Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 2

If Corbett's assertion that the AG needed a grand jury to prove a cover-up was true, then the outcome for the former one-term governor is even worse

By
Ray Blehar

For Corbett, if his statement was true
then he confessed to foot-dragging.

While the official facts in evidence refute former Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) and former Governor Tom Corbett's statement about needing a grand jury to coerce testimony and prove a cover-up, the irony is that if his statement was true, it is an admission of not investigating a cover up and/or foot-dragging on the investigation for political reasons.


As noted here, the facts in evidence were that the AG's office didn't find another victim to corroborate Aaron Fisher allegations until January 2011. 

If there wasn't evidence of more than one victim --and that Fisher reported Sandusky to the authorities -- then there was no evidence that supported a cover-up.

But what if Corbett was telling the truth?  In this case, the truth is worse than a lie.

Under one of the "truth" scenarios, the AG's office may have had a hunch that the reason the other young men that were interviewed didn't disclose abuse was because some person or persons had provided them with some material incentive not to talk.  

While it is possible that victims may have been physically threatened,  the only known victim, Fisher, came forward without fear of physical harm in November 2008.   And, like the other eventual victims, Fisher received gifts from Sandusky, such as new clothes, computers, and sports equipment.   

In short, the most likely suspect in a cover-up scenario would have been none other than the perpetrator, Jerry Sandusky.  

The Jerry Sandusky Non-Investigation

According to the Moulton Report, there is no evidence that the investigation searched Sandusky's personal records to verify purchases or to check for cash (ATM) withdrawals -- his bank account and credit card records were not subpoenaed.  

Fisher also stated he attended sporting events, such as Eagles and Browns National Football League (NFL) games with Sandusky, sometimes in the company of other children.  

Here's where the story gets interesting. 

In late 2009, Dawn Daniels claimed that she was offered free Philadelphia Eagles box seat season tickets.  In the book, Silent No More (p. 117), Mike Gillum noted that a man named "John" from the Eagles, who knew that Aaron had attended games and had set the tickets aside for them. 

At the time of the alleged offer, Sandusky's adopted son, Jon, worked for the Eagles.  He would later get a job with the Browns.

The AG "investigated" the Eagles ticket allegation and took the word of the Eagles -- that the family misunderstood and were being asked to purchase tickets.  Right -- because the Eagles routinely phone housing projects in search of prospective season ticket purchasers.  

In the one instance where a possible cover-up/payoff scenario was alleged, it appeared to be investigated pro forma and dismissed.  The "John" - "Jon" connection wasn't made.

If Sandusky was the prime suspect, then the first information subpoenaed about him were his employment records -- requested on January 7, 2010. That was almost seven months into the investigation and employment records would not provide evidence  of a cover-up.  

In fact, in the inexplicable Sandusky investigation, the evidence apparently reveals that the AG didn't consider Sandusky could have been a suspect for covering up his own crimes! 

But don't expect Bumsted or the rest of the media to figure this stuff out.

News reporters, most without any knowledge of the case, might propose that Corbett and the AG suspected that officials at Central Mountain High School (CMHS) or from The Second Mile (TSM) were behind the alleged cover-up.

Under those scenarios, there is also a dearth of evidence of even a half-hearted cover-up investigation.


CMHS Non-Investigation
According to the Moulton Report, the only CMHS individual interviewed by the police -- prior to July 28, 2011 -- was assistant principal and head football coach, Steven Turchetta.   Again, Corbett said he needed the grand jury to coerce testimony.  

Who was being coerced?  Turchetta was a cooperating witness.

Certainly, there is no evidence on the record supporting a cover-up investigation of CMHS.

The Non-Investigation of The Second Mile
Geoffrey Moulton used the word "inexplicable" to explain the delays in getting warrants for Sandusky's home and making an arrest.   However, that same word applies to the Pennsylvania State Police's (PSP) failure to interview individuals and gather evidence from The Second Mile (TSM) as a means of identifying potential victims.

Moreover, if there was an organization that should have been suspected of covering up Sandusky's crimes, TSM should have been at the top of the list.  Sandusky was the organizations founder, face, and top fundraiser. 

As history shows, without Sandusky, TSM could not exist.  

Even if the PSP didn't understand the financial incentive for a TSM cover-up, they had plenty of leads that should have caused them to visit the charity early in the investigation.   The first seven people interviewed by the PSP all mentioned Sandusky's association with TSM and his work in mentoring young men.  

