Thursday, September 3

Baldwin Couldn't Keep Her Lies Straight

Cynthia Baldwin's statements and court testimony are so full of contradictions that no reasonable person could find her to be credible -- and now her credibility will again be put to the test

Ray Blehar

September 3, 2020, 5:04 PM EDT, Updated 5:22 PM

Back in 2013,'s post titled "Who's Telling the Truth, Baldwin or Everyone Else"  recounted numerous examples of former Penn State University (PSU) General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin's testimony being contradicted by not only current and former PSU employees, but even by members of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG). 

It's one thing to be contradicted by other individuals; however, it's worse when you contradict yourself.

And Baldwin did that many times over when she testified before the grand jury in October 2012, before the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) Hearing Committee in May 2018, and in her public statements about the case.

The good news for Penn Staters is that Baldwin's credibility is again on the line as a result of former grand jury judge Barry Feudale filing complaint against a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

The complaint will do little to nothing to fix Baldwin's already tarnished reputation. 

In fact, it could make matters worse.

Lying, Incompetent, Illiterate, or a Combination of All Three 

When reviewing Baldwin's testimony, it can become a real head scratcher.

It's really difficult to tell if she's lying, incompetent, illiterate, or a combination of all three.

For example, Baldwin's October 2012 grand jury appearance came as the result of a proffer letter (from Frank Fina) that she signed on October 19, 2012.    The letter stated she was under investigation and "may be prosecuted."  See below.

At the ODC hearing, Baldwin testified that she didn't know the OAG suspected her of criminal wrongdoing when she testified on October 26th.

The former justice told the hearing committee, "I did learn that much later."

The answer is not only incredible, but it borders on the bizarre.

Baldwin's testimony regarding how Spanier learned of the 1998 incident is also quite bizarre and  makes no sense based on the facts in evidence at the time.  

Here is her exchange with former OAG prosecutor Frank Fina (October 2012 grand jury at 24, 25):

Fina:  Okay. Well, tell us about the context, too, that these questions were likely to rise.  In other words, at that point in time, March of 2011, is Graham Spanier fully aware that he is likely to be asked about the 1998 investigation of Sandusky and the 2001 allegations of Mike McQueary?

Baldwin:   He is fully aware of both 1998 and what was then 2002 but, yes. He was very aware of those and there is – there is no doubt because at some point, I became aware of the 1998 and went to get the report.

Fina:  Okay. And let's talk about that. You got the report from the 1998 investigation, I believe, in January of 2011, correct?

Baldwin:  Urn-hum. That is correct.

Fina:  And that copy of the report that you had, was it copied and given to Spanier or disbursed to Spanier, Schultz, Curley or tell us about that?

Baldwin: No. It was not disbursed because we had certain considerations because of various laws that there are and because of that, our office got the copy; but it was not disseminated even though Graham was aware that I had gotten a copy of the report.

Fina:  Okay. Did he ever ask to – to read it or come to your office as far as you know and read it?

Baldwin:  No, he did not.

Fina:  Okay. Now, is he aware of that [1998] just from his conversations with you or did he become aware that he was getting that information from somewhere else as well?

Baldwin: He appeared to be getting the information from elsewhere.

Fina:  Well, tell us, you know, what you come to understand.

Baldwin:  I came to understand that he was having other discussions with Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz.

Fina:  Okay. That understanding – tell us how clear it was. Was that what Spanier was telling you?

Baldwin:  Correct.

That situation is only possible if you are extremely gullible and also believe in time travel. 

First, why would Spanier tell Baldwin he knew about the 1998 incident and then turn around and lie about his knowledge of it, not once, but twice?

Next, a review of Curley and Schultz's grand jury testimony reveals that they had little to no recollection of the 1998 incident.  Furthermore, neither man possessed any documents or notes about the 1998 incident that could have refreshed their memories during the time frame between January and April 2011.   

The Schultz file was in the bottom drawer of Albert Horvath's desk. 

The 1998 emails remained in an archived file that none of the men could access.

There was no way that Schultz or Curley could have filled in Spanier on 1998 before he testified in the Spring of 2011.  None of the emails and notes about 1998 were available prior to that fall.

Then Baldwin later gives contradictory testimony on how Spanier learned of 1998. 

Baldwin October 2012 grand jury at 27,  28:

Baldwin: "Everything that I knew was I was passing onto him so that he would be aware of everything that was going on with this particular matter."

Fina:  "And when you say by everything, you literally mean everything, right?"

Baldwin: "I mean literally everything."

Literally everything -- except the 104 page 1998 police report. 

Baldwin continued to testify that Spanier was fully informed about the 1998 incident. 

