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

1998 Revisited and Other Ponderings

by Wendy Silverwood

A compilation of comments and questions from across the “boards”

The “PSU as villain” script had to be started for a specific reason. It was never supported by the facts, especially with respect to the 1998 incident, in which Centre County Children and Youth Services along with an investigator from PaDPW were involved. Curiously we find Nils Frederickson, PA OAG Acting Director of Communications, banging out the error filled script for the 1998 investigation in his Nov. 5, 2011 press release. Once the decision was made by the PA Office of Attorney General to turn this into PSU as the “bad guy”, everything else simply dropped off the radar.

It was no longer about Sandusky and his horrendous crimes, it was now about a grand PSU “conspiracy” that the Attorney General decided must have happened to “cover up” Sandusky’s activities. Let’s cut across the media roar, turn down the volume and really listen to what actually went on.  

Fundamentally this “cover up” didn’t exist 17 months ago and it still doesn’t exist today.

Perhaps someone wanted or needed or even insisted this come out of the gate as a giant Penn State “cover-up”. It could possibly be viewed as being devised by an individual or a group, e.g. the Surmas, with the goal of bringing PSU to its knees as an institution, settling old scores, wresting control and/or seeing petty vendettas through it.

Sandusky’s own loathsome conduct, especially given his status as an agent of the county and an executive director of a state licensed children’s charity became secondary. So instead of trying a case against a preferential child sexual offender to remedy criminal acts, it’s about bringing down PSU for possible political reasons.

We have $42 million and counting for “public relations” and crisis management, a $60 million hammering by the NCAA, an $8 million sham “investigation”, a banner-toting plane flying over campus for 3 days and enough high-priced consultants, PR hacks, compliance experts and second lawyers for the first lawyers that the issue is not Sandusky who culled his victims from a state licensed entity, but PSU and its “culture problems”. 

This all makes zero sense.  Problem is, nothing’s made sense.

The McQueary testimony makes no sense. The Freeh Report makes no sense. The NCAA sanctions make no sense. The “moral responsibility” statement by Noonan makes no sense. Freeh’s grandstanding press conference makes no sense. None of the facts line up for a “Conspiracy of Silence” to “protect the football program”.  

Looking at this more clearly and focusing on everything from the timeline of the investigation to Seasock’s bizarre conclusions argues that somebody was in a big hurry to get the 1998 investigation over with. 

That in and of itself should give us all cause for alarm.

The use of Counselor John Seasock in 1998 to contradict Dr. Chamber’s findings is puzzling. Seasock knows who involved him, and other than possibly of Sandusky, he is the only one who does. So when he doesn’t make an appearance for the Defense despite the Defense have a written, signed contemporaneous “report” known to have been provided to the Centre County DA, it raises a question. Is there a possibility that there is an individual or individuals in Centre County who has/have the most to lose if it would be publicly revealed who set up the Seasock evaluation and has/have managed somehow to keep it quiet?

Only someone at the county level of government would have had the familiarity with Seasock’s brand of “compliance”, familiarity with Ray Gricar, familiarity with Sandusky and familiarity with The Second Mile.

What is troubling is that whoever was responsible for recruiting and hiring John Seasock to evaluate the victim has received ZERO scrutiny. 

Another troubling aspect.

Why did the PA OAG direct Freeh to stay away from University Park Police Chief Tom Harmon? He was the person most directly at the center of the 1998 investigation. Freeh was tasked with looking into exactly what “went wrong” at PSU and he can’t speak to the one person at the center of everything?  A long-term former head of a large police department cannot be interviewed in an “independent” investigation? 

Does not make sense.

The person who put Freeh in place did so knowing that he would reach the “right”
result, and that Freeh would abide by the Attorney General’s rules and not put anyone in an awkward position by attempting to talk to people with actual knowledge of what they were being asked. So why did Freeh operate in tandem with the AG’s office?

Even Sara Ganim’s headlines’ promoted the prevailing narrative yet demanded corrections when new information surfaced. Those corrections, however, never materialized. 

