Frazier, Tomalis Received Updates About OAG Investigation of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz

Email reveals that Frazier and Tomalis were privy to PA OAG's "flip" strategy for Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

By
Ray Blehar

In a document dated 31 January 2012, which was obtained via my investigation in November 2012, lead prosecutor Frank Fina had informed PSU officials that he "expected C & S to flip."  As my blog post on 18 August revealed, the Sandusky trial transcripts indicated that the ultimate target of the OAG was Graham Spanier.

E-mails obtained by Ryan Bagwell through his RTKL efforts, provide more evidence that members of the PSU Board of Trustees -- and specifically Special Investigations Task Force Co-chairs -- Kenneth Frazier and Ronald Tomalis were included in the group who were being updated by the OAG.   E-mails also reveal that the Freeh group received an update on the OAG's impending announcement of the Spanier charges.

The June 3, 2012 e-mail below indicates that Schultz had decided not to "cooperate."  In other words, he had turned down a deal to "flip" on Spanier.

While some may argue that this email is discussing participation in the Freeh (fake) investigation, logic and evidence proves that was not the case.  With Curley and Schultz facing charges, it was well established that they could not speak about anything pertaining to the case, thus wouldn't be considered as individuals to be interviewed by the Freeh group.  Spanier, on the other hand, had reached out to the Freeh group at the beginning of the "investigation" and offered to meet with them several times.

From ESPN:

"Since November of last year, when he resigned his presidency, he has wanted the Freeh Group to create an accurate report and has been determined to assist in any way he can," said the statement from Spanier's lawyers. They ended their four-paragraph statement by saying they remained "hopeful that truth and reason prevail."

This email erases any thought that the investigation conducted at Penn State was conducted "independently" and "in parallel" to the OAG's.  Clearly, the SITF co-chairs were being kept informed of the progress of the OAG investigation.

But what about the Freeh group?  Were they too being kept abreast of the OAG investigation's progress?

Freeh Group Informed of Pending Spanier Charges

On October 31, 2012, the day before the Conspiracy of Silence presentment was released, Frank Fina called Greg Paw of the Freeh group to inform him of the pending charges.  Paw emailed Fina back and asked if it could wait until the next day (Thursday, November 1st) or Friday?

Obviously, it couldn't wait because by the next day, the information that Fina was going to tell Paw would have been all over the news.  Thus, Fina requested that he "call quick now?"

The Conspiracy of Silence presentment is referred to as the Freeh Report-Lite in some circles because it appears to utilize much of the same language and content from the Freeh Report. Other emails after the Sandusky conviction and the release of the Freeh Report revealed the cooperation between the Freeh group and the OAG (reported here by Ryan Bagwell).  There is little doubt that the November 1st report was a collaborative effort by the Freeh team and the OAG.

The October 31st email revealed that the OAG maintained contact with the Freeh Group at least until Spanier was charged and additional charges were filed against Curley and Schultz.  Fina's rather urgent message to Paw, as well as the other Bagwell emails,  reveal that the two entities had formed a bond of sorts during their work together.

This email also raises the possibility that the Freeh group was billing Penn State for work outside the scope of the contract.  While the final cost of the Freeh "investigation" and report was a little over $8.1 million, additional billings were received from Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan (FSS) after the completion of the "investigation."  One has to wonder what exactly were the nature of these billings.

Perhaps someone on the BOT might request an audit?

Emails Prove Freeh Caught In Another Lie

The evidence reveals that Louis Freeh has been caught in another lie regarding the independence of his "investigation" at Penn State.

From his press conference transcript:

While independent, our work was done in parallel with several other active investigations by agencies and governmental authorities, including the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Pennsylvania State Police, United States Attorney, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and U.S. Department of Education. We continuously interfaced and cooperated with those agencies and authorities. We also received assistance from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). As promised, we immediately turned over any relevant evidence we found to these authorities, such as the critical February 27, 2001 emails between Messrs. Spanier, Schultz and Curley. 

