Saturday, February 27

"Freeh source materials" confirm the Curley File

Freeh Report source materials already in the public domain, combined with other evidence, confirm that Tim Curley had a file on Sandusky -- and its contents found their way into the so-called Schultz "secret file"

Ray Blehar 

Even though the alumni-elected members of the Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) have succeeded in gaining access to the Freeh source materials, the court sided with Old Main to keep the information from being publicly disclosed.

Regardless of that ruling, and likely unknown to the public, some of the Freeh source materials  are already in the public domain - and they prove that evidence was manipulated and/or tampered with in order to railroad PSU officials (i.e., Curley, Schultz, and Spanier).

However, when the source materials are combined with other existing evidence, the totality of the evidence confirms that former PSU Athletic Director (AD) Tim Curley had information related to the Sandusky matter -- and that information was illegally placed into the so-called "secret file" of former PSU VP for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz.

The Key Evidence?

What appears to be a seemingly insignificant document -- a February 11, 2001 computer printout that lists the names of the Board of Directors of The Second Mile (TSM) and its date/time stamp -- turns out to be a very key piece of evidence.

According to the Freeh Report (at 71), on "February 12, 2001, at about 11:10 AM, Schultz researched the internet about the Board members of The Second Mile, the charitable organization Sandusky founded."

The passage is referenced to End Note #303: Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12), however this printout -- that was printed at the exact same time "Schultz researched the internet" -- was not included in the Freeh Report.  Had it been included, most reasonable people (not Sally Jenkins) would have concluded that Freeh was making quite an evidentiary leap to tie an unlabeled computer printout to a specific individual.  In short, Freeh excluded the print out as a matter of maintaining his (alleged) credibility.

The document wasn't introduced as evidence in any legal proceeding to date -- for a very good reason.

The timeline of evidence does not support Gary Schultz searching for the names of members of the TSM Board on February 12, 2001.

Curley, Not Schultz, Concerned About TSM

Freeh Report Exhibit 5C, the February 12, 2001 "Confidential" hand-written note of Gary Schultz outlined an early plan for addressing the 2001 incident.  Schultz made no mention of  TSM in that plan.

According to the grand jury testimony of Curley (at 181 and 188), he originated the plan to inform TSM about the 2001 incident  and proposed it during the February 25, 2001 meeting with former PSU President Graham Spanier and Schultz.

Freeh Report Exhibit 5G, Schultz's February 28, 2001  email  also confirms Curley proposed informing TSM: "we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed)."

Schultz also memorialized Curley's plan, which included discussions with TSM, on February 25th and 26th, in handwriting (Exhibit 5G) and by email (Exhibit 5F), respectively.

Finally, Freeh Report Exhibit 2J, the notes of Graham Spanier, also confirm that Curley was very concerned about his impending interaction with TSM.

In summary, this evidence reveals that Curley came up with the plan to talk to TSM and had concerns about the charity's reaction.  Given the evidence, it was Curley - not Schultz -- who printed out the names of the TSM board members on February 12th.

While the printout turns out to be a very significant document in the grand scheme of things, it's not the only "source" document that provides evidence of manipulation and/or tampering.

March 7, 2001 Email Manipulation/Bias

A March 7, 2001 email allegedly obtained from the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz, memorialized a discussion between  Curley and Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble, regarding Curley's follow up on the plan to address the incident.

Freeh Report's Exhibit 5I of the email is on the left, while the source document (introduced as Commonwealth's Exhibit 18 at the July 2013 preliminary hearing) is on the right.

The evidence shows that the Freeh Report exhibit was printed from an email file and was not the full email discussion between Coble and Curley.  The Freeh Report excluded any mention of Curley's affirmative response that he had followed through on the plan by March 7th.  Note that March 7th is the circled date at top of the full email.

This is significant because the Freeh Report stated, without equivocation, that Curley met with TSM on March 19, 2001.  However, the Freeh Report's March 19, 2001 date is based on a hearsay statement from an unnamed legal representative for TSM.

The Freeh Report's conclusion of the March 19th meeting between Curley and TSM was also refuted by Spanier's notes (Freeh Exhibit 2J).  Spanier wrote that he met with Curley shortly after their late February meeting that the former AD had followed through on the plan to speak with TSM.

The Freeh Report made several inferences that Spanier had been less than honest with the Freeh investigators, thus excluding the critical evidence of the March 7th date was two fold:  to support the Freeh Report conclusion of a March 19th meeting and to undermine the credibility of Spanier.