More questions.

Why is Investigator Jerry Lauro of PaDPW getting a free pass? Clearly CYS and PA DPW are at fault for the 1998 situation. Perhaps because they had such a cushy relationship with The Second Mile they cannot or will not ever admit to their responsibility. Why wasn’t The Second Mile immediately turned upside down by the State? The PA OAG has oversight of non-profits in the Commonwealth; visiting The Second Mile offices did not require a subpoena and could have swiftly been dealt with.  Why hasn’t CYS & DPW been a focal point for the indignation about Sandusky? 

Where is the outrage at these agencies and why are no officials taken to task?

Taking on a hugely popular and politically connected entity like The Second Mile or those politicos that create for-profit juvenile prisons and the ensuing “Kids For Cash” scandal has not particularly been PA DPW’s strong suit. 

What does this tell us about the very systems we have in place to protect our kids?

 

We can only hope that Kathleen Kane’s office goes back to 1998 – and interviews the CYS head; the CYS intermediary; the DPW “supervisor”, who supposedly issued the interview order; Jerry Lauro; Victim Number 6's mom; Victim Number 6, to the extent he has any independent memory of the “incident”; retired Detective Schreffler; Officer Ralston; retired PSU Chief Tom Harmon; John Seasock and Dr. Chambers. 

And then begin to carefully and clearly connect the dots…

Mad Libs: Who was responsible for Sandusky's crimes

By
Wendy Sliverwood

Taken from page 5 of the Introduction of the Freeh Report:

“The evidence shows that ________________ also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower.  Again, ___________showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that ________________was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his ___________________for almost _______ years, and had an office just steps away from ___________.  At the very least, ___________ could have alerted the entire ______________ staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the ______________.  _________________also failed to alert the _________________about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky.  ________________ even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct.

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity. “

…If we replace “Paterno” with other key individuals we can make some reasonable conclusions…

Alycia Chambers – State College Psychologist

The evidence shows that Ms. Chambers’ colleagues were made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an agent of the County by virtue of his adoptive & foster parent status, and had an office in a childrens’ charity just minutes away from Ms. Chambers office.  At the very least, Ms. Chambers could have alerted the entire Centre County CYS staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into his home. Ms Chambers and her colleagues also failed to alert The Second Mile Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

Jack Raykovitz – CEO The Second Mile

The evidence shows that Jack Raykovitz was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, spoke about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been an Executive Director of The Second Mile, and had an office just steps away from Dr. Raykovitz.  At the very least, Dr. Raykovitz could have alerted the entire Second Mile staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child to Second Mile events, outings and camps.  Dr. Raykovitz also failed to alert CYS/DPW/Childline about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  Dr. Raykovitz instructed Sandusky to wear swimming trunks on future occasions when he showers with young boys.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity (while wearing swim trunks).

Child Protective Services

The evidence shows that Jerry Lauro and John Miller were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed reports with their agencies, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been the subject of abuse complaints by Debra Long (the natural mother of Matt Sandusky).  At the very least, Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller could have alerted The Second Mile in order to prevent Sandusky from one on one contact with children.  Mr. Lauro and Mr. Miller also failed to alert the the Centre County courts about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct, even though Mr. Lauro was present at the Sandusky interview. 

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

The University Park Police

The evidence shows that Tom Harmon and Ronald Schreffler were involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, filed a police report about it, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a PSU employee for thirty years, and had an office on the PSU campus.  At the very least, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Shreffler could have alerted the entire University Park Police Department in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child onto campus.  Mr. Harmon and Mr. Schreffler also failed to alert the Pennsylvania state police about the 1998 investigation or takeany further action against Sandusky.  They did not speak to Sandusky about his conduct other Schreffler telling him not to repeat the practice of showering with children.  

