Thursday, February 6

Diary: The Incredible Shrinking Schultz File

Kathleen McChesney's diary and other evidence prove multiple copies of the Schultz file existed and that information was removed from it to frame PSU officials

By
Ray Blehar
February 6, 2020, 7:25 PM EST, Update 2/7/2020 at 9:54 AM EST

The diary of Kathleen McChesney and other evidence confirm that Louis Freeh's investigators not only didn't find the so-called Schulz secret file, but that multiple copies of Schultz's file were held by numerous groups and that records were removed in an effort to subvert justice.

First, a diary entry of March 30, 2012 states:
"Concerned about Schultz sensitive files not having Sandusky stuff, thick file missing - lots of people said there was file there."

Evidence shows that "lots of people" handled the Schultz file, including the Penn State University (PSU) General Counsel (GC), the Office of Attorney General (OAG), members of the Special Investigations Task Force (SITF), the Freeh Group and lawyers from the Duane Morris and Reed Smith law firms. 

In the PSU v. PMA case, Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble was deposed and asked to verify information purportedly from the Schultz file.  The PSU legal team included Freeh Exhibit 2F as part of the Schultz file.

According to all available court filings, that exhibit was not among the information turned over to the OAG by Schultz and Belcher, but it was purported to be part of the file in 2016.

This is another smoking gun of evidence mishandling on the part of Fina and Baldwin.  Fina got away with similar sloppy evidence handling in the Computergate and Bonusgate cases. 


Next, a February 1, 2012 entry states:  "Schultz records taken by law firm."

Backing up one day to January 31st, the diary of former PSU President Rodney Erickson confirmed that he was attempting to obtain copies of notes obtained from Curley and Schultz.














While some have argued that Erickson's references may not have been specific to the Schultz file, OAG Agent Anthony Sassano destroyed that argument on July 29, 2013.   He testified that he received his copy of the Schultz file from Duane Morris

Duane Morris formerly employed Cynthia Baldwin.  When Baldwin took over as PSU GC in 2010, she put some of her former colleagues to work (under contract) for PSU. 

Sassano did not give an exact date for when he received the file from Duane Morris, however he said it was after Gary Schultz and Tim Curley had been charged. 

Belcher testified that she gave the Schultz file to the OAG staff in April of 2012.

Why was it that the lead investigating agent (Sassano) got the file from Duane Morris instead of from the people in his own office? 

On February 16, 2012, the diary notes: "Boxes of Inform from Schultz rev'd by Cloud/Sethman."

Cloud and Sethman were members of the Freeh team.

Another diary entry of  February 27th states:  "Per Frankie G:  3 Sandusky files in 2 sets of Schultz docs, Mustakoff imaging for LJF."

Frankie G. is Frank Guadagnino, an attorney for Reed Smith who was working under contract for the PSU GC at the time.  Mike Mustakoff was an attorney for Duane Morris.   Neither Guadagnino, Mustakoff, nor anyone else involved seem to care a whit about the Freeh group receiving secret investigative grand jury materials.

Many hands touched the Schultz file and there is a major chain of custody issue surrounding all the evidence used in the prosecution of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

Without another criminal investigation into this matter, we will never know the full extent of information left out of the so-called Schultz secret file.

That said, prior analysis by Notpsu confirmed some of the missing evidence and projects other missing evidence with high confidence.


Confirmed Missing

Notpsu's analysis of the Freeh Report and court documents concludes the following documents are confirmed as missing or otherwise removed from the Schultz file.


  • A Schultz e-mail to Spanier and Curley stating plan to meet with Curley on Sunday, February 25, 2001 (Freeh Report, End Note 318:  Control Number 00681288). 
  • An email from Spanier acknowledging the February 25, 2001 meeting (Freeh Report, End Note 319:  Control Number 00681288).
And while not specifically related to the Schultz file, the evidence is absolutely clear that University legal officials, in conjunction with the OAG, suppressed a potentially exculpatory email showing that McQueary took issue with the accuracy of the grand jury presentment. 



Likely Missing Information - High Confidence

At the Spanier trial, prosecutors established via the testimony of Joan Coble that Schultz was a very good note taker.  Prosecutor Laura Ditka (now deceased), stated:

"...Secondly, he have heard that he is a routine note taker.  He took notes at every conversation and at every meeting, and they are a business record."

