Patriot News, Part 6 of 9: Chapter 4, The CYS Friday News Dump

“We are learning more every day about this case and the many people and institutions who failed these victims and about how Jerry Sandusky operated above the law in Centre County for decades.”   -- Justine Andronici 

By

Ray Blehar

According to Taegan Goddard's Political Dictionary  the “Friday news dump” is the practice of releasing bad news or documents on a Friday afternoon in an attempt to avoid media scrutiny.  You have to take your hat off to the Patriot News – they used every trick in the book to keep the stink of the Sandusky scandal off the government agencies who failed to put away Sandusky in 1998.

The Centre County CYS Friday News Dump coincided with the date of the Curley and Schultz preliminary hearing – December 16, 2011.  So, not only did the P-N release the ONLY negative story it ran about Centre County CYS on a Friday afternoon, but timed it so that it would be overshadowed by the obviously bigger story that had taken place earlier in the day.

Even with all that going against anyone reading the column, the P-N added a misleading headline to the story:  

“Alleged Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse victims warn Sandusky, Penn State against destroying evidence.”  

While it was true that the lawyers had sent preservation notices to Penn State and Jerry Sandusky, the P-N headline omitted that notices were also sent to The Second Mile, DPW, and CYS.  A more accurate headline would have read, “Lawyers of Sandusky victims warn all parties against destroying evidence.”

If the P-N really wanted a sensational headline the last quote of the article was exactly what they were looking for.  Lawyer Justine Andronici stated (my emphasis added):

“We are learning more every day about this case and the many people and institutions who failed these victims and about how Jerry Sandusky operated above the law in Centre County for decades.  We are committed to helping the victims obtain justice.

The reality was that the P-N had no intention of reporting the real failures in the Sandusky case.
  

Centre County CYS has the lone distinction of being the only agency involved in the Sandusky case to have no individual from its organization named in any of the P-N’s coverage.  This was quite an amazing achievement considering that Centre County CYS’s John Miller was clearly named as the investigator for the 1998 initial investigation of Sandusky in the 1998 police report and that CYS’s supervisor, Carol Smith, was named by Sassano during his grand jury testimony. 

Smith’s name appeared in two Pittsburgh Post-Gazette articles in November 2011 and both times she characterized the relationship between TSM and CYS as being minimal.

Miller’s name never appeared in what would be considered a major newspaper or media outlet, but was routinely cited in the blogosphere.  Miller was identified as one of the 1998 investigators in the Freeh Report, and, as previously mentioned, was also identified in the 1998 University Park police report.  Yet neither person's name has ever been mentioned by the P-N.

CYS, or the “county agency” as it is called in the Public Welfare Code is the sole civil agency responsible for conducting child abuse investigations and providing other related services.  In the Sandusky case, it was relieved of investigating the case due to Sandusky’s status as an “agent” of the county, however, it still had responsibility for making notifications and ensuring that TSM had established a protection plan to keep children safe while Sandusky was under investigation.  

The evidence (i.e., police report) revealed that protection plans were not put in place and Sandusky was accessing the alleged victim and his friend while being investigated.  The Sandusky trial verdicts also revealed he was accessing and abusing Victim 4 during this time frame as well.  None of the information about CYS’s procedural failings was ever reported by the P-N.  From the release of the Sandusky grand jury presentment to today, CYS’s role in the investigation has been minimized. 

The P-N (along with the OAG) deliberately covered up those failures in order to maintain the narrative of a Penn State child sex abuse scandal.

Next: Chapter 3, The Second Mile Cover-Up

Does 2001 Timeline Reveal DPW/CYS Was Called and Failed to Act?

The delay in PSU officials speaking with Sandusky in 2001 is very similar to the delay in 1998.  Does the delay suggest that DPW/CYS was asked to investigate?

By
Ray Blehar

Some of the most important information in an investigation can be learned from thoroughly examining timelines, dates, and times to determine what exactly happened.

In Report 2, I criticized Louis Freeh's report because it contained only one somewhat comprehensive timeline in the beginning of the report.  As readers of my reports and blogposts know, the specific timelines of various incidents in the Sandusky scandal have revealed some very critical information.

A few examples follow:

-- That Mike McQueary had to tell Joe Paterno that the 2001 incident happened around a corner to enable Curley and Schultz to inform Spanier of the same information;

-- That DPW official, Jerry Lauro, lied to Sara Ganim of the Patriot News regarding his lack of knowledge of the psychology reports in the 1998 case; and,

-- That Ray Gricar did not close the 1998 case on June 1, 1998 because there was no time for him to review the police report, which was completed on June 3, 1998.

1998 - 2001 Timelines

The timelines in the 1998 and 2001 cases have a few things in common that indicate PSU was the more diligent party in terms of investigating Sandusky and that perhaps indicate DPW/CYS intervened in the 2001 case.

