Kenneth Frazier: Cover Up Artist

Snigdha Prakash suspected Kenneth Frazier was selected to lead the Special Investigations Task Force as part of a PSU cover-up.  With his refusal to let anyone debate, let alone re-investigate, the Freeh Report and investigation, Frazier is showing his cards.

From Slate:

The Cover-Up Artist

Why is the CEO of Merck leading the sex-abuse investigation at Penn State?

By Snigdha Prakash|Posted Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011, at 6:04 PM

Penn State University trustee and Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier will chair the internal committee investigating the Sandusky case

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Much remains unknown about the extent of the alleged child abuse by Penn State’s former football coach, Jerry Sandusky, and about how long and how much university officials knew of it. If past scandals are any guide, Sandusky’s alleged abuse claimed more than the eight victims identified by the grand jury investigation. (The New York Times reports today that police are working to confirm allegations by “close to 10” more suspected victims who have contacted authorities since Sandusky’s arrest on Nov. 5.) As each additional victim’s story become known, more attention will be focused on the question of why Penn State officials didn’t do more to stop the alleged sexual predator in their midst.

Late last week, the university’s trustees announced they would conduct their own “full and complete” investigation into the matter. The probe will be headed, though, by a man with a track record of protecting powerful institutions from the consequences of their inaction: the chairman and CEO of the Merck pharmaceutical company, Kenneth C. Frazier. A Penn State alum and Harvard-trained lawyer, Frazier is best known for his phenomenal success in defending a sordid chapter in Merck’s recent past—its years-long silence about the safety problems of the popular painkiller Vioxx.

For most of the five-and-a-half years it sold Vioxx, Merck knew the drug doubled the risk of cardiovascular problems among users, but it did not tell doctors or patients. Instead, it pursued an active disinformation campaign—telling doctors that Vioxx was safer for the heart than older painkillers (it was not), squashing university scientists who dared to dissent, and withholding clinical trial results that would have definitively proven Vioxx’s risks to federal regulators. In late 2004, after the weight of the evidence became impossible to deny, Merck abruptly pulled Vioxx from the market.

Keep reading

ONE TEAM: Freeh and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General

E-mails obtained through the diligence of Ryan Bagwell reveal that Freeh's investigation was not done in parallel, but in cooperation with, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG)

From David S. Woodrow

In the late summer of 2012, after the Freeh Report, the NCAA sanctions, and the condemnation of sports talking heads, the Penn State Nittany Lion Football Team took on the motto “One Team."  

The motto was meant to signify unity, cooperation, teamwork, doing your job and watching your teammate’s back.  Surely they felt the outside world was against them so they bonded together to achieve their goal:  to go out and play football with all their hearts.  It was an inspiring season, but where did they get the “One Team” idea?  

Maybe they were inspired by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General and the Freeh Group.  Kudos to RyanBagwell for obtaining e-mails that show Freeh’s investigators and the AG investigators congratulating each other on the “scores” of the Sandusky conviction and the Freeh press release and conference.  

Let’s briefly introduce the players in order of appearance and their position at the time.

THE TEAM PLAYERS

Randy Feathers – Office of the Attorney General, Regional Director of the Bureau of Narcotics in State College.  He was the head of the Sandusky scandal investigation. 

Frank Fina – Chief Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

Anthony Sassano – Office of Attorney General Narcotics Agent, Lead investigator of the Sandusky scandal, and vintage TV Guide collector.  He has grand jury and wiretapping experience.

Thomas A. Cloud – Owner, Vice-President, and Secretary of CFR Professional Investigations and Senior Consultant with Freeh Group International Solutions LCC.  He is also the interpreter of Joe Paterno’s notes for his meeting with Sandusky and Curley about Jerry not being the next head coach at Penn State (Freeh Exhibit 3D).

Gregory A. Paw (PAW) – Partner, Pepper Hamilton LLP and head of the FSS investigation.  According to his profile on the PH website he “led the investigation at a major public university concerning the handling of a sex abuse allegations by senior university officials and the board of trustees, resulting in a “groundbreaking” report described as “required reading for boards of directors.”

Nils Hagen-Frederiksen – Communications Director for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

Linda Kelly – Pennsylvania Attorney General (appointed by current Governor and former Attorney General Tom Corbett).

THE RECORD

Communication among team members is crucial to successful execution, whether it is a game plan, rescue mission, military operation, or sting operation.  While we do not have the exact information they shared amongst themselves, these e-mail communications are incriminating in that they specifically mention working together.  And the slobbering praise and adoration they heap upon each other indicates more than just mailing a document or evidence. 

I have created the timeline, quoting verbatim the e-mails, along with the specific events that occurred during their communications (italics are my thoughts / interpretations).

6/11/12 Monday

·         Sandusky trial starts.

·         At 6:34 p.m. Randy Feathers sends an e-mail to Frank Fina and cc’s Anthony Sassano with a link to an NBC video on from The Today Show that morning.  In the video Michael Isikoff announces that “law enforcement sources” have told NBC News that they uncovered evidence that showed PSU officials concealed information on Sandusky’s behavior.  NBC's interpretation of the e-mail evidence was in the same context that would be used by Louis Freeh in his report. Isikoff continues saying state investigators obtained new evidence that PSU even did legal research on abuse (Freeh Exhibit 5A).  The video also mentions Alycia Chambers report and her conclusions of a grooming pattern, even a brief comment from her, but then mentions “a second psychologist reached a different conclusion.”  NBC did not name or show the second psychologist (John Seasock).  As mentioned is previous posts Seasock was not a licensed psychologist at the time of his evaluation, only a counselor. 