As shown in email obtained by PSU alumnus, Ryan Bagwell, Freeh made it a point to alert personnel conducting Spanier's background investigation for a security clearance about evidence found during the (criminal) investigation.  Spanier would eventually lose his clearance as a result of the charges against him.

The evidence manipulation to persecute PSU officials certainly was more widespread than those documents.  Over 80 documents cited as sources in the Freeh Report were excluded, and most importantly, some of the most critical missing evidence is tied to the Curley/Schultz files.

Curley's Notes Turned Over In February 2011

The grand jury questioning by Frank Fina revealed he was not yet aware that Tim Curley possessed any information about Sandusky.  Fina didn't ask a single question whether Tim had taken notes during any of the meetings about the 2001 incident.  In fact, Fina didn't even ask Curley (or anyone else) if they had searched for documents responsive to Subpoena 1179.  Clearly, Fina knew that Baldwin didn't tell these men to search for documents.

According to the Freeh Report (at 84), on February 15, 2011, Baldwin met with members of the football coaching staff to discuss their knowledge of Sandusky.  The next day, OAG investigators were present and conducted more interviews.  It is likely that the search for documents from the football coaches and AD officials occurred then or very shortly thereafter.

OAG special agent, Anthony Sassano later testified that the legal team of Duane Morris delivered boxes of information (he presumed was from Schultz's office)  that contained Sandusky's retirement paperwork.  Duane Morris was the former employer of Cynthia Baldwin -- and she brought in members of that firm in to assist her.  According to a notation on one of the retirement papers (Freeh Report Exhibit 3H), it was received (by someone, but certainly not Louis Freeh) on February 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm.

While the public has been led to believe that the retirement paperwork came from the Schultz file, it is clear that Curley had a copy of it.  As noted on the letter, Sandusky was instructed to return his signed copy to Curley (see below).  This indeed confirms that Curley and/or the AD's office had information related to Sandusky in its possession.

But that's not the only significant issue regarding the Curley file.

More Tampering?
According to the testimony of Joan Coble, she had no specific knowledge of anything in the bottom drawer of Schultz's filing cabinet.  She testified she never looked in the drawer.  As such, Coble's testimony provided no legitimate information regarding the contents of the Schultz file.

Based on the evidence cited previously, by the time Kimberly Belcher removed the file from Schultz's bottom drawer in November 2011, it had been touched by so many hands that the authenticity/integrity of the contents would be compromised.

It also appears that one of the "hands" involved may have tampered with the retirement letter.

Under magnification, it appears that Schultz's signature has been overlaid on a previous signature block. Note that the words "BY UNIVERSITY OFFICER: and "for Finance" do not have shadowing or aliasing around them.

For the purpose of comparison, here is top of page two at similar magnification, showing the clear, bolder, non-shadowed type as the authentic typeface.

It is highly probable that those who tampered with the evidence did so thinking that Freeh's impeccable reputation would prevent anyone from questioning the authenticity of the evidence and that they could get away with railroading the PSU 3.

Under the patently ridiculous narrative of the Freeh Report, it was the lure of the Penn State football facilities that provided the "very currency" that Sandusky used to attract his victims. With Schultz's signature affixed to the document, each of the PSU 3 (and Paterno) would be tried in the court of public opinon for enabling Sandusky's sexual abuse.

Freeh publicly smeared PSU officials for allowing Sandusky to be on campus after there were no charges or findings against him in 1998.  Moreover, Freeh ignored the evidence that no crimes occurred on campus after 2001, instead stating that abuse continued on the PSU campus through 2009.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly, evidence timelines or chain of custody of evidence can be counted on to undo the false narratives of the cases prosecuted by the PA Corruption Network.

The Chain of Custody of the Schultz Files

According to OAG officials, the notes of Schultz were not provided to them until April 2012 -- by Schultz and his former administrative assistant, Kimberly Belcher.

Louis Freeh claimed, during his highly publicized press conference, that "we found them in conjunction with the Attorney General."  The Freeh Report notes the date of discovery as May 1, 2012.

However, both of those claims are refuted by the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson.  On 31 January 2012, which was three months before the Schultz notes were either turned over to the OAG or "found" by Freeh, Erickson wrote that he was to get copies of the notes of Curley and Schultz.