Previously, evidence from the Moulton report and judicial proceedings revealed he lied about his team's "independent discovery" of the email evidence.  Moulton's report (page 158) revealed the emails were turned over to the Pennsylvania State Police on July 7, 2011.   Thus, the situation was the exact opposite of the situation stated by Freeh -- he didn't turn over evidence to the authorities; the OAG turned evidence over to him (or used the PSU legal counsel and/or the SITF as an intermediary).

Conclusion

Louis Freeh and FSS did not conduct a full, fair, and independent "investigation" of Sandusky's crimes occurring at Penn State.  The evidence uncovered so far indicates that Freeh investigation was little more than a public relations ploy to provide the appearance of an "independent" investigation.

The majority of people, especially the media, were taken in by the ruse.  However, at least one media member was not.   Snigdha Prakash, wrote in Slate magazine, that the selection of Frazier to lead the SITF would result in a cover-up.

Prakash was right about a cover-up, but missed on figuring out what would be covered up.  It was not PSU's role in the Sandusky scandal, but rather the Commonwealth's failure to take Sandusky off the streets in 1998.

Freeh's team was complicit in that cover-up.

Give to the Penn State Sunshine Fund

https://www.pennstatesunshinefund.org/donate/

Did OAG Violate CHRIA By Sharing Information With Freeh's Team?

The recent response to Bagwell's RTK Request Provided Evidence That OAG's Disclosures to Freeh May Have Violated CHRIA

By

Ray Blehar

Ryan Bagwell’s latest attempt to obtain email correspondence between the former Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) and the Freeh Group revealed that over a dozen emails in the March to April 2012 timeframe could not be released because they may contain communications related to allegations and investigation of criminal wrong-doing, among other reasons.

OAG RTKL Officials obviously relied on the erroneous Freeh press conference and/or  the OAG's "Conspiracy of Silence" presentment when it denied Bagwell's request because "emails from Mr. Freeh's group contained information about potential criminal conduct uncovered by the Freeh investigation."  

While a vast public consensus likely believes that Freeh discovered the critical emails because the former FBI Director used a world-wide press conference to lie to the public on July 12, 2012, this is another case of consensus, or the majority, being wrong.

Freeh stated:

" Our investigative team made independent discovery of critical 1998 and 2001 emails – the most important evidence in this investigation. We also confirmed, through our separate forensic review, that the correct year of the Sandusky sexual assault witnessed by Michael McQueary was 2001, and not 2002 as set forth in the original Grand Jury presentment."

Interestingly, Freeh's statement contradicted the June 14th testimony of OAG Agent Anthony Sassano at the Sandusky trial, who stated that he set the date by triangulating the date of the movie Rudy in TV Guides from 2001.  Not surprisingly, no one in the media pointed out this contradiction when Freeh reported he set the date using emails.  The railroad had been running at full speed since March 2011 and the truth didn't matter.  

Cops didn't lie during the Sandusky trial....they "answered differently under oath." (Ganim, 6/19/21)

Second Mile didn't cover up Sandusky's abuse in 2009 -- they "decided to stay silent." (Ganim, 8/12/12)

It is highly likely that Freeh was assured by the OAG that no one would ever find out he lied about his discovery of the emails.  Fina knew The Patriot News was in his pocket, controlling the narrative -- and he expected Curley and/or Schultz to "flip" on Spanier after the next round of indictments.  In fact, there is documentary evidence that in January 2012,  former PSU President Rodney Erickson had been told that "Fina expected C & S to flip."  It is highly likely that the same information made its way to Louis Freeh.

To Fina's surprise, the flip didn't happen.  He left the OAG's office after Kane's swearing in and the judicial proceedings forged ahead to the preliminary hearings under the guidance of Bruce Beemer.

Once again, the media, led by The Patriot News, "decided to stay silent" about some of the most important testimony revealed at the July 2013 preliminary hearing,  As could have been predicted, The Patriot News never mentioned  Louis Freeh wasn't involved in the retrieval of any of the "critical 1998 and 2001 emails" introduced as evidence at the hearing.