The October 2012 grand jury exchange (at 59) between Baldwin and Fina addresses Spanier's preparations for his interviews with the OAG in March 2011 and grand jury appearance in April of that year.

Fina:  As a result of you informing him that his e-mails were going to be subpoenaed, did he stop communicating with you about the case by e-mail?

Baldwin:  Not--no.  To the extent he was communicating -- I mean he would either come down.  He would communicate by e-mail.  Very seldom would he pick up the phone and call.

Fina:  And in reference to other incidents than the one incident in the shower, in fact, you had conversations with him as part of his interview with the authorities and his grand jury testimony that there was a 1998 incident?

Baldwin: He knew about the 1998 incident. He knew about incidents from the newspaper, and he -- it is evident he knew about the shower too.

Baldwin clearly threw Spanier under the bus so that he could be charged with perjury regarding his grand jury statements referencing 1998.

Based on that testimony, the PA Supreme Court pointed out that Baldwin should have known that Spanier's dishonesty before the court was not in alignment with University's interests to cooperate with the investigation.  The court opined that Baldwin should have immediately informed Spanier that he needed to be represented by private counsel.

But she didn't.

In fact, Baldwin stated that she continued to represent Spanier all the way up to when he was charged.

Exchange from Baldwin October 2012 grand jury at 28:

Baldwin:  "...My expectation as my job as General Counsel was to keep Graham Spanier aware because he was not only President, he was a board member.  So to keep him aware of everything that is going on and his expectation was that I would keep him aware of everything that was going on."

Fina:  "That relationship and that obligation never changed during this investigation did it?

Baldwin:  "No."


On April 11, 2011, Baldwin told grand jury Judge Barry Feudale that she represented the University solely. 

But then she (and Feudale and Fina) allowed Spanier to testify under the guise that she was his attorney.   Note that Feudale, in his affidavit, seemingly questioned the discipline meted out against Fina and Baldwin for violating attorney-client privilege and his right to counsel.

Why didn't Baldwin inform Spanier that she stopped representing him (because she knew he lied to OAG investigators about 1998)?   And why didn't she advise Spanier to retain a private attorney?
There are two answers:  
1)   Baldwin was lying about Spanier's knowledge of 1998.  
2)  Baldwin needed to be the attorney for PSU officials to ensure they could be entrapped by the OAG

More contradictions...

In the Spring of 2012, Baldwin told an OPM investigator that Spanier was a "man of integrity" in response to questioning during a security background check.   

She spoke highly of Spanier's "trustworthiness" and  "good judgment."

Then she hastily flip-flopped after the Freeh Report was released.

From the AP:
"Baldwin's lawyer Charles De Monaco said Friday that Baldwin's view of Spanier changed during the summer of 2012, particularly after the release of a scathing report into the Sandusky matter produced by former FBI director Louis Freeh."

Baldwin would later double down on the latter statement by going along with Fina's argument that she could testify against Spanier using the crime-fraud exception (Baldwin Respondent Brief at 37-44) and that their conversations were therefore not protected by attorney-client privilege.      

When Baldwin went along with the crime-fraud exception argument, she exposed that her prior grand jury testimony about Spanier's knowledge and purported lies about the 1998 incident had to be false.

When you tell so many lies, they eventually catch up with you.

Accountability for Baldwin

The PA Supreme Court went easy on Baldwin and determined her contradictions came as a result of incompetence. 

Baldwin should have left well enough alone, but the former Supreme Court Justice continued her indignant behavior by airing a disciplinary complaint against Chief Justice Thomas Saylor.

And that could end up being one of her biggest mistakes.  

Thomas Saylor and Cynthia Baldwin
The racial complaint against Saylor could backfire, expose Baldwin's history of deception

The Baldwin-Saylor case will end up as a "he said, she said."   

Baldwin's corroborating witnesses, former Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale and former Chief Justice Ronald Castille, have sullied/and or dubious reputations.     

Feudale was first stripped of Senior Judge status for his lack of objectivity (i.e., cozy relationship with Fina) and eventually taken off the bench for leaking secret court documents.   Feudale filed the complaint against Saylor. 

Castille defended Fina's misconduct in the Spanier case that eventually resulted in the prosecutor losing his law license.  

Saylor will easily discredit Feudale and Castille.

Then all the Chief Justice has to do is put Baldwin's prior testimony and public statements on full display in order to impeach her credibility.

Saylor will show that nothing Baldwin says is credible. 


  1. Do you think there will ever be a state attorney general that will seriously look at the Second Mile charity and the cover up by the previous attorney generals

    1. Sylvie68,
      Thanks for your question.

      Short answer: NO.

      After what happened to Kathleen Kane, no one in Pennsylvania will touch this case. It will have to be handled by an out of state investigation.