First Scheduled Interviews With Sandusky
According  to the 1998 University Park Police Report, ADA Karen Arnold instructed Detective Ronald Schreffler to interview everyone involved as soon as possible (see page 5).  DPW's Jerry Lauro contacted Detective Schreffler and stated that Sandusky was scheduled to be interviewed on the morning of May 7, 1998 (see page 8).  On May 7, 1998, Lauro met with University Park police but there was no interview of Sandusky.  No explanation is available regarding why the interview did not occur.

According to Gary Schultz's handwritten note of 12 February 2001, Tim Curley was supposed to meet with Jerry Sandusky on Friday, February 16.  This interview was also postponed and no one - not even crack investigator Louis Freeh - has provided a reason for the postponement.

Based on the timeline comparison, it is uncanny that both initial meetings with Sandusky were planned for the first week of the investigation, but both were postponed (with no reason given).

Interviews with Sandusky Delayed By Weeks
In both the 1998 and 2001 cases, the interview of Sandusky eventually takes place, but only after several weeks pass.  In 1998, three and a half weeks (25 days) go by before the police and DPW talk to Sandusky.  According the the testimony of former police Chief Tom Harmon, the police had scheduled another interview with Sandusky on May 27, 1998 - only to have CYS call it off because DPW could not attend.

In 2001, Tim Curley eventually met with Sandusky on March 1 or 2 according to the e-mail records and Spanier's notes referencing the case.  Therefore, about three weeks pass (22/23 days)before PSU  speak with Sandusky.  On March 7, 2001, Curley closed the loop with Joan Coble informing her that he informed Gary Schultz he had met with Sandusky/Second Mile.  (Note:  The Freeh Report incorrectly stated that Curley met with Second Mile on March 19, 2001).

The Middle
What happened between the initial scheduling of the Sandusky interview and the actual interview was also somewhat similar.   After May 7, 1998, there was little to no involvement of DPW and CYS in the investigation, aside from bringing in John Seasock to do an evaluation of Victim 6.  Conversely, the University Park police ran two different stings (May 13 and May 19) as well as fielded a call from the Mother of Victim 6 about Sandusky's contact with her son on May 11.

The only activity in the investigation in 2001 was the Schultz/Curley interview of McQueary, occurring on or about February 19, 2001 and the activities on 25 to 27 February to reschedule the interview with Sandusky. So it is interesting that there is some evidence of a possible report, but no specific information on the public record about an investigation.

I submit that the timelines, specifically the delays in interviewing Sandusky, provide an indication that DPW or CYS had  likely been contacted and intervened - at least temporarily - in the 2001 case.  Their intervention delayed PSU's interview with Sandusky.  The timelines also indicate the PSU officials were more diligent about addressing the Sandusky allegations than were state officials.

Penn State Deliberations About Sandusky

The Schultz note of 12 February 2001 reflects a plan that was developed on or about the time PSU would have been required by law to report the incident to DPW/CYS (i.e., 48 hours from first report on the morning of 10 February).  Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense for Schultz to make a plan of contacting DPW outside of the 48 hour window required by law.

So, why the reference to DPW in the note?

Two Issues To Resolve
There are two issues at play in this case, not just one.  One issue is completely within DPW's control, while the other is in PSU's control.

The first issue is that PSU must deal with a report of suspected child abuse.  According to the evidence, research on "suspected child abuse" and conferences with Gary Schultz were conducted between Courtney and Schultz about that issue.  Both men believe the end result was a report to local child welfare authorities.   Also remember there was the slip-up by Agent Sassano stating that a record of the 2002 (sic) report was in the possession of DPW (Sassano has yet to correct the record).

The second issue at play is Sandusky's inappropriate use, as an emeritus faculty member, of PSU's facilities with youths from The Second Mile (TSM).  This issue is such that it could be addressed almost immediately by the PSU administrators.  It is probable that the Schultz note of 12 February 2001 was the plan for dealing with the facilities use issue -- not the plan for dealing with suspected child abuse.

The reference for calling in DPW "as an independent agency concerned with child welfare" is likely a result of Schultz's review of the 1998 case and his discussions with Harmon over the conflicts of interest between TSM and Centre County CYS in 1998.

It is likely that Schultz did not believe that he could go to Centre County CYS if Sandusky and Second Mile "pushed back" on PSU's directive for Sandusky to not use the facilities with TSM youths.  If the "push back" from TSM and Sandusky occurred, Schultz believed he would get a better result if he raised the issue to DPW.

E-mail Authenticity (or lack thereof)
While Freeh, Frazier, the majority of the media point to the e-mail of February 27-28 (Freeh Report, Exhbit 5G) as evidence of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier's decision not to inform DPW, the testimony of Braden Cook proved that this e-mail was not authentic.  According to Cook, his team was provided the Schultz e-mails for a second time on July 2, 2012 (page 70).