The PSP continued to investigate the case when it was ensconced  in the grand jury.  

In August 2009, F.A., a former CMHS student, testified to the grand jury about being a TSM participant and being in the car with Fisher and Sandusky.   Following F.A.'s testimony, Agent Anthony Sassano drafted a list of investigative steps that excluded contacting anyone associated with the charity.  In reading the email below, the incompetency of Sassano is evident -- and likely explains why he was assigned to the case.

Even if Sassano was incompetent, he was being overseen by a seasoned prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach, who had prosecuted many sexual abuse cases.  Eshbach should have been the "backstop" that made sure investigators didn't miss anything.

Instead, it appeared that Eshbach was equally avoiding investigating TSM, as this request for subpoena reveals the gymnastics that had to be undertaken to not request records from the charity, but justify a request to Penn State.

It is notable that Eshbach and the AG had "some suspicion" -- based on no evidence on the official record -- that PSU had knowledge of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with children. 

More on that in a second.

In summary, the evidence shows that if Corbett and the AG suspected a cover-up, then it failed to investigate any of the most probable suspects until 2011.  Based on the official record of evidence, the Sandusky grand jury was not investigating a cover-up or coercing any witness testimony.

Suppressed Evidence Equals Electoral Foot-Dragging or Worse
Eshbach's subpoena request is among the earliest official records indicating the AG may have obtained information about the PSU incidents earlier than November 2010.

The unofficial record may help fill in the blanks.

Mike Gillum, in Silent No More (p. 120), stated that on June 16, 2009,  Eshbach and Trooper Scott Rossman "indicated there was some other evidence they weren't at liberty to share with me.  It was something that happened in 1998."

While the official record states the 1998 University Park police report was not obtained until January 3, 2011, Gillum's account reveals that the AG got its hands on the 1998 report much earlier -- in fact, it appears that they possessed it around the time of the grand jury began.

If that was really the case, then Corbett might have been telling the truth about using the grand jury to prove a cover-up.  Except there's a problem with the 1998 police report.

It doesn't provide evidence or suspicion of a cover-up by PSU.

In fact, it shows the opposite because PSU immediately reached out to the DA's office and Centre County CYS to assist with the 1998 investigation.

That leads to the highly probable scenario that if Corbett suspected a PSU cover-up, then he had knowledge of the 2001 incident when the grand jury was convened.

The fact that the anonymous email tip on the incident showed up the day after Corbett was elected governor provides additional evidence that he was sitting on that evidence until after the election.

In summary, the circumstantial evidence in the case indicates that foot-dragging on the Sandusky case was politically motivated.  It also indicates that the AG could have found victims and made Sandusky's arrest much sooner. 

But arresting Sandusky wasn't part of the original plan -- and that's really why the foot-dragging occurred.  

The Sandusky investigation was supposed to die a slow, secret death in the grand jury.

Next: Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

Corbett's Grand Jury Lie

Former AG Tom Corbett's rationale for the inpaneling of the Sandusky grand jury in 2009 doesn't square with the facts in evidence

By

Ray Blehar

As I was reading Brad Bumsted's "Keystone Corruption, A Pennsylvania Insiders Guide to a State Gone Wrong" last week, I  came across an interesting statement attributed to Tom Corbett on page 196 about his reasoning behind using use of a grand jury in the Sandusky case.

Corbett's grand jury rationale
doesn't square with the facts.

"Corbett said the grand jury was needed to compel testimony and because of the complexity of proving a cover-up."

That statement doesn't square with the facts.

On May 1st 2009, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General submitted the Sandusky investigation to the Thirtieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.  On May 5th, the case was accepted.

According to evidence, Aaron Fisher was the only known victim until the eventual Victim 6 was identified in January 2011.  Moreover, according to the Moulton Report (page 148), in August 2010, Corbett agreed with other prosecutors that the case shouldn't be charged due to the lack of victims.

Early August 2010. Fina, Sheetz, and Ryan meet with Corbett to discuss the status of the Sandusky investigation. Corbett affirms their recommendation that the case should not then be charged and that the search for other victims should continue. 

Corbett's response to the Moulton Report, filed by his attorney Mark Zimmer on June 11, 2014, did not provide a reason for using a grand jury, other than it was a choice made by "career prosecutors."  