Evidence To Date

To date, 32 evidence exhibits have been introduced into evidence by the Commonwealth for the proceedings of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.  These exhibits include all of the emails from the Freeh Report, emails not included in the Freeh Report regarding deliberations by the PSU BOT and contacts from news reporters, the grand jury transcripts of the PSU Three, and a McQuaide-Blasko billing record from 2001.  

If the emails from March and April 2012 (that were denied from RTK) were pertinent to the cases of the PSU Three, then they would likely have been admitted into evidence at the preliminary hearing in July 2013.

They weren't among those exhibits.

John Corro of the PSU IT Department testified that the scope of his investigation broadened in the November and December 2011 timeframe.  The search was expanded to 60 persons (not named Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier) and included over 100 devices.  Corro reported that he was providing the requested information to the OAG, Freeh, and the PSU lawyers. 

Corro stated the majority of the 30 terabytes information (p.82) he provided after November 2011 was obtained from the Athletic Department and was gathered from the football staff’s computers in the Lasch Building and from the servers in the Bryce Jordan Center and the East Area Locker Rooms (p. 83).  This testimony supports statements of those interviewed by Louis Freeh, who remarked that Freeh’s focus was on PSU football and Paterno.

As the evidence to date revealed, nothing relevant to Sandusky was found in the searches of the Athletic Department's computers and servers.

However, Corro’s most important testimony revealed that he had turned over the emails of Schultz, Spanier, Curley, and McQueary in response to a grand jury subpoena in April 2011.  The grand jury testimony of Cynthia Baldwin also confirmed that she had promised to turn over all of the data related to PSU officials by April 15, 2011.  

Corro’s testimony also didn’t exactly mesh with that of OAG forensic expert, Braden Cook.  Cook testified that he noticed the Schultz file was not accounted for in March 2012 and sought it out from Corro, who allegedly delivered it on a DVD on March 23^rd .

Whether Corro provided the critical emails in April 2011 or on March 23, 2012, one thing is clear – both IT experts made no mention that Louis Freeh had any role whatsoever in the discovery of the email evidence.

In conclusion, the 21 March 2012 email, titled “re: receipt of emails” refers to an exchange of email between the Freeh Group and the OAG outside of the chains of custody testified to by Corro and Cook.  Whether the information is vital to a criminal investigation is unknown, however, Bagwell could appeal the RTKL Officials' ruling based on the lack of any legitimate evidence that Freeh discovered the emails.

The Schultz File

From April 11 to 13, 2012, emails exchanged between the OAG and Freeh were titled “re: seized investigative materials.”  The title surely is interesting, considering that Kimberly Belcher testified that she handed over her copies of the “Schultz files" in April 2012, one day AFTER Gary Schultz provided his copies to the OAG.   

These were hardly seizures.

It appears that the sharing of the Schultz file is another instance of the OAG sharing information obtained during a secret investigating grand jury directly with individuals not in law enforcement.   By its own admission, The Patriot News reported that it possessed the 1998 police report in January 2011 -- months before it was released publicly by MSNBC (ironically on March 23, 2012).  

Given that the Schultz file was criminal evidence obtained in building a case for obstruction of justice charges against the PSU Three, the OAG would have been forbidden from sharing these non-public records -- under the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) -- with Freeh’s investigators because the Freeh Group is not a criminal justice agency.

While the OAG RTKL Officials may believe Freeh turned over the emails to the OAG, I’m quite certain that Special Investigator Geoffrey Moulton has read the testimony of Cook and Corro and isn’t buying Freeh’s or the OAG’s ruse about Freeh discovering the emails. 

Summary

The reasons cited by the OAG RTKL Officers for not sharing emails with Ryan Bagwell also applies to the Freeh Group and to Penn State University.  Earlier emails obtained by Ryan revealed that the Freeh Group and the OAG worked in cooperation on the Sandusky case.  Those emails also suggest that the OAG may have gotten too cozy with Freeh’s team and illegally shared information and evidence outside the CHRIA.

                                          https://www.pennstatesunshinefund.org/donate/