The e-mails were first provided in March 2011 (page 69)  on a DVD after it was discovered that the Schultz data was not in their inventory provided to them PSU's John Corro.   John Corro testified to providing three USB keys of data to Cynthia Baldwin.   That means none of the "incriminating" e-mails in this case was pulled from a forensic hard drive or a copy of a forensic drive.  Cook did not say who provided him with the Schultz e-mails in July 2012, however he testified that he was providing e-mail information to Freeh's team and the PSU lawyers for attorney-client privilege review (beginning in late Fall 2011).

Government and private sector document and computer forensics experts who were consulted regarding the authenticity of the e-mails agree that the evidence is suspicious, but that tampering can only be determined through comparison with data from the hard drives. Freeh's history with evidence tampering, as well as Ken Frazier's insistence that the documents in this case provided the information the Board needed to come to make decisions in the case, provide valid reasons to believe the Schultz e-mails may have been altered.

Keep reading and you will discover that the stakes in this case were high enough for Freeh  - who was identified and recommended for the job by Governor Tom Corbett - to make the evidence fit a pre-determined conclusion.

The Inconvenient Truth of the Sandusky Case

The inconvenient truth that the Commonwealth does not want the public to learn, is that DPW and CYS routinely fall short when it comes to protecting children and indicating child abusers.  The grand jury presentment of November 2011 did its best to hide the failures of DPW and CYS to take Sandusky off the streets in 1998.  And I suspect it has done the same in the case of the 2001 incident.

The record of failures of CYS and DPW to properly intervene in child abuse cases and protect PA's children is staggering.  Based on a 2008- Health and Human Services review of DPW, children continue to be harmed in 43% of the cases after abuse is reported.  Mathematically, this computes to an estimated 11,000 abuse cases and approximately 200 deaths since 2002 (the original date of the McQueary report).

Those are just numbers, however.  The stories behind the numbers are quite interesting.

Many of you might recall the story of Aleta Bailey.  Aleta was a little girl in York County who was reported to have been beaten by her mother's live in boy friend, Larry Hake.  The York County caseworker on that case, Beverly Mackereth, requested a police escort for herself because she felt unsafe to investigate the case because of Hake's reputation as a violent man.  After taking Aleta to the hospital to be examined, Mackereth sent the little girl back into that environment - requiring that there be another adult present when Hake was near Aleta.  Five weeks after that order, Aleta was raped, tortured, and murdered by Hake.  The hospital nurses found bruises and swelling on all parts of her body, including her feet.

Most rational people would question how Mackereth retained her employment after this incident, thus it is truly mind blowing that she not only kept her job, but is now the Secretary of DPW.  From 2011 to her promotion in March 2013, she was the Deputy Director of Children and Youth Services -- the agency with the mission to protect children.

In another case I investigated, a child lodged complaints to Clearfield County CYS officials about the abuse suffered at the hands of the parent over and over again.  CYS refused to investigate the case because they had previously investigated and cleared the parent.   The child attempted suicide, but before doing so had vandalized the home.  The child survived, but afterwards was charged with vandalism and had to make restitution. No action was taken against the parent.  The child remains emotionally damaged.

One of the more interesting cases is that of former psychologist Jim Singer, again in Clearfield County.  Dr. Singer saved a young girl's life by reporting her abuse and taking the extra step of hiring his own attorney to approach a judge to get a protective order for the child.  The judge issued the order. A state police investigation of the case revealed that Clearfield County CYS never investigated or even filed a formal report of the abuse incident.  Instead, CYS and other entities retaliated against Singer for reporting the abuse resulting in the loss of his license to practice psychology.  There have been other retaliatory cases in Centre County, though not as extreme as what happened to Jim Singer.

What becomes apparent after studying the issue of child abuse is that the failure to report child abuse is not a problem in Pennsylvania.

The problem is what happens AFTER a report of child abuse is made.  I suspect that the 2001 case is another example of DPW failing to protect Pennsylvania's children.



Coming Soon:  The Failure to Report Child Abuse "Dog and Pony" Shows

Tom Harmon: The Untold Story

Gary Schultz's not so "secret file" continues to unravel the false charges of a cover-up by PSU

By

Ray Blehar

As I mentioned previously, seasoned analysts sometimes detect missing information -- information that should be found, but is conspicuously missing - that leads to solving a case.

In this propaganda campaign by the Attorney General, omissions and false statements have been the norm from the release of the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment to the most recent testimony at the preliminary hearing.

The AG's accusation of a PSU cover up to avoid bad publicity or preserve the Penn State brand is held together by a web of lies and omissions, a number of which involve PSU's former police Chief, Tom Harmon.

The questions not asked of Harmon (at the preliminary hearings), his apparent false statements, missing witnesses, altered evidence, and the absence of key evidence are all part and parcel of the propaganda campaign.  When you put the pieces together, circumstantial evidence points to Tom Harmon as the person who likely reported the 2001 incident to Centre County CYS and blows up the false narrative of a cover-up by the indicted PSU officials.