More importantly, however,  the response stated that the Commonwealth did not have sufficient evidence to justify a search warrant for Sandusky's home until police interviewed Victim 7 (February 2011) and Victim 4 (April 2011) -- who provided the "fresh evidence" to justify a search warrant.

There are several credibility issues associated with the Corbett response.   Notably, the "fresh evidence" obtained in 2011 pertained incidents that occurred in Sandusky's home from 1996 through 2000, thus were of incidents five to thirteen years earlier than those reported by Fisher.   

Next, if this "fresh evidence" of "use of his residence for pedophilia" provided the basis for an airtight search warrant, then why did it take until June 20, 2011 to request it?

Finally, and most importantly, if there was not sufficient evidence to justify a search warrant of Sandusky's home until the spring of 2011, then Corbett's assertion that the Sandusky grand jury was inpaneled to prove a cover-up was a lie.

But don't expect an "insider" and ace reporter like Brad Bumsted to ever figure that out.

The PACN's Grand Jury Abuses -- and More

The Pennsylvania Corruption Network (PACN) uses the grand jury system as a sword and a shield.

By

Ray Blehar 

As mentioned in the PA Corruption Network's Playbook (January 1, 2016), when the PACN feels threatened or that they may be exposed for their own heinous acts, they use the court system to charge others with crimes (deflecting attention away from them).

The cases of the PSU 3 and current PA Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane were examples of how the playbook works -- and both cases were instances of using the grand jury system as a sword. 

Conversely, the Sandusky case and some current activities in Centre County show how the PACN uses the grand jury system as a shield.

Secrecy as a Sword

The Kane grand jury leak investigation appears to be the PACN using the system as a sword.

But before explaining that, let's wind back the clock.  

Judge Barry Feudale oversaw the Bonusgate and Sandusky grand juries, while Frank Fina prosecuted the trials.  Both grand juries had issues with leaks to the press, but no "leakers" were ever identified.  And no grand juries were established to investigate the leaks.

The Kane case, however, was an entirely different matter in terms of results.

A grand jury was convened to investigate the leaks.  It moved at lightning speed to quickly find that here was probable cause to charge the AG with contempt for leaking grand jury information, obstruction of justice for orchestrating the leaks, official oppression, perjury (part of the playbook), and false swearing.

However, before the grand jury's conclusions were reached, it was being used a sword by -- of course -- leaking damaging information about Kane to the press.   

In September 2014, the existence of the secret grand jury was reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer's was Angela Couloumbus and Craig McCoy.  The column was heavily biased toward Fina's and other former AG officials version of events, including the recitation of part of an irrelevant email, purported to be smoking gun evidence, sent to Kane by Adrian King.

  

Not so ironically, these are the same reporters who were leaked secret court documents by Judge Barry Feudale.

In January 2015, Couloumbus and McCoy again reported of the impending decision by the grand jury to recommend charges of contempt and perjury against Kane.  They were later subpoenaed by Judge Carpenter to testify about the leaks.  The Inquirer stated both would invoke the Shield Law to protect their sources.

Of course, there was no uproar to find out who was leaking to McCoy and Couloumbus -- even though part of the rationale for invoking the Shield Law was because they were exposing the "wrong-doing" of public officials (i.e., Kane).  As if another public official, say Frank Fina of the Philly DA's office or one of his associates there, couldn't have been behind the leaks.

When all was said and done, the investigation by then Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Fetri Vermin found that Kane didn't leak protected grand jury information.

But the damage had already been done to Kane by the PACN's wielding of the grand jury sword.

Secrecy as a Shield

To understand how the PACN uses grand jury secrecy as a shield, the Moulton investigation is instructive.

In 2012, then-AG candidate Kane campaigned that if elected, she would look into the Sandusky matter.   After winning by a landslide, Kane made good on her promise the day she took office.

Given the evidence of Fina's, Baldwin's and Feudale's grand jury chicanery, it's not a stretch to think that they had concerns about what the investigation might uncover.   

As a result, these preemptive strikes followed.

First, in February 2013, Feudale appointed a former AG Corbett appointee, James Reeder, to conduct investigations into the Sandusky leaks and leaks emanating from the grand jury of suspected mobster, Louis A. DeNaples.   It was likely that Feudale did so knowing that Reeder would shield any potentially damaging information from those grand juries from being accessed by the Kane (eventually Moulton) investigation.

