Saturday, January 18

BOMBSHELL: Exculpatory Evidence Removed From Schultz File

The Kathleen McChesney diary confirms an exculpatory email was removed from the Schultz file

Ray Blehar
January 18, 2020, 4:09 PM EST has long contended that Gary Schultz or someone at Penn State University (PSU) made a report to Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) in response to the 2001 incident.

Now it appears we have the proof.

McChesney's diary entries of May 1, 2012 detail discussions about the Schultz file and it contains the following bombshell.

"Exculpatory 2.26 email is on the top & they came in the same order where he says they contacted cps"

To be clear, an email was written documenting that the 2001 incident was properly reported and it has never seen the light of day.

That evidence is a game changer and exonerates not only Schultz, but Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, and legendary coach Joe Paterno.

Ample evidence supported that someone at PSU made a report to CYS per the direction of then General Counsel (GC) Wendell Courtney.  Under that scenario, the February 26 email showing plan to call DPW was not to inform the agency about Sandusky's shower incident, but a contingency plan if The Second Mile refused to enforce PSU's directive about Sandusky's facility use with children.

Among the evidence supporting a 2001 report was an anonymous tip (in 2013) that CC CYS had received a letter or correspondence about the incident and the University's plan to follow up with The Second Mile (TSM).  According to the tipster -- who had a family member who worked for CC CYS  -- a copy of the correspondence was also sent to TSM.

Then in 2017, a former law enforcement official relayed essentially the same information as the anonymous tipster.   Correspondence between PSU and CC CYS existed regarding the 2001 incident and a copy of it was provided to TSM.   The employee added that the exculpatory evidence had to have been either destroyed and/or suppressed.

Notpsu chose not to run the story each time due to anonymous sourcing and/or lack of documentation, respectively.

More Suppressed Evidence

McChesney's diary shows that the exculpatory email apparently wasn't the only thing that was withheld.

On March 30, 2012, McChesney wrote:

"Concerned about Schultz sensitive files not having Sandusky stuff, thick file missing - lots of people said there was file there."

Her February 27, 2012 entry also confirms there was more Sandusky evidence.

"Per Frankie G: 3 Sandusky files in 2 sets of Schultz doc, Mustakoff imaging for LJF."

Frankie G is Frank Guadagnino, a Reed Smith attorney who then worked under contract for the PSU General Counsel.  Mustakoff is Mike Mustakoff, a PSU attorney.  LJF is Louis J. Freeh.

There seems to have been lots of copies of Schultz information floating around.

According to analyses of the evidence, Baldwin or someone on PSU's legal team removed the files from Schultz's office right after he (Schultz) told her that he kept a file on Sandusky (in January 2011),   Multiple copies of the Schultz documents were made and the Frank Fina used the information to set perjury traps for Curley and Schultz at the January 2011 grand jury.

Later on down the road, after Curley and Schultz refused to flip on then PSU President Graham Spanier, the exculpatory information was removed from the file and a file containing only "incriminating" information was planted in his office shortly after Schultz left his position at PSU on November 5, 2011. 

Belcher retrieved the file on the 9th or 10th of November.

Fina spun a tall tale about the Schultz file to Freeh and his investigating team

Here is the May 1, 2012 diary entry that seemingly supports the planted evidence scenario.

"Per Fina 5.1.12"

"...Coble brings in Becleher (sic) in as replacements, there was a Sandusky file - told her it was sacrosanct and secret;"

"Sees Horvath folder & one for GCS - She thought GCS file might be needed so she decided to bring it to him;  thought about the Sandusky file, drawer with lock on it, hadn't seen file before, didn't look at papers but looked through and picked up 20 most incriminating papers & she drives to Schultz's house, she puts 20 in another folder, he takes documents and says thanks..."

Belcher picked out the 20 most incriminating papers?

Her testimony says otherwise.  She removed the entire file and made a copy of it, then left the office to take a copy to Schultz, keeping the original (planted) file for herself.