PSU alumnae Eileen Morgan's excellent analysis of the evidence surrounding the grand jury questioning of Curley, Schultz, and the late former PSU football Coach, Joe Paterno almost certainly proves that Frank Fina received the Schultz file from PSU (i.e., Baldwin) prior to the January 12, 2011 proceeding.

While Erickson's notebook confirms that he knew that Freeh's alleged discovery of the Schultz file and the OAG's pretense that the files were not turned over until April 2012 were both shams, it also confirmed that he was aware of Fina's strategy to get Curley and Schultz to flip.

Based on the analysis of the evidence, it is highly probable that Fina, et al, decided to throw the whole kitchen sink of evidence at Schultz, rather than Curley, in an effort to produce the flip.

The Truth

PSU, under Erickson and new puppet President Eric Barron have paid out untold millions to keep various litigants, including some of its own trustees,  from accessing the Freeh source materials.

In doing so, Old Main and the Old Guard utilized specious arguments or protecting employee confidentiality and that the Freeh Report didn't impact University decisions as a means to keep the alumni trustees from finding out the truth.

The reality of the matter is that Erickson, Baldwin, and others know that it is only a matter of time before the Freeh source materials expose the truth about the Sandusky matter.

And the only thing Erickson, Baldwin, Harmon, Fina and numerous others fear more than the truth is what the truth will eventually do to them.


  1. Great work, Ray! Can't wait for some of the Old Guard BoT pirates to be exposed for their malfeasance. Those people (e.g. Erickson, Masser, Surma, Baldwin and more) are terrible, rotten human beings.

  2. So how do alumni-elected trustees get any pertinent information out in the open?

    1. Brian,
      Thanks for reading the blog.

      According to Anthony Lubrano, if there is significant findings, like the ones I wrote about above, then they will appeal to the Judge to make the findings public.

    2. The alumni trustees can discuss any significant findings with other trustees. If the findings are shocking enough, they might get enough votes to bring the issue before the full Board.

      A majority vote of the Board could make any or all the Freeh Report documents public. It is PSU's privilege to waive if they see fit.

  3. Ray,
    Thank you so much for your dogged determination in this regard. I often think about how much less I would know with regard to this 'railroading' of 4 good men and a fine university if not for you.

    I have been reading your blog since 2012 and check in often to learn more.

    I applaud each and every one of your team and others related to revealing the truth. Unfortunately there is no 'undo' button other than the combined and continued fight for the truth that we all hope one day will be publicized nationally (although I doubt that will ever happen).

    Again, thanks!

    Kevin M. Graybill '88 QBA

    1. Kevin,
      Thanks for your comments and kind words.

      I couldn't sleep at night if I wasn't doing everything I could to help correct the record.

      I've said all along that it will take an official announcement -- like the arrests of the real perpetrators behind the false narrative -- for the media to come around and report the truth.

      The Paterno, Trustees, and Spanier lawsuit all can help correct the record. Of those three, the trustee review of the Freeh source materials has the most potential to reveal the truth. Spanier's lawsuit should prove that Louis Freeh is a liar. That would be good news too.

  4. There are some people that still just don't want to believe that Tom Corbett, as the Governor of PA, criminally conspired with his OAG, Frank Noonan his state police commissioner, and the Old Guard members of the PSU BoT to frame innocent men for crimes they did not commit. They knew they needed someone big like Louis Freeh to fool the public into believing their criminal frame-up job on the PSU three. So here's the question that I pose to these people that can't believe that Louis Freeh actually led this criminal cabal: Where is Louis Freeh? Where was he one year after his PSU accusations? Where was he two, three and now four years after his accusations? Since his initial press conference, Freeh has been accused of being a liar, a criminal, a sociopath, immoral, an extortionist, and even just plain incompetent. So why hasn't he returned to PSU to speak and clarify his accusations? I believe he even promised he would return, but he hasn't. Why? Anyone of Freeh's supposed stature would want to put to rest any suspicions the public may have that his accusations were false.

    So Louis Freeh won't return because he can't answer the questions that so many people have without incriminating himself. He is essentially in hiding. Is this the behavior of an honest man, to hide for four years after causing so much damage? Freeh simply can't back up his accusations, so he is hiding with his ill-gotten 8 million dollars. And those that paid Freeh that hefty sum for the frame-up job of the century must know that Freeh won't take the fall for them. He is one big fish, a diseased and foul-smelling fish, but never the less, very big. He will make sure that the smaller fish take the bait intended for him. He will pull out all the stops to avoid being "caught". Those that put this criminal plan together against the university like Ken Frazier, Frank Fina, Cynthia Baldwin, Tom Corbett, Frank Noonan, Linda Kelly, and Old Guard Bot, will take the fall for Freeh. Freeh Fallin?