Next, in  March 2013, anonymous sources alleged to be former AG attorneys and agents threatened to go public if Moulton's report was overly critical of their investigation or was factually inaccurate.  

 

Moulton Report: Inexplicable delays in obtaining search warrants and identifying victims.

Moulton's Report seemingly went soft on Fina and his cohorts, stating it was within his prosecutorial discretion to use a grand jury to investigate the case.  However, at the press conference announcing the report, Moulton called the delays in obtaining search warrants and other investigative steps to be "inexplicable."

In response, Corbett spokesperson Jay Pagni stated "It was a thorough, thoughtful investigation" that resulted in taking Sandusky off the street. 

But the facts show Corbett was wrong. The investigation wasn't thoughtful or thorough.  The AG's investigation clearly ignored leads that would have taken it to The Second Mile's (TSM) doorstep and to more victims immediately.

According to the evidence in the Moulton Report,  the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) interviewed Aaron Fisher, Steve Turchetta, Central Mountain High School (CMHS) students F.P and F.A, and volunteer wrestling coach Joseph Miller by January 21st, 2009. All of them told the police that Sandusky's connection to children was TSM.   

Due to various jurisdiction issues and conflicts, the case was then transferred from Clinton County, to Centre County, then to Corbett's AG office in March 2009.

On March 17th, DAG Jonelle Eshbach received the PSP report on the case, but after that, no subsequent action occurred until May 1st, when the AG inexplicably recommended the case be taken up by an investigating grand jury (GJ). 

From May 1, 2009 until January 28, 2011, the investigation steered clear of TSM.  On the 28th, it finally issued a subpoena to the charity -- but only for Sandusky's employment and travel records.  

The GJ didn't issue a subpoena for names of TSM participants (children) until March 24th, 2011.  That delay, hypothetically gave TSM officials ample time to dispose of any incriminating evidence, including (possibly) silencing of the most important witnesses.

Given the evidence above, it is highly probable that the AG was avoiding TSM because whatever was going on inside or around it in Centre County had the potential of causing repercussions in Harrisburg -- and possibly other places.  

The Sandusky grand jury investigation ensured the lid stayed on whatever was happening at the charity.

Lock Down In State College

Until the publication of Don Van Natta's "The Whistleblower's Last Stand," little was known about the alleged anonymous email tip that identified Mike McQueary as a possible witness to Sandusky's abuse.  

The ESPN article revealed the tip was allegedly sent to Centre County DA Stacy Parks Miller on November 3, 2010 -- the day after then-AG Tom Corbett won the gubernatorial election.  

Coincidence?  Likely not.

As noted in Ferman Presser: Lies, Contradictions, and Ethics Violations (January 6, 2016), the PACN includes men, women, prosecutors, judges, and political operatives across the state.

Parks Miller had her share of issues of late, including alleged foot-dragging on the sexual abuse investigation of Christopher Lee, ex parte communications with Judge Bradley Lunsford, and was accused of forging a judge's signature on a court order.    

Fortunately for Parks Miller, the grand jury system bailed her out on the forgery accusation.  On July 31, 2015, whomever the special prosecutor was found there wasn't enough evidence to charge Miller -- and so said the grand jury. 

Just days after the decision, Parks-Miller petitioned to convene an investigating grand jury "to consider at least one unsolved murder, and a recent series of other cases the scope of which cannot be determined without the powers granted to a county investigating grand jury."

Parks Miller's petition stated that unsolved disappearances, corrupt organizations, and drug trafficking cases could be assigned to the grand jury.

Few doubt that the unsolved disappearance reference is to former DA Ray Gricar, who disappeared in 2005.

In 2010, then Centre Daily Times reporter, Sara Ganim, wrote that Parks Miller's office would be conducting a review of the case.  Parks Miller related that she was confident the Bellefonte Police Department (BPD) was actively investigating the case. 

Three years later, the PSP announced it was taking over the case from the BPD.   Now it appears the investigation is being taken out of their hands by the actions of Parks Miller and otherwise protected from an investigation by shuttling the case to another grand jury.

But one has to wonder why the Commonwealth didn't do more sooner about the Gricar disappearance.