The McChesney diary is providing the evidence of what Notpsu and many other intelligent people believed from the beginning -- three high ranking Penn State administrators and Paterno got railroaded.

Coming soon...

Diary Indicates Email Tampering

Even Freeh Team Thought 1998 Stunk to High Heavens


  1. Wow. Wow. Wow. Ray, could you please direct me to the back story of the McChesney diary?

    1. After the Freeh investigation was over, McChesney handed over her diary for inclusion in the source materials. Ralph Cipriano somehow got his hands on it and then provided it to me.

  2. I've asked this before, but I'll ask any of the good guys have a copy of the full, unadulterated file? Or has all the exculpatory stuff been lost forever?

    1. Mark,
      If it is an exculpatory email (as noted) then it can be recovered. Several copies of the 1998 and 2001 emails were put on USB drives and a copy of the exculpatory email should still be on the server (unless Corro was forced to delete it). But if you were Corro, wouldn't you have made a copy of it in case something like this ever happened?

      For the most part, Cynthia Baldwin collected all the information and gave it to the OAG (Fina). I'm sure he deep sixed anything exculpatory that was in his possession.

    2. Mark,
      More to the point...Gary Schultz received the "planted" copy of his file in November 2011. So, no, the good guys don't have an unadulterated copy.

  3. Louis Freeh and James Comey were contemporaries. That's enough for me.

    1. See the "Required Reading" area at the top of the blog.

  4. So if a letter was sent to CYS and TSM, did Schultz ever claim that he send the letter in his defense?

    1. Ten years after the fact, Gary's memory of the details was foggy at best. When he testified, he told the court that he believed someone, maybe him, "contacted the local child protection agency."

      Gary recently told me "I had complete confidence it was reported."

    2. If I remember correctly, Wendell Courtney also testified that he was pretty sure it had been reported to child protective services. I can't remember the exact words, and I could be wrong because we were reviewing a lot of transcripts back then.

    3. Shari,
      Courtney told the Freeh Group that he remembered someone reporting the 2001 incident, but it wasn't him because he would have kept a record of the report.

      See page 84 of the Freeh Report.

  5. No wonder Freeh and Penn State were so determined to keep all Freeh's source materials confidential. I suspect the exculpatory email will not be found among Freeh's source materials anymore.

    It's stunning that so many people apparently knew of the exculpatory email but kept it secret and let innocent men be convicted and have their reputations ruined.

    If the exculpatory email can be found, Spanier should get tens of millions from Penn State when he restarts his lawsuit against Freeh.

    1. Tim,
      Correct. The exculpatory email was removed from the Source Material. Had it been in there, I'm sure the A9 could have gotten an order from the judge to disclose it, use it to file a civil lawsuit, or provide it to law enforcement as evidence of obstruction of justice/malicious prosecution.

      A lot of "stuff" is going to hit the fan if/when that email surfaces.

  6. What did anyone have to gain by railroading Shultz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno?

    Also, whatever happened to The Second Mile's computers and servers?

    Who on the BOT gained from covering this up?

    1. There are several reasons why this went could call it a perfect storm.

      1. The Old Guard trustees wanted to take power away from Spanier and Paterno, so the Sandusky mess was used to get rid of them. Freeh was hired to justify the firings.

      2. Surma wanted Paterno gone due to a family disagreement/vendetta. See sidebar > THE SURMA VENDETTA

      3. Corbett had a vendetta against Spanier and wanted him gone.

      4. No idea on TSM's servers and computers. Its financial paper trail in incriminating enough.

    2. The Attorney General's office had a lot to gain by railroading the Penn State officials. Charging Curley and Schultz removed them as key defense witnesses for Sandusky who would have contradicted McQueary, the prosecution's star witness.

      Railroading Penn State also protected guiltier parties, especially the government child protection agencies (CYS, DPW) who failed to protect children from Sandusky even after learning in 1998 that Sandusky bear hugged boys in the shower. Second Mile and its many big name supporters was also protected.