I suspect the most important lie, among the suspected lies told by Harmon, is that Schultz never told him about the 2001 incident.  When you look at the evidence, Harmon's contention that he was never told about the McQueary incident just doesn't hold water.

In short, Harmon - like Cynthia Baldwin - is a very likely a cog in the wheel of the Commonwealth's false narrative that deflects the blame from the state's child protection agencies and instead places it squarely on PSU. 

Harmon's Testimony  

Here's a recap of Harmon's testimony:

-- On February 12, 2001, Schultz inquired about the 1998 case (via an e-mail that has not been released publicly).

-- Harmon responds via e-mail that the police report is in the imaged files  (Freeh Report, Exhibit 5D).

-- Harmon also testifed that he knew the file Schultz was asking about was in reference to the Sandusky 1998 child abuse investigation.

-- Harmon testified that he didn't ask why Schultz was inquiring about the file.

-- Harmon testified that he didn't recall Schultz asking for the file and he didn't recall providing it to him.

-- Harmon later testified that if Schultz would have asked him for it, he would have remembered that fact.

-- Harmon testified that Schultz didn't say there was another Sandusky incident in 2001, otherwise Harmon said he would have opened an investigation.

However, the prosecutor never asked if Harmon, himself, had retrieved the file or bothered to look at it.

Nor did they ask him if he ever discussed the contents of the 1998 police report with Schultz.  To be fair, the defense team didn't ask those questions either.

They are interesting questions because Schultz's handwritten note from his personal file says: "reviewed 1998 history."

How did Schultz do it?

Schultz's Review of the 1998 Incident

Schultz could have gotten the 1998 police report from someone else in the University Park police department.  That's possible, but not likely, considering that if someone else provided the file, they'd have been identified as a witness in the case to lock down the pejury charge.  Schultz was charged with perjury because he claimed he was not aware of the 1998 police report.  The charge was made in March 2012 - before Schultz and Belcher turned over the file formerly known as the "secret file."   Therefore, that charge was likely made based on the e-mail evidence, which was turned over in March 2011 according to OAG forensics expert Braden Cook.  The e-mail Exhibit reveals Harmon informed him of the existence of the police report.  Barring the possibility that the OAG already possessed the "secret file," the e-mail is the only evidence of Schultz's knowledge of the 1998 police report that could have substantiated the perjury charge.

Schultz also could have reviewed the 1998 history from his review of the contents of the "secret file."  The file contained at least five pages of hand written notes on the 1998 case, including  Freeh Report Exhibits 2H (2 pages), 2I (2 pages), and one page that contained five bullet points on the investigation.   In addition, Schultz also could have accessed his e-mails from 1998 rather easily.  If the e-mails and notes were the 1998 history reviewed by Schultz, then it would mean he testified truthfully about his lack of knowledge of the 1998 police report.  This scenario is highly probable, given that the Sandusky file was in a drawer in his office and the e-mails were accessible (the system turnover occurred in 2004).

A third alternative was that Harmon pulled the file and provided the information to Schultz verbally.  I find that this is a highly probable scenario, given the evasiveness of the prosecutions questioning, the evidentiary omissions, and behaviors typical of a police officer.

So, let's play this out for a moment in this hypothetical conversation.....

Schultz:  Tom, do we have a record of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky?

Harmon: "Regarding the incident in 1998 involving the former coach, I checked and the incident is documented in our imaged archives." (Actual Reponse)

Schultz:  Thanks, Tom, I just felt like checking on that today - kind of hit me out of the blue.

Harmon: Anytime, Gary.

Rather implausible, wouldn't you say?

Harmon testified that Schultz rarely involved himself in police investigations and could not recall Schultz asking to review other police files.   Schultz also testified that he didn't customarily review police reports.  So, this was not a routine question by Schultz and it was something that Harmon recalled from memory.  Harmon then testified that to his recollection, Schultz did not ask for the file nor did he provide it to Schultz, and that he (Harmon) wasn't curious about why Schultz asked about it.

But what is the reality here? 

Harmon's Inconsistent Behaviors 

The reality is that any policeman worth his or her salt would at least ask the reason for the inquiry -- and suspect something was going on with Sandusky again, given Harmon's knowledge of the 1998 case.   It is also highly likely that Harmon, who checked the imaged archives for the existence of the file and would have retrieved it, considering that his boss was asking about it.

The other curious (or should I say, false) statement by Harmon is his contention that if Schultz told him Sandusky had showered with a child that it would have caused him to immediately open up an investigation.  That statement is incongruent with his behavior in 1998, when a mother came to his police force with an allegation of a sexual assault against Sandusky. Given that Schreffler had opened up an investigation (which Harmon probably would have squelched), Harmon's alternative was to label the file as "administrative information."   It's also notable that Harmon thought it important to notify Schultz about Chambers' psychologist's report generating an incident number with DPW.   However it is unlikely that Harmon chose to label the file as "administrative information" to avoid the media finding out - rather, he did it to likely protect his fellow church goer and former neighbor, Jerry Sandusky, from public scrutiny. 