Network Connections 

When the Sandusky scandal broke, the media connected the April 2005 disappearance of former DA Ray Gricar to "unanswered questions" about why he didn't charge Sandusky in 1998.   

The reason the media couldn't figure it out was because the Sandusky grand jury presentment omitted that the PA Department of Public Welfare (DPW) didn't make an abuse finding.  That decision essentially precluded Gricar from charging, according to retired PSU Detective Ronald Schreffler.  

It is also notable that the presentment didn't even mention that Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) was involved in the 1998 investigation.  Contrary to what was written in the  Freeh Report about CC CYS recusing itself from the investigation in early May, it remained involved until May 27th. 

In summary, the Sandusky grand jury presentment (and later, the Freeh Report) was used as a shield to hide the failures of the DPW and CC CYS to protect children from Sandusky.   Conversely, its sword came out when it falsely saddled the PSU police and Ray Gricar with the responsibility of deciding the 1998 case.

But, the PACN may have been doing more than hiding the failures of  child protective services when it put forth the false story about 1998.  It was likely protecting itself.

Corbett didn't put Fina
on the Ray Gricar case

When  Ray Gricar went missing on April 15, 2005, then-AG Tom Corbett didn't seem overly concerned about it. 

Instead of Corbett calling on the PSP, the AG's criminal investigation division, or better yet, forming a task force to investigate the case, he let it stay in the care of the little BPD.  Obviously, the BPD could not marshal the resources that the PSP, AG, or a task force could.

About a year later, on February 28, 2006, Corbett announced the formation of a new Public Corruption Unit, rationalizing its need because Pennsylvania had legalized slots and casinos.  Corbett also noted the legislature formed an independent, elected AG's office in 1978 in order to fight public corruption.

In what now seems like a fox watching the hen house move, Corbett named  Frank Fina to be the chief of the new anti-corruption section. 

Interestingly enough, Fina was the AG's head of the criminal investigation division in 2005.  As Fina has been lauded by the media for his prowess, one has to wonder why Tom Corbett didn't tag him to lead the Gricar investigation.  

It gets better.

Some of the others assigned to the Public Corruption Unit were:

Patrick Blessington and Mark Costanza, two attorneys who would eventually be snared in the "porngate" case;

Jonelle Eshbach, who led the Sandusky investigation and then hot footed it out of town; and, 

James Reeder, who Barry Feudale assigned to investigate the grand jury leak cases related to Sandusky and suspected mobster and casino owner Louis A. DeNaples. 

As any prosecutor will tell you, too many coincidences are not a good thing for criminal defendants or for targets of conspiracy and corruption investigations.

While the media scoffed at Kane's suggestion that a corrupt "old boy's network" was out to get her, it appears she may have been right.  All that's missing to prove Kane's case that the network has it out for her is the "smoking gun" evidence.  

I'm willing to wager that evidence will be of the email variety.

Coming Up:

About That Oath

Governor Corbett Doth Protests Too Much, Me Thinks

Note:  While I continue to analyze the latest filing, I provide this post for your reading pleasure.


Much like Keith Eckel's protest about being compromised, Tom Corbett denies "conspiracy" between his administration, law enforcement, and PSU in firing Paterno.  

By

Ray Blehar

Corbett:  Protest of conspiracy
between his administration,
the OAG, and PSU was most
interesting part of his latest denial.

Last Thursday, November 6th, recently defeated Governor Tom Corbett once again  downplayed his role in the firing of Joe Paterno.

"They probably shouldn't have fired him. They probably should have suspended him..."

What's this "they" stuff, Governor?  

You interjected yourself into the meeting to dissuade trustees from speaking out in support of Paterno.  

While the controversy over the firing has been discussed many times, I found the last two paragraphs most interesting.

In the interview, Corbett said the board of trustees - on which he sits as governor - never recovered from the decision to fire the 85-year-old coach, because it caused its focus to shift from where it should have been: Sandusky's crimes against children.

"There was no conspiracy from law enforcement or from the administration or from Penn State to do anything to Joe Paterno."

Corbett's voluntary denial of his administration's, law enforcement's and Old Main's "conspiracy" to railroad Paterno (and Spanier) was even more of a "tell" than his campaign supporter and colleague, Keith Eckel's recent protest about being compromised.

There is little doubt the AG and Law Enforcement shifted the focus to Paterno and Penn State and that Corbett had a key role in the firing.