    1. Truthseeker,
      You made a lot of very good points. I agree Freeh is hiding and knows he can't back up his report. He is absent in the BP case as well. He sends out his minions to make statements on his behalf -- each time defending his indefensible investigative reports.

      You are correct that Freeh will do everything he can to avoid taking the fall for anything. Spanier has him dead to rights, so expect Freeh to blame an underling for the deficiencies in his report. However, as the head of FSS and FGIS, Freeh is ultimately responsible for the work products. Spanier's lawsuit should end Freeh's phony investigation racket.

      As far as the obstruction of justice in the PSU case, Freeh is on record making false statements about the evidence. He painted himself into a corner with his braggadocio. He is going to go down for that.

      How many big fish that get caught is the question. Unfortunately, Corbett probably won't be one of them in this case (though he might be in Kane's case).

  5. If "Frank Fina received the Schultz file from PSU (i.e., Baldwin) prior to the January 12, 2011 proceeding" then how could Kimberly Belcher have found it in Schultz's old office in Nov. 2011?

    Did OAG put the file, or a copy of the file, back in Schultz's office hoping that he would take it or destroy it so they could charge him with evidence tampering?

    1. The file was turned over to the OAG in 2012, not 2011.

    2. I was quoting from this article, which believes that the OAG got the file prior to Curley and Schultz testifying in Jan. 2011.

    3. Tim,
      Yes, the file was put back in the drawer. Remember that Baldwin didn't tell Schultz to search for documents or even that he was subpoenaed to turn over documents. She retrieved them from the drawer in January 2011 -- when Schultz was not employed by PSU.

      After she turned them over, I suspect Fina was disappointed that they information didn't implicate Spanier, so that's probably when the "flip" Schultz strategy came into play and Baldwin was told to put the non-exculpatory notes back.

      It also suggests that Baldwin screwed up if she gave the entire Schultz file, including exculpatory evidence, to Freeh. As I've said before, these people were a bunch of amateurs.

      It also stands to reason that Schultz was rehired (instead of someone else) after Horvath left as part of the scheme.

      I will also tell you that in reading the testimony of Belcher, Coble, and Harmon again --- and looking at the evidence -- that their testimony was contrived. Especially, the part by Coble about Schultz talking to her in a stern voice and telling her never to look in the drawer, the part by Harmon about never being asked by Schultz for the 1998 file, and the part by Belcher in which she said she didn't turn over her file in January 2012 when she met with DUANE MORRIS. Belcher claimed that after she met with Duane Morris and Freeh in January, she got a subpoena --- to testify in April.

      There was something fishy going on....

      ...when Belcher testified, OAG prosecutor Bruce Beemer had her confirm she was testifying under immunity. Then he made it a point to say that the immunity didn't cover perjury.

      By the time this story ends, the only people at PSU who will be found to be telling the truth will be Tim, Gary, Graham, and Joe.

  6. Ray - I agree a lot of the Belcher, Coble, and Harmon testimony seems fishy.

    I still don't understand why the OAG would put the file back in Schultz's office unless they were trying to entrap him into tampering with evidence. They'd almost have to have had a hidden camera in the office to get evidence of that though.

    There could be chain of custody issues if the OAG returned key evidence, which Belcher then tampered with.

    I don't think it was unusual for Schultz to be rehired on short notice when his replacement left abruptly. He knew the job, and Penn State is known to turn to insiders to fill key positions, e.g. Erickson, Joyner, Baldwin.

    Maybe the truth will come out if Baldwin and the others are deposed by Spanier's lawyers as part of his lawsuit.

    1. Tim,
      Sorry for the late reply...I was on vacation until the 9th, then swamped with work.

      All the OAG needed for an obstruction charge was for someone to "find" the Schultz file after he was rehired.

      It is alleged that Schultz was told to turn over documents in accordance with Subpoena 1179 -- issued in late December 2010 and were to be turned over by January 2011. Any documents found in possession after January 2011 would be grounds for obstruction.

      More to come about the Schultz rehire.

  7. Ray,

    Thanks again for all your work here. I thought you'd been gone doing an extensive analysis of Barron's promised Freeh report review. Glad I haven't been holding my breath waiting for him to do that!