Harmon's alleged rationale of PSU avoiding bad publicity (not so ironically, the Commonwealth's story of PSU's motive in this case) is also incongruent with his behavior as the Chief of the University Park police, when his police force was arresting PSU football players one after the next from 2000 up until and after the time he retired in 2005.   It's quite an impressive record of arrests - 60 over 8 years (according to a June 11, 2008 blogpost on BlackShoeDiaries) and many of those, including the high profile Maurice Humphrey case, occurred on Harmon's watch.

The evidence indicates that Tom Harmon and the University Park police didn't give a whit about bad publicity for PSU or the football program.

The AG's rationale of a cover-up to avoid bad publicity never made sense.  Now it makes even less sense when you know the history of Tom Harmon's policing activities.

Detailed Timeline Highlights Facts About 1998, Second Mile

A detailed analysis of the 2001 timeline indicates that Schultz did not remember the 1998 report until after talking with Spanier on the afternoon of February 12, 2001 -- and likely after speaking with Harmon about the 1998 and 2001 cases.  Given all of the above, it is likely that Harmon was the person who jogged Schultz's memory about the 1998 case and who was asked by Schultz to report the incident to CYS.

The 2001 Detailed Timeline 

Bold italics indicate suspected activity
 Times in italics are approximate

2/9      McQueary witnessed incident in Lasch. Tells his father & Dr. Dranov - and possibly his girlfriend.

2/10    9:00 AM McQueary told Paterno about the incident. (AM)

2/11    9:00 AM Paterno informs Curley and Schultz of incident (AM)

2/11    Schultz consults with Wendell Courtney.  Courtney later claimed no knowledge of 1998 incident.

2/12    Schultz phones Harmon and instructs him to contact CYS regarding 2001 incident.

2/12    2:30PM Schultz and Curley meet with Spanier.  Spanier was not told about 1998 incident. 

2/12    Schultz e-mails Harmon regarding the 1998 case. (Not admitted as evidence)

2/12    4:57PM Harmon replies that the 1998 police file is in the imaged archive.  

2/12    Schultz discusses 1998 incident with Harmon.  

2/12    Schultz writes note outlining the following:  

           Met with TMC. Reviewed 1998 history. TMC to meet w/JS on Friday. Option to call DPW.

2/13

2/14

2/15

2/16    Postponed TMC meeting with Sandusky.

2/17

2/18

2/19    Schultz and Curley meet with Mike McQueary

2/20

2/21

2/22    Schultz e-mail to arrange meeting with Curely and Spanier. (Not admitted as evidence.)

2/23    Spanier sends e-mail to confirm meeting.  (Not admitted as evidence in preliminary hearing.)

2/24

2/25    Handwritten note from Schultz outlining next steps.  

2/25    Spanier meets with Curley at his residence to discuss next steps.

2/26    1:57PM Schultz e-mails Curley 

           1. Talk to subject ASAP about not using facilities with TSM.  2. Contact TSM.  3. Contact DPW.

2/27    8:10PM Curley e-mails to pitch revised plan.  10:18PM  Spanier confirms plan. 

2/28    2:13PM Schultz confirms plan.

The (Possible) Schultz/Harmon Discussion

The not so "secret file" states that Schultz "reviewed 1998 history."  I suspect that the review by Schultz included his files on the 1998 report, e-mails, and a discussion of the 1998 case (police report) with Harmon.  

One of the more interesting facts in the e-mail evidence is a passage on the e-mail (Exhibit 2C) of June 8, 1998 from Schultz to Harmon, which states:  "I recall the last time we talked you indicated that there was some aspects of this that you felt you should review with me when we had a chance to talk."

The history of the 1998 case shows that CYS punted the case to DPW after the first day of the investigation, after "realizing" they had a conflict of interest with The Second Mile.  CYS also arranged to bring in John Seasock to perform the evaluation of Victim 6.  The police report demonstrates that Detective Schreffler was critical of Seasock's interview and questioned him about his knowledge of the case.   (Note: The file also appears to have alterations on the page regarding the fateful psych interview conducted by Seasock.) 

At the July 2013 preliminary hearing, Harmon revealed that on May 27, 1998, CYS called the University Park police to request that Schreffler not interview Sandusky without DPW's Lauro being present.  

Given the above, Schultz may have gotten the impression that CYS was not operating on the up-and-up when dealing with Sandusky and that DPW may need to be called in "as an independent  agency concerned w child welfare."  Why would Schultz call out DPW's independence in the matter if it wasn't for the fact he had reservations about CYS? 

Critical Point On Timeline:  Wendell Courtney Consultation

Wendell Courtney's legal review of the incident is the critical point on the timeline that makes the scenario of Harmon as the designated reporter very likely.  While we don't know how he advised Schultz, we do know that the law on child abuse reporting requires a report to be made within 48 hours.