Noonan (Law Enforcement) Shifted Focus to Paterno

Noonan: Condemnation
of Paterno and PSU 
was self-serving

Clearly, despite Linda Kelly's smokescreen of praise for Paterno doing the right thing, the AG was making the Sandusky case about Paterno and PSU from the outset.  Their motive was to deflect attention away from the failures of child welfare in 1998 and their own shoddy investigative work.  

It was no accident that Frank Noonan, the top cop, was outspoken in making his morality case against Paterno.  Noonan's bungled law enforcement investigation of Sandusky took nearly three years because of a failure to form a multi-disciplinary team (or task force), the failure to execute timely warrants, and the failure to follow leads.  

Without scapegoating Paterno and PSU, Noonan and OAG officials would have been in the line of fire and may have had to answer tough questions about the safety of children while the investigation lagged.  

Grand Jury Presentment Focuses on Roles of Paterno, McQueary

The Sandusky grand jury presentment was written to highlight the 2002 (sic) incident over all the other incidents in the report.  Placing the incident second in the chronology of the report made it appear that if PSU had done more about Sandusky, his crimes would have been prevented.  

In addition, the presentment downplayed the details of the Victim 6 incident, omitting the role of child welfare investigators in clearing Sandusky and ensuring he had continued access to his child victims.  

Kelly's AG Office led PR campaign against PSU.

The AG's press release about the presentment shows that it prioritized Sandusky's association with Penn State over that of The Second Mile, who was informed of the 2001 incident and did LESS than PSU.  Also, note that the victims are mentioned last in the release's opening paragraph.

"This is a case about a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys," Kelly said. "It is also a case about high-ranking university officials who allegedly failed to report the sexual assault of a young boy after the information was brought to their attention, and later made false statements to a grand jury that was investigating a series of assaults on young boys."

The presentment and the press release set the narrative of a PSU football sex scandal because it did not protect the names of the key witnesses -- Paterno and McQueary --  who were not facing charges.

University of Arkansas law professor, Brian Gallini, stated that Pennsylvania's presentment system bypasses many of procedural protections provided by federal criminal law. In addition to not protecting the names of witnesses and third parties, the state's system also does not provide an opportunity for witnesses and other parties mentioned by name to file any kind of legal response.

McQueary 

It was the AG's false statement that McQueary "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky" that lit the inferno that engulfed Penn State.

The public would have to wait another month for the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing find out that McQueary never saw a rape and didn't use the words, rape, sodomy, or any other explicit terms (p. 25 of transcripts) when speaking with Paterno.

By that time it was too late.  The false narrative was well established.

The die had been cast by the AG's false statement of a "rape" and the PSU BOT's failure to interview McQueary, which could have changed the narrative considerably.  None of the trustees I spoke with about the firing could explain why the Board didn't interview McQueary.

This lack of due diligence was not out of panic or a lack of time -- it was intentional.

Keep reading.

Paterno

First, it is important to note that the public has not seen nor read Joe Paterno's grand jury testimony.  

Paterno's testimony was read into the record by AG attorney Bruce Beemer, on December 16th, 2011.  It is not clear the reading was entirely accurate, given that Schultz's legal team has motioned to obtain his tape recording, alleging an error in transcription. 

In Paterno's case, the simple transcription error of "it was" rather than "was it" would be monumental regarding his alleged statement:

"Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure what you would call it."

Paterno: Police interview shows faulty
memory of the details of 2001 incident

Most objective people who are reading this would conclude that "Was it" seems to fit better contextually.  In addition, it would be quite easy to transpose two words either from the original testimony or when Beemer was reading it into the record.

Accurate or not, it was clear that Paterno was equivocating about what he had heard from McQueary.   Later, when Paterno's October 2011 police interview was released, it was also clear that Paterno had a very poor recollection of the incident and what transpired in its aftermath. 




Here are Paterno's remarks about his interaction(s) with Tim Curley.

SASSANO: Okay, did you tell him that over the phone or did you have a meeting in person here at your house?

J. PATERNO: No, I told him over the phone.

SASSANO: Did you have a subsequent meeting at your house?

J. PATERNO: Oh gez, I don’t know, we.. he’s been over here, he comes over here for a lot of different reasons and something may have come up during our, he may have come over about a football schedule, he may have come over about something else and in the process we may have gotten in to it, I can’t say absolutely no and I can’t tell you I remember doing it.