    3. Tim,
      Excellent points. I agree wholeheartedly.

  7. The prosecution alleged the date of the McQueary witnessed shower incident was February 9, 2001, although that has been disputed.

    The diary refers to a 2-26 exculpatory email so wouldn't that have been about the time McQueary had the meeting with Curley and Schultz? It would make sense that Curley and Schultz would want to talk to McQueary before reporting Sandusky to cps.

    1. Tim,
      They would have met with McQ on 2/17 or 2/18.

      The exculpatory email could have been one from Harmon to Schultz stating that CYS was contacted and that they weren't going to investigate.

    2. That police chief Harmon may have contacted CYS in 2001 does seem quite plausible. I always thought it very odd that Schultz wouldn't have told police chief Harmon about the 2001 Sandusky shower incident given that Harmon had investigated the 1998 Sandusky shower incident.

      Harmon's testimony never rang true when he said Schultz asked him if the 1998 Sandusky investigation was still on file. The natural response would have been for Harmon to say to Schultz "Why do you ask?" and then Schultz tell him about the 2001 incident.

  8. I'm still stumped by Mike McQueary's role in allowing his words to be misquoted in the presentment. If he had insisted on correcting the record AND his father and Dranov had been steadfast and honest and clear about what Mike conveyed the very NIGHT of the shower event, none of the damage would have been done. I still hold the McQuearys primarily responsible for it all. So was it weak character on their part that allowed it all to crash down??

    1. Becky,
      Thanks for your comments.

      I think you're right in part that if Mike had corrected the record, as Eshbach told him he could do, that the damage would have been less, especially to Joe Paterno.

      However, former Gov Tom Corbett was using that incident to take down Spanier and that part would have continued with Spanier being the key scapegoat.

      Corbett would have been completely fine with that, but John Surma probably would have been very disappointed.

    2. I believe McQueary was blindsided by the presentment as indicated by his email exchanges with prosecutor Eshbach where he complained that presentment "tisted" his testimony. Eshbach told him not to say anything publicly.

      McQueary might have gone to reporters immediately after the presentment was leaked but the prosecutors had leverage over him so he would have done that at his peril. Prosecutors could have easily charged Dranov and McQueary's father with failure to report and child endangerment the way they did Curley and Schultz. I think it's obvious that McQueary's cooperation with prosecutors was a major reason those two weren't charged.

      It quickly got to the point that McQueary was in so deep he couldn't recant or he would have been charged with perjury. I think it was more that a naive McQueary was manipulated by dishonest police and prosecutors. Maybe McQueary will write his tell all book some day and explain it more.

    3. A pathological liar writing a memoir celebrating his deception?? Maybe he and Frank (the rat) Fina will burn in hell, but I think it is our job to produce hell on earth for these miscreants.

    4. Frank Fina's modus operandi was to turn uncooperative witnesses into criminal defendants. As Tim noted, had McQ not cooperated, Fina would have charged he and his father (and probably Dranov) with Failure to Report.

      And Tim is right about Fina holding perjury or lying to the police over McQ's head if he made a public statement to correct the record. McQ's handwritten statement said he saw Jerry "sodomizing" the victim.

    5. I think eventually McQ took advantage of the position he was in to give some false testimony that helped his lawsuit, like the hearsay that Paterno told him "Old Main screwed it up ... They're going to try to scapegoat you. Trust your lawyers. Don't trust Cynthia Baldwin. Don't trust Old Main." Paterno was dead by then so there was no one to dispute it.

      McQ would have known that he could sneak in a few lies without the prosecution being able to do anything about it. If they charged him with perjury for one lie, all his testimony would be tainted and Sandusky would have grounds for a new trial.

  9. I read Machiavelli's book "The Prince and it was rather tame compared to this scenario> I wonder if the scoundrels who engineered this are still carrying daggers and poison rings?