A fair reading of the 2001 law would have provided PSU with two options that would have required them to "make or cause a report to be made" of the incident.  The first option would be directly reporting the incident to child protection authorities and the second would be to inform The Second Mile (Sandusky's charity) with the expectation that they would file the report. 

Schultz's note makes clear that contacting The Second Mile was not the option selected.

If Courtney determined that the "time clock" started upon McQueary's report to Paterno on 9:00 AM Saturday, February 10th, the deadline for making a report would have been Monday, February 12th at 900 AM.  Thus the hypothetical of Schultz directing Harmon to report to CYS on Monday morning would fit the timeline for making the report in the legally required time.  It is also entirely logical that Harmon, as the Chief of Police, would be the individual Schultz would direct to initiate a report.

The option of reporting the incident to The Second Mile didn't arise until February 26th, according to available evidence. It is then logical to conclude, based on the available evidence, that Courtney advised that PSU contact CYS.  The contact of DPW referenced on Schultz note was outside the legal time limit, thus was likely a back-up plan (as I alluded to earlier).

Follow up discussions focused on Sandusky's behavior

Note that while there was a legal requirement to report Sandusky (which appears to have been resolved by Monday, February 12th)  PSU officials still had to resolve the issue of Sandusky' inappropriate behavior as an emeritus employee.  It was clear that Schultz and Curley needed to gather facts from McQueary to know what exactly was observed, assess the situation, and determine further actions.

The evidence in the case indicates that Schultz had a greater sense of urgency about resolving the matter than did Curley, considering his actions to consult Courtney about the incident, his contacts with Harmon, and his management of the situation involving his administrative assistant, Joan Coble.

The 25 February e-mail from Schultz to Curley likely originated because of Coble's  "tickler" file.  As Coble testified, she put pending actions in the file and reminded Schultz about them at various intervals.  The March 7, 2001 e-mail from Coble to Curley would be indicative of her use of the "tickler file" to ensure that Curley closed the loop with Schultz on the matter.

Based on this information, Freeh's conclusion that Curley met with The Second Mile on March 19th would be contradicted by not only the March 7th e-mail, but by Spanier's statement (Exhibit 2J) that Curley had met with Sandusky and The Second Mile within days of their February 26th meeting.

Schultz and Courtney Recall PSU Contacted CYS

At the December 16, 2011 Preliminary Perjury Hearing, Gary Schultz made at least six references (starting on page 227) in which he recalled or referenced a report and/or investigation of the 2001 incident by the "the agency" or "the child protection agency" that handled the 1998 investigation.  At one point during the questioning, prosecutor Frank Fina lied to Schultz, telling him that the police handled the investigation in its entirety (page 228).  Here is the transcript from which it is clear that Schultz believed the incident was turned over to the "child protection agency" and that Frank Fina lied.

Wendell Courtney also recalled that Penn State had contacted CYS in 2001.  Page 84 of the Freeh Report states:  "..However, I recall that someone (I don't think it was me, since if it was I would have written documentation of the contact) contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation so that they could do whatever they thought was appropriate under the circumstances, while being apprised what PSU's actions were, i.e., advising JS to no longer bring kids to PSU's football locker rooms."

The AG's press release of the Sandusky indictment and grand jury presentment, incorrectly stated that Courtney represented both The Second Mile and Penn State in 1998 and was apprised of the details of that case.  Courtney corrected the record, stating he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, a report of a rape in 2002, and did not represent TSM as it's counsel until 2009.

The AG's (Nils Frederikson) response to Courtney's corrections (incredibly) was: "If he wants to engage in semantics, so be it."

TSM confirmed that Courtney was not hired as their legal counsel until 2009.  

In summary, two PSU officials recall a report was made to CYS in 2001.  It would be fantastic if PSU could produce a record of this contact and end this entire mess.

Unfortunately, it appears that Chief Harmon, who didn't want to have a crime log report on Sandusky in 1998, would have been the guy to make such documentation of a report to CYS.

It's likely we now know why PSU doesn't have a record of the 2001 report anywhere in its files. 

What Would Other Missing "Evidence" and Testimony Prove?

Missing E-Mail Evidence

Why has the Schultz e-mail "request" for the 1998 case information never been released or viewed as evidence?  What language does it contain that is so damaging to the state's case that neither the prosecution will introduce it as evidence at proceedings or that Louis Freeh would exclude it from his report?

Did it contain instructions for Harmon to open an investigation or contact child welfare?  Did it mention the 2001 incident?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Another piece of evidence that should be bolstering the Commonwealth's case (of a failure to report by PSU) is the testimony of a case worker or similar individual from CYS.  

But we haven't heard from those people either.

Carol Smith/CYS

The Commonwealth has relied on Agent Anthony Sassano to testify on CYS's behalf in this matter.  Sassano stated he contacted Carol Smith, the Director at Centre County CYS, who informed him that she did not recall any report nor have knowledge of a report in 2002 (sic).   Sassano stated that Smith recalled the 1998 case, but none after that.   