In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

PSU Officials Had Concerns About DPW in 1998

Ken Frazier did what Freeh did - selectively used evidence to state PSU was culpable for 1998. Other evidence indicates PSU officials were concerned about DPW's role - but Freeh left that documentary evidence out of his report.

By
Ray Blehar

At the March 15, 2013 BOT meeting Ken Frazier pointed to a few notes made by Gary Schultz as evidence PSU officials knew about child abuse in 1998.  In most cases, he misinterpreted the evidence.  Frazier was adamant: “I believe that we are entitled to look at the words and contemporaneous emails and other documents that draw the conclusions that we need to draw as a university.”  

However, a fuller view of evidence shows that PSU officials were concerned about DPW's role in the 1998 investigation.

The Evidence

The first piece of evidence is on page 49 of the Freeh Report: "Harmon continued to provide Schultz with information about DPW's role in the investigation and their potential conflict of interest with the Second Mile."  

The reference for this statement is "Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12)."  This note is not included in the Freeh Report Appendix, thus, it is another piece of evidence that Freeh chose not to include for the public to view.  As I noted in my WHVL interview, the 1998 police report, the psychology report of Chambers, the Seascock evaluation, and other key evidence was excluded from the report's Appendix.

The second piece of evidence is at Exhibit 2B, where Harmon writes on 5/13/1998:  "The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child.  They have not spoken to him.  It is still my understanding that they intend to do this.  I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly."

I found it unusual that a child protection agency would want to resolve an investigation quickly.  Under the law, DPW and CYS have sixty days to conduct an investigation and at just 10 days into this investigation - with Schultz's note indicating other children could be victims of Sandusky - DPW intends to resolve it quickly. 

The 1998 police report shows that DPW then waited 18 days to interview Sandusky and agreed to close the case right after the June 1st interview.   Notably, the record does not show that then-Centre County DA was part of the decision to end the investigation.  The DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, stated in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that he didn't have enough evidence to indicate a finding of abuse.

"It didn't meet the criteria," Mr. Lauro said. "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

The next piece of evidence is at Exhibit 2C, where Schultz, after returning from vacation, he writes to Harmon on 6/8/1998 at 2:03AM:  "Tom, I've been holding some "catch-up time" on my calendar on Monday and I suggest we use a piece of it to meet and discuss the status (I also recall the last time we talked you indicated that there were some aspects of the this that you felt you should review with me when we had a chance to talk).  Please get ahold (sic) of Joan and see what time will work. thanks."

As Schultz continues catching up on his e-mail, the finds Harmon's e-mail of June 1, 1998, stating the case was closed.  At 2:04 AM, Schultz writes:  "Tom, you can ignore my earlier email, unless you feel we should talk more about this."  (Freeh Report, Exhibit 2D)

At this point in time, Harmon had already been notified by Ray Gricar that there would be no charges filed in the case and a discussion of concerns would have been moot.  However, this goes back to the point of the AG's request to Freeh not to interview Harmon who could have shared valuable insights about his concerns of the 1998 case.

Regardless, this evidence indicates that PSU officials had concerns about DPW's role in the 1998 case and subsequent reporting by this blog and others are in agreement that the 1998 case was poorly investigated.  Former FBI-profiler and child sexual abuse investigator, James Clemente, stated (in an e-mail to Wendy Silverwood) that the entire 1998 case should be reviewed.  In Clemente's interview on Media Mayhem, he specifically called out the evaluation by John Seasock as a major breakdown in the case.

Calling for Reforms

At the same Board meeting, Frazier continued his defense of the Freeh Report, stating that it wasn't chartered to look at the performance of CYS and DPW and that it was an internal investigation. He went on to say that the reforms made by PSU will ensure that incidents like the 2001 occurrence will now be reported to the proper authorities.   

And that is Frazier's and the majority of the BOT's biggest blind spot.

Given the state of Pennsylvania's child protection system, there's no guarantee that reporting abuse incidents the authorities, in 2001 or now, would stop incidents of child abuse.   

