schultz, and Spanier in the
court of public opinion. (OAG scores)
Yes, these entities may be winning for now, but it is only a matter of time
before the celebration ends. And that time is drawing near.
BUT, THE FINAL VICTORY WILL BE OURS
Just recently,
on July 20, 2015, the judge ordered the
release
of the Freeh documents. Finally, the light will be shed on the truth. This is a great victory for the Paternos, the
alumni trustees, and the entire Penn State community.
I truly believe
the Schultz file is one major reason why PSU and Freeh have been relentless in fighting
the Paternos and the alumni trustees for the release of the Freeh
documents. I believe the truth about
Schultz’s file will reveal the malpractice and total lack of integrity of
Cynthia Baldwin, the OAG, Freeh, and Penn State’s own Board of Trustees─ or the, Not So Fab Four.
It’s hard to
agree with anything Freeh has ever said, but in this case I think his own words
will soon come back to haunt him and his Not So Fab Four cohorts:
“It was an active case of trying to conceal
evidence, you know. You don’t do that. It’s a dumb thing to do.”