Of course, Carol Smith has quite an incentive to lie, as does anyone else working at CYS who may have decided not to investigate the case.  I suspect that's why she nor anyone else at CYS has been called to testify in this matter.  

There is little doubt that someone at CYS knows about PSU's 2001 report, but hasn't the courage to step forward and tell the truth.

Jerry Lauro/DPW

Similarly, the Commonwealth has not asked DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, or anyone else to take the stand to testify to the lack of receipt of a report.  I can understand the Commonwealth's reluctance to call Lauro, considering he made statements to the press about never seeing either psychology report in 1998, yet was responsible for arranging one of the interviews.  He's not a credible witness.

Agent Anthony Sassano

 Interestingly enough, Sassano actually let slip (on page 170) that DPW had records of the report (see below)

At the July 30, 2013, Preliminary Perjury Hearing, Sassano was cross-examined about whether he rechecked for the existence of records regarding the 2001 incident.  Originally, Sassano and everyone else (except Sandusky) believed the crime occurred in 2002.   Sassano answered that he checked with CYS, but not DPW. Then he incorrectly stated that he did call DPW and they had no report (page 26).  Therefore, Sassano has yet to close the door on the issue of the 2001 report still floating around at DPW.

Sassano then made the case that the absence of a police report at the time of the 2001 incident was proof of a failure to report because investigations are always conducted jointly between police and child care caseworkers.  Sassano then stated he checked with the University Park police department and they had no report of an investigation in 2001.

And why would they?  

The person who would have opened up that investigation (and report) was none other than Tom Harmon.

More Prelim: Harmon Never Provided 1998 Police Report to Schultz

In testimony completely overlooked by the lapdog media, police Chief Tom Harmon revealed that  he NEVER provided the 1998 police report for Schultz's review, other files existed, and DPW may have pulled a fast one. 

By
Ray Blehar

The media coverage of the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier preliminary hearings was much like its coverage of the Sandusky trial.  At the Sandusky trial, when the defense scored points, the keyboards were silent.

So too at the preliminary hearing.

To find out that the defense scored major points at the preliminary hearing you had to read about it on FramingPaterno.com or on this blog.  If you relied on reporters from the Centre Daily Times or the Patriot News, you would not have learned that Corro and Belcher discredited a number of Louis Freeh's and the OAG's allegations of obstruction of justice.

Similary, the reporters missed a lot of revelations from police Chief Tom Harmon.

Harmon Never Provided 1998 Police Report To Schultz

In what was the most surprising turn of events regarding the 2001 case, Tom Harmon stated he never provided the 1998 police report to Gary Schultz for his review in 2001.  Thus the handwritten note (Exhibit 5C, dated 12 February 2001) by Schultz, stating "reviewed 1998 history" becomes a very curious piece of information.  What history was reviewed if Schultz never received the police report?  Harmon did not state, under direct questioning or otherwise that he ever provided the 1998 report to Schultz. Harmon's testimony (under cross examination) is below and it appears Schultz only inquired as to the report's existence, but never asked to see the file.

The e-mail evidence in the Freeh Report, specifically Exhibit 5D, confirms that Harmon acknowledged the existence of the police report file but there is absolutely no evidence to date proving that he turned it over to Schultz.  If he had, the Commonwealth surely would have elicited that testimony under direct examination. And if Harmon had done so, the Commonwealth certainly would have clarified this under re-direct.  Thus his testimony confirms Schultz never received the file from him and, very likely, testified truthfully to having no knowledge of the 1998 police report during his January 2011 grand jury appearance.

One of the perjury charges in the case is based on the allegation that Schultz knew the details of the 1998 case when he was questioned about it at the grand jury.

The particulars of this allegation were provided to the courts on March 30, 2012, before the alleged "discovery" of the "secret file" by Freeh in May (or the actual turnover of the file to the OAG in April 2012).  Therefore, the allegation is predicated on either Schultz's assumed knowledge of the case from the police report (which he never saw) or from e-mail evidence turned over to the OAG.  

The e-mail evidence is non-specific, therefore, the basis for the perjury charge when it was made was highly dubious --  unless the OAG possessed the Schultz "secret file" that indicated the level of details known to Schultz about the case in 1998.  That he could not recall details of the 1998 case 13 years later isn't perjury, it's more likely a limitation of Schultz's memory

The "secret file" of Schultz appears to be the gift that keeps on giving....

Additional Information In the Schultz File

As I wrote in this blog post, there were a number of documents referenced in the Freeh Report, pertaining to the 1998 investigation,  that were not included as exhibits in the report.  I also opined that there may have been chain of custody issues with the file and exculpatory evidence removed after former PSU General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin was allegedly alerted to the file on January 5, 2011 or shortly thereafter.