The evidence on the record, from a 2008 Health and Human Services review of DPW, shows that in 43% of the cases, children continue to be abused after DPW and/or CYS is contacted.

Frazier and the BOT's willingness to ignore the record and not call for improvements in Pennsylvania's child protection system continues to keep children in harm's way.

Media: Poor fact checking enabled false narrative to prevail

 There are a number of different statements about the Sandusky case that the media reported as facts, then were refuted.  Other statements accepted by the media fall apart under scrutiny.

By

Ray Blehar

As I pointed out in Saturday’s blog, the reports stating that an anonymous e-mail or message board tip led investigators to McQueary has never been verified.   If the prosecution received this tip, they were obligated to produce it in response to the discovery request from the attorneys of Curley and Schultz.  To date this information has not been produced, yet no one in the media has questioned the story.

Based on the evidence (or lack thereof), that anonymous tip has about as much validity as the text message Vicky Triponey alleged that Joe Paterno sent to the team in 2007. 

In other words -- none.

The anonymous e-mail tip is not the only “urban legend” in this case.  In fact, there are quite a few.  Some have already been dismissed as false by knowledgeable people, but others have escaped scrutiny -- until now.

Refuted “Findings of Fact” from the Grand Jury Presentment

 

The most explosive, inflammatory charge in the case – that McQueary witnessed “a ten year old boy being subject to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky” was refuted within one month of its publication.  At the December 16, 2011 preliminary perjury hearing, McQueary stated he could not see insertion nor used the term anal intercourse or rape to describe the act.  While knowledgeable people know a rape didn't occur in 2001, there are a number of ignoramuses in the media - Christine Brennan comes to mind - who insist that multiple rapes occurred at PSU.

The “urban legend” that Central Mountain High School officials acted promptly was refuted within weeks of the grand jury presentment when the Huffington Post ran the story of school officials telling Dawn Daniels to “go home and think it over.”   ABC's Chris Cuomo, of 20/20 fame, dispelled this "fact" when he ran the story on Aaron Fisher last fall.

Also, the grand jury account of the 1998 investigation placed all of the responsibility for the investigation on the University Park Police and the failure to press charges on then District Attorney Ray Gricar, made no mention of CYS’s role in the investigation and barely mentioned DPW at all.  It took nearly six months for the facts about the child protection agencies and Dr. Chambers to make it into the press – and this came about when defense attorney, Joe Amendola made a request for the psychology reports as part of the court proceedings. The press boiled down the DPW and CYS screw up as a case of a "lost pscyhology report."

Other “Facts” Unsupported By Evidence

 

1.        The 1998 investigation was transferred from CYS to DPW due to a conflict of interest between CYS and The Second Mile (TSM).  TSM provided foster care and foster placement services in conjunction with CYS. 

·         Based on TSM’s 1998 IRS 990, a total of $32,319 was spent on the foster care program.   The 1998 Annual Report included as section titled “Foster Family Support” which stated, “Twenty four Foster Family activities were provided to 1,316 foster family participants throughout the state.”  The foster care activities consisted of trips to local amusement parks, recreational venues, and restaurants as rewards for program participation.  TSM's foster care program did not involve any training for foster parents or any assistance with the placement of children.

·         According to the 1998 police report, once alerted to Sandusky investigation by police on May 4, 1998, CYS sent caseworker John Miller to the University Park Police station to meet with Schreffler.  Miller informed Schreffler he would check with CYS officials and get back with him about the investigation.  Later that day, Miller called Schreffler back and informed him that he would be assigned to the case.  If CYS had a conflict-of-interest with TSM regarding foster care, it stands to reason they would have informed Miller of this fact immediately. 

·         CYS Director, Carol Smith stated in a Pittsburgh Post Gazette interview that Centre  County CYS had minimal dealings with the The Second Mile. 

·         The law (055 Pa. § 3490.81) in this case states that DPW should have been called in from the beginning due  to Sandusky’s status as an agent of the county due to his work with The Second Mile. 