SASSANO: Did Mr. Curley get back to you at some point in time after that to advise you what actions were taken…

J. PATERNO: No, no, I didn’t, I had other things to do, we had… As I said, Jerry was not working for me.

SASSANO: Subsequent, to that you’re saying Mr. Curley never got back to you, correct, to advise you?

J. PATTERNO: There was no need to get back.

As the full interview revealed, Paterno had no recollection of meeting with Gary Schultz or any recollection of any subsequent meeting or discussion with Tim Curley after his phone call to him.   However, Tim Curley testified (p. 182) to "circling back" with Paterno AFTER he had informed The Second Mile about the 2001 incident.  The emails exhibits - while yet to be authenticated -- also show that Curley had circled back with Paterno after the initial discussion.

This appears to be a case of the AG cherry-picking testimony that fits their narrative and throwing away anything that doesn't.  

The AG made the unconscionable decision to selectively use information of questionable accuracy (from Paterno), then bastardize Paterno's and McQueary's testimony into what an unwitting public believed to be  proof that McQueary told Paterno he witnessed a rape. 

The presentment also suggested a scenario where Paterno watered the incident down to "fondling" or something of a "sexual nature" - and that Curley and Schultz also watered down Paterno's testimony.  

This evidence  rejects Corbett's claim that the AG was not involved in a "conspiracy" regarding the firing of Paterno.  

The OAG's false statements in the presentment led to the public outrage and the firing.

PSU's Role

I have written much about PSU's illogical response to the grand jury presentment and their role in the public lynching of Paterno, Spanier, and PSU. 

The evidence shows the 11/9/11 decision to remove Paterno and Spanier was purposeful and not done out of panic.  Note: The BOT's decisions and actions in response to the grand jury presentment and its aftermath also are instructive in its acceptance of the NCAA sanctions.

Frazier:  On Nov. 6th,
cautioned BOT not to
 overreact to the
grand jury report.

First, the timeline does not support panic because the BOT held a conference call on November 6 and didn't make their decisions until the 9th.  There was ample time to interview Paterno and McQueary, however, the BOT did not respond to repeated calls by Paterno (who wanted to tell his side of the story).

In addition, according to a former trustee, Ken Frazier cautioned everyone to stay calm and not overreact.  Citing his experience with grand juries, he stated that grand jury indictments should not be taken too seriously and that prosecutors can say whatever they want.  Another reason panic can be ruled out is that the BOT had five days to gather information about the incidents in question.  

They chose not to do so.

As documented by Jay Paterno's latest book, Paterno had reached out to trustees Hintz and Joyner, who refused to meet with the legendary coach.  As noted earlier, they also did not interview McQueary, who was the key witness of the case.

These decisions were not made out of panic, as there was ample time to conduct a few interviews.  Incompetency can also be ruled out, as Ken Frazier successfully navigated the Vioxx crisis at Merck.  

BOT/Corbett Probable Scenarios

There are a few possible motives behind the BOT's willingness to throw PSU, Spanier, and Paterno under the bus.  Based on analysis of the evidence, I view the following three as probable.  There are other possible scenarios  that have yet to be ruled out.

Financial
From a financial perspective, Corbett could have threatened PSU with budget cuts similar to those he attempted in 2011.  Just one year's worth of cuts, if passed by the legislature would have far exceeded the actual costs incurred by PSU from the scandal to date.  Since the firings of Paterno and Spanier, PSU's state allotment has remained level.  Is that just a coincidence or did it result from the "change" in PSU's leadership?

The Commonwealth also possibly benefited financially from the BOT throwing PSU employees under the bus.  Had PSU pushed back and put the onus of the Sandusky crimes on the failures of the child protective system, the end result could have been lawsuits against Centre County Children and Youth Services.  Lawsuits alleging CYS negligence have been filed in Lackawanna and Berks Counties, as well as and other locales.

Vendettas

Surma: Removed Paterno and
Spanier without a vote.

Another scenario involves personal vendettas.  In October 2010, Corbett, while in one of Beaver Stadium's suites, was overheard stating that he would eventually get Spanier fired (after seeing him with his gubernatorial opponent, Dan Onorato).  