Harmon's testimony revealed yet another document (Commowealth's Exhibit 13) - a handwritten note by Schultz of May 5th, 1998 - that was previously unknown to the public.  The note contained five bullet points, one of which stated  that the  Dr. Alycia Chambers did indeed make her report to the DPW.  See below.

This fact was somewhat muted in the Freeh Report (page 42) as it reported Chambers contact as a "report to the Pennsylvania child abuse line."  This language was pulled from Dr. Chambers report (page 8/25), however, the call was indeed made to the hotline operated by DPW and the report was made early in the investigation.  This can also be confirmed by the handwritten note (Freeh Report Exhibit 2H, 5 May 1998) of Schultz, stating "Mother to psychologist & said she would call child abuse hot line & will generate an incident number - with Dept of Public Welfare."  Thus, PSU officials had knowledge of Chambers' contact with DPW by May 5th, but no details of the report until May 8th.

The police report provides evidence that Detective Ronald Schreffler and Wayne Weaver (who reviewed the report) saw the Chambers report.  Harmon testified to no knowledge of the two "psychologists" being involved in the case when questioned at the December 16, 2011 Preliminary Perjury hearing.  The "secret file" indicates Harmon had informed Schultz about Dr. Chambers, thus Harmon was either lying or had a poor memory (most likely the latter - more on that in a future blogpost).  Schultz was not asked about his knowledge of the Chambers report or its contents. It would be speculative to assume Schultz was shown this file, given there is no evidence (to date)  he ever actually reviewed the 1998 police file.

As part of my investigation, I contacted Dr. Chambers on October 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM and discussed her reporting on the case.  She informed me that she released her report to the University Park police and Centre County CYS.   The report to CYS is very significant because, according to the 1998 police report, DPW's Lauro reviewed the file of CYS's John Miller on May 7 and stayed in contact with Miller at least through May 8, when the Seasock interview was arranged.   In addition, she confirmed that she provided her report orally to ChildLine.

While this does not prove that Lauro actually saw the Chambers report, it is clear that all agencies involved possessed either a written or oral report regarding her assessment of the situation by May 8, 1998 and that DPW possessed the oral report by May 5, 1998.  The investigation did not conclude until June 1, 1998, which certainly provided Lauro and others with ample opportunity to discuss all of the known details of the case before rendering a decision.  The question remains, what did DPW know and when did they know it?

That's not the only thing that is raises questions about DPW's investigation, however.

DPW 1998 Chicanery

Press reporting on the case led the public to believe that the assignment of Jerry Lauro from the Harrisburg office of Department of Public Welfare (DPW)  was a result of a conflict of interest between Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) and The Second Mile (TSM).   The Freeh Report added the twist that DPW from Harrisburg (Lauro) was brought in because it was a high profile abuse case (page 45).

Freeh's statement was easily debunked by reviewing not only DPW's policies and the Public Welfare Code, but by researching the work history of Jerry Lauro.  First, there are no provisions in policy or the code for "high profile" abuse cases.

Next, Had Lauro been this "high profile" investigator, then it would have been reasonable to see his name associated with the high profile Milton Hershey School case involving pedophile Charles Koons, considering Hershey is right next door to Harrisburg.  Not a mention of Lauro anywhere.

Finallly, wouldn't the DPW have dispatched Lauro, their "high profile" investigator to look into the Roman Catholic church abuse case in Philadelphia?  No association there either, even though Lauro was still a fixture at DPW in 2005.

The bottom line here is that Lauro does not appear to be what he was characterized to be, but the more important information that slipped by was that the Altoona/Cresson office of DPW, not Harrisburg, should have been assigned to the case.

Altoona (Cresson) Not Harrisburg

Harmon's testimony (page 77) revealed that in an undisclosed e-mail dated May 5, 1998, he informed Schultz  that the DPW Office of Children Youth and Families (OCYF)  in Altoona was contacted about the case and that he was going to "hold off on making a crime log entry."  This information about contacting the Altoona office is never mentioned in the Freeh Report (pages 20 & 48) or in press reporting about the case.

Yet another piece of missing information surfaced from Harmon's testimony.  This one was a May 6, 1998 e-mail again making reference to DPW's involvement in the case.  On that date, Harmon learned that the DPW office in Cresson would not be handling the case and instead someone from the Harrisburg office would be assigned.  See below.

While there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the assignment of the Harrisburg office, such as Cresson/Altoona's regional program specialist being unavailable, the redaction of this information in the Freeh Report (the e-mails of 5 and 6 May from Harmon to Schultz is not in the exhibits) obviously bolsters the case that Freeh's report was not as "full and complete" as it proclaimed to be on page 8 and raises a question about the assignment of the Harrisburg office to the case.

Conclusion

Harmon's testimony cast serious doubts on the level of knowledge Schultz had about the 1998 case and the validity of the perjury charges.  The press, who obviously have not invested the time to understand the details of the case, missed these facts and others from Harmon that did considerable damage to the Commonwealth's case.



Next:  Harmon may have been responsible for Pandora's Box statement