Conclusion:  CYS conflict with TSM because of foster care services is not supported by the evidence.   It is more likely DPW was called in because the law required it.

2.       Jerry Lauro was brought in to investigate because of Sandusky’s high profile status.

·         There is nothing in the Protective Service statutes regarding investigations of high profile child abuse cases.

·         General internet searches come up empty when attempting to find high profile child abuse cases in Pennsylvania that were investigated by Jerry Lauro. 

·         Specific searches on DPW’s website regarding high profile child abuse cases returned no results.

·         The law (055 Pa. § 3490.81) in this case supports the case that Lauro was brought in based on the fact that Sandusky was an "agent" of the county.

·         Chambers’ oral report to ChildLine on or about May 7^th would not have been a factor in Lauro’s assignment

Conclusion:  Jerry Lauro’s assignment because of Sandusky’s high profile is not supported by the evidence.  It is more likely DPW was called in because the law required it.

Note:  The PA OAG made no reference to the Protective Service law because it would have damaged their case vs. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz and also highlighted deficiencies in the CYS response to 1998 investigation.

3.        Mike McQueary only spoke with his father, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz about the 2001 incident.

·         The press has fallen into line in reporting that McQueary told the aforementioned individuals about the incident he witnessed on February 9, 2001.  However, the press has been less than curious in seeking out other individuals that McQueary admitted to telling.

·         At trial, McQueary admitted to telling his entire family about the incident (over time) and that he believed he told his girlfriend at the time. 

·         McQueary stated at trial that the incident was nothing he told the guys in the locker room about, yet on page 88 of the Freeh Report, a footnote that states that McQueary told an equipment manager about the incident.  It is likely that the equipment manager was either Brad “Spider” Caldwell or Kirk Diehl, considering both have been on the football staff prior to 2001.

·         If McQueary told an equipment manager, it’s also likely that he told others on the football staff.  While the SIC interviewed current staff members, it is unclear whether or not they interviewed coaches who left the staff – Kenny Jackson and Kenny Carter immediately come to mind as possibilities, considering they were both Wide Receiver coaches before McQueary.

·         Finally, there are the people on the message board or in the chat room that McQueary allegedly told, yet not one of these people have come forward.  It must have been a lonely night in the chat room for Mike.  Or maybe no one read his message board post (except Sara Ganim).

Conclusion:  McQueary told more people about 2001 than the press (or the AG) have reported.  And if McQueary holds to form, every witness will have been told something different.

4.        Gary Schultz kept a“secret file” on Sandusky that he hid from investigators.

 

·         Media reports  on or about June 12, 2012, stated that the Freeh investigators uncovered a file kept by Schultz containing e-mails and notes about Sandusky.

·         Court filings by Gary Schultz state that Schultz informed then PSU General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, about the existence of the files on 5 January 2011 (prior to his grand jury appearance).

·         Schultz was retired from Penn State when Grand Jury Subpoena 1179 was issued in December 2010.  There has been no credible evidence presented that Schultz was ever informed of the subpoena’s requirements after being re-employed by Penn State in early 2011.  Schultz had re-retired from PSU when another subpoena for similar information was served on  February 2, 2012.

·         At the July 12, 2012 press conference, Freeh stated his investigators uncovered the file in March 2012.  The PA OAG stated that the files were turned over to them by April of 2012 after an eighteen month delay. 

·         Former President Spanier also stated that Counsel Baldwin never informed him about any subpoenas while he was President and she was serving as General Counsel. 

 

Conclusion:  The allegation that Schultz had withheld the files from investigators is not supported by credible evidence.

Bottom Line:  The person who was keeping the existence of the files “a secret” from the Attorney General appeared to be Cynthia Baldwin, not Gary Schultz.   Baldwin's “secret” is more commonly known as obstruction of justice. 

And if she informed other PSU officials (e.g., Erickson, Frazier,etc.) about the file before it was "found" by Freeh and turned over to the AG, then we have something a bit more problematic for Penn State.