This website provided an exclusive report on Vic Surma's vendetta against Joe Paterno.  John Surma joined the BOT in 2007 and immediately began pestering Spanier to get rid of Paterno.   He was rebuffed by the former President, who had already reached agreement with the Board that Paterno should be allowed to retire on his own and that PSU didn't want a repeat of the Bobby Bowden "firing" at Florida State.

Surma wouldn't take no for an answer and the evidence in the case indicates that he and a few other PSU trustees may have started working with Corbett as early as March or April 2011 to engineer the removals.

In the immediate aftermath of the scandal, Surma took control of the Board and orchestrated the dismissals of Spanier and Paterno without bringing  it to a vote.  On December 2nd, the Executive Committee of the Board convened to hold a vote and make it official.

How it went down
According to a former trustee, Surma suggested that Paterno be removed and asked if anyone objected.  Before anyone could speak, Corbett, via speaker phone said:

"Remember the children. Remember that little boy in the shower."

The trustee said that Corbett's words made it difficult to object, given that anyone that did would have looked like they didn't care about children.

The New York Times reported the Corbett had been working the phones with Surma leading up to the meeting. 

Power

A third scenario involves power.  As noted by former trustee Bob Horst, the power triangle at Penn State was President Spanier, the Chairman of the PSU BOT, and Paterno.  The removal of Paterno and Spanier would cut off the two corners of the triangle leaving the BOT chair the remaining or ruling force at PSU.  

After the "execution," to maintain its power, the Board would:

1. Only nominate and select weak University presidents.  Check.

2.  Emasculate the football program to ensure a coach would not be influential in University governance matters.  Check.

From Tom Corbett's perspective, he would benefit by not having Spanier to contend with in his dealings with PSU.  The Allentown Morning Call's article stated:

Playing a critical behind-the-scenes role in the deliberations of the Penn State board of trustees, Gov. Tom Corbett helped expedite the departure of one of his most powerful critics, longtime Penn State President Graham Spanier.

Now, with Spanier out of the picture, Corbett will have a chance to put his stamp on Pennsylvania's flagship public university.

Corbett will no longer have to spar with Spanier, a fierce advocate for public higher education, over Penn State budget cuts. And, as a de facto trustee, the governor will be able to weigh in on the search for Spanier's replacement.

It is not so far-fetched to believe that Corbett and the inner circle of the BOT cooperated in the removal of Paterno (and Spanier).

Additional Evidence

After the release of the Sandusky presentment and removal of Paterno and Spanier, PSU hired Louis Freeh to conduct an "independent" investigation into the matter.  Corbett took credit for recommending Freeh to PSU and remarked that Ron Tomalis would represent the "administration" on the Special Investigations Task Force.  

I'm very pleased with Ken Frazier leading that. Ken – I've only known him a short time – but I'm very impressed with his leadership. I'm very impressed that he has put together some people, including Ron Tomalis, on behalf of the administration and also as [state] secretary of education on that team, and the selection of Louis Freeh is I think a very good one." 

Freeh's condemnation and contempt for Paterno was palpable as he presented the finding of his investigation to the media.  The press conference was a well choreographed event, where a planned "hack" of Freeh's website precluded the distribution of his entire report to the media in advance of the event.  As a result, the full report only became available before Freeh took the stags and no one had time to read the lengthy report.

Interestingly, Corbett and Frazier media statements after the release of the Freeh Report both made it a point to state the report was 267 pages long -- as if the length of the report was indicative of thoroughness and/or accuracy.  

In the past year, considerable e-mail evidence obtained through the RTK efforts of Ryan Bagwell and BIll Cluck confirmed the collaboration between the Freeh group (the client of the PSU BOT Special Investigations Task Force) and OAG investigators.

There is little question that the PSU Administration (and its agents) were collaborating with law enforcement beyond what would be expected levels of cooperation.  

Collaboration or Conspiracy?

Under the PA crimes code, "conspiracy" has to parties engaged in the commission of a crime. As such, the firing of Paterno was not a criminal act nor does it appear that anything criminal took place prior to the legendary coach being removed.  

Unethical, yes. Criminal, no.

Therefore Corbett is correct that there was no "conspiracy" between the OAG and PSU involving the firing of Paterno -- it appeared to collaboration.

However, if the collaboration between Freeh and the OAG included commissions of crimes, such as evidence tampering -- among other crimes -- in the charging of Spanier (and/or further charges against Schultz) then a conspiracy would indeed exist.