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.
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:
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)
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 23rd .
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.
Ray Blehar 
John 