Co-counsel Patrick Schulte added:

"Ms. Ditka, with Ms. Coble, had indicated that Schultz was a note taker. When he had meetings he took notes.  That's how this note was obtained. It is a business record."

Given the evidence record from the 1998 incident and Schultz's court established reputation as a note taker, it would appear that the following notes or documentation were removed from the file:

  • His February 11, 2001 meeting with Curley and Paterno at Paterno's home.
  • His February 11, 2001 phone call with then PSU General Counsel Wendell Courtney.
  • His February 12, 2001 contact with then Chief of Police Tom Harmon (confirmed missing).
  • His meeting with Tim Curley and Mike McQueary on or about February 17, 2001.
  • His follow-up meeting with John McQueary and Dr. Jonathan Dranov.
It is almost certain that these meeting notes contain information and/or details regarding what Mike McQueary reported to PSU officials, his father, and Dr. Dranov.

There is no reason to doubt PSU and the OAG withheld other exculpatory information.

PSU and OAG officials went along with Freeh's Schultz file discovery statement even though they knew it was patently false as it left his lips in July 2012.

After Freeh's tall tale went  belly-up in July 2013, when Kimberly Belcher testified that she refused to hand the file over to Freeh, PSU and OAG officials remained silent on the matter.

While the Freeh Report states the Schultz file was discovered on May 1, 2012, there is little doubt that it was actually recovered from Schultz's office in January 2011.

The January 2011 grand jury transcripts of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz almost certainly prove that the Schultz file was in the hands of Deputy AG Frank Fina before he questioned PSU officials.

That evidence, combined with Schultz's October 25, 2012 affidavit, points to Baldwin being the person who recovered the file and gave it to Fina.

In summary, the evidence surrounding the Schultz file is conclusive that PSU officials began collaborating with the OAG to undermine Curley, Schultz, and Spanier from the very beginning and they continue to be a party to a very serious miscarriage of justice.



Coming Soon....

Baldwin Thrown Under the Bus Twice 


Even Freeh's Team Thought 1998 Stunk to the High Heavens

Fina Never Established Chain of Custody for PSU Emails 
 

5 comments:

  1. The evidence is convincing that some exculpatory materials were removed from the Schultz file.

    What is very murky is why Frank Fina would hide the incriminating parts of the file for so long if he got the file in January 2011. He could have made a stronger case for the Nov. 2011 arrests with the documents from the Schultz file. What was his motive?

    If Baldwin got the Schultz file in January 2011, then why didn't Spanier's lawyers question the secretaries in his old office about it? Wouldn't Baldwin have had to speak to one of them to obtain the file? I have a hard time imagining Baldwin playing Miss Marple and sneaking into the office in the dead of night to search for the Schultz file herself.

    If Frank Fina had the Schultz file in January 2011, then did he put a partial copy of the file back in the office after Schultz went back to work in order to entrap him into destroying it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      Thanks for your comments.

      Fina suppressed exculpatory information. Nothing I wrote about would have been incriminating information for Tim, Gary, and Graham.

      The files in Schultz's office were all indexed so that you could easily
      find things (according to Belcher and Coble). Baldwin would have had no problem finding a file or she could have had Al Horvath bring her whatever was there that related to Sandusky. Recall that Schultz was retired at the time of the subpoena.

      I don't believe that Fina (or Baldwin) anticipated that the file they put back would be removed by Belcher. I suspect they put it back for the purpose of framing Schultz for obstruction of justice (i.e., failure to respond to Subpoena 1197).

      Delete
    2. A few other points...

      The Schultz documents were used to set a perjury trap for Tim and Gary. The evidence also indicates that Baldwin had not yet recovered any of Curley's files (or more correctly, the Athletic Department's files on Sandusky) until February 2011.

      Baldwin did not inform Tim, Gary, and Graham of the subpoena's document requirements -- although she did ask Gary to look for emails from the February/March 2002 timeframe. Gary still had access to his psu.edu email account as a retiree, but looking in that timeframe wouldn't yield any information.

      In March 2011, she only showed part of Subpoena 109 to the PSU IT Department and had them gather the emails of Schultz, Curley, Spanier, McQueary, Harmon and Paterno that were related to Sandusky. In short, she kept the evidence gathering very close hold.


      Delete