6/13/12 Wednesday

·         8:49 a.m. Randy Feathers forwards the same video link to Tom Cloud of The Freeh Group.

6/21/12 Thursday

·         1:15 p.m. Trial is sent to the jury for deliberation.

6/22/12 Friday

·         Jury announces verdict just before 10 p.m. EST, convicts JS on 45 of 48 counts.

·         10:29 p.m. PAW e-mails Fina “I am proud of you and the entire prosecution team.  Very well done.”

·         11:16 p.m. Tom Cloud e-mails Randy Feathers “As I told Tony – congrats on a great job in tough conditions.  Our team is happy.”

·         11:58 p.m. Randy Feathers responds to Tom Cloud “Thanks were (sic) happy too.  It was great working with you guys.  You are all real pros.”

6/23/12 Saturday

·         6:25 a.m. Fina replies to PAW’s congratulations the day before “Thank you for all the help and support."

6/30/12 Saturday

·         CNN breaks the news about the leaked e-mails.  CNN does not possess the e-mails, only has the contents read to them by their source.  The main e-mail is the long string between Curley, Spanier, and Shultz where Curley proposes confronting Sandusky directly and Spanier says that the gesture was “humane” (Freeh Exhibits 2F and 5G).

7/8/12 Sunday

·         2:47 p.m. Fina e-mails PAW “Did Freeh call the AG?”

·         3:23 p.m. PAW replies to Fina “No.  Your word was all we needed.”

7/12/12 Thursday

·         Freeh report was to be made available online at 9 a.m. EST.

·         Freeh scheduled to hold press conference to discuss report and its findings at 10 a.m. EST.

·         9:48 a.m. Nils Hagen-Frederiksen e-mails the text of Freeh’s press release to Linda Kelly.

·         14:39:07 Fina e-mails PAW “Greg – Truly great work.  Pease extend my congratulations to your team.  FGF”

·         12:19 p.m. PAW responds back to Fina “Frank – this note really means a lot to me.  I have a tremendous respect for you and your work, and it was my pleasure to have the opportunity to work with you on this matter,  Greg”

11/13/12

·         Sara Ganim, the lead reporter for the Patriot News, joins CNN (I am sure this has nothing to do with the CNN source for the e-mail leaks).

So the e-mails provide evidence that, despite two supposedly independent investigations, it appears Freeh and to OAG worked together to help build each other’s cases. 

THE RULES

Did any of this collaboration violate the rules that the Freeh group had with the Special Investigative Committee?  Let’s look at the Letter of Engagement (signed by Kenneth Frazier and Steve Garban) also released this week (emphasis mine):

Freeh Engagement to Perform Legal Services (11/18/11)

1.      “FSS has been engaged to serve as independent, external legal counsel to the “Task Force” to perform an independent, full and complete investigation…”  “The results of FSS’s investigation will be provided in a written report to the Task Force and other parties as so directed by the Task Force.”  “It is understood by FSS, the Trustees, and the Task Force that FSS will act under the sole direction of the Task Force…”.  It also is understood by FSS, the Trustees, and the Task Force that FSS’s investigation will be completed in parallel to, but independent of, any other investigation that is conducted by any policy agencies, governmental authorities or agencies, or other organizations within or outside of (e.g., The Second Mile) PSU, and will not interfere with any such other investigation.”

It also is understood by FSS, the Trustees, and the Task Force that during the course of FSS’s independent investigation performed hereunder, FSS will immediately report any discovered evidence of criminality to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, and provide notice of such reporting to the Task Force.”

FSS also will communicate regarding its (sic) independent investigation performed hereunder with media, police agencies, governmental authorities and agencies, and any other parties, as directed by the Task Force

5.      “For the purpose of providing legal services to the Task Force, FSS will retain Freeh Group International Solutions, LLC (“FGIS”) to assist in this engagement.”

As noted in my emphasis above, the FSS investigation is supposed to be independent.  They are supposed to act under the direction of the client.  Should FSS find any evidence of criminal acts, they are to notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities AND the client.  Did Freeh ever tell any of the Special Investigative Committee of the “evidence” he found and turned over to the AG?  Someone apparently told NBC News and CNN about the evidence (see LOE terms above regarding communications with the media).  Freeh and SIC members have some explaining to do.

Despite Freeh’s claim in his Letter of Engagement, his press conferences, his press releases, and his report, it is evident that his team’s investigation was anything but independent.  

And now WE have the e-mails to prove it.

Out of Our Minds- Part 1: Psychological obstacles to changing the narrative in the Sandusky scandal

by  Douglas Hoskins & Jessi Lillo

In this series of articles, we discuss cognitive and social factors that have shaped and perpetuated the general belief that a massive cover-up by Penn State University personnel intent on protecting a football-first culture enabled Jerry Sandusky to molest young boys for fourteen years.  Each of the topics presented are common cognitive errors made in order to deal with the demands of processing information in a complex world.  We approach each topic from the theoretical, explaining how they may have influenced the Sandusky scandal, but we do not offer them as definitive explanations, or excuses for the behavior of any individual or group.

 Anchoring

Cognitive psychologists define anchoring as initially fixating on one specific aspect of a situation or event and basing all decision-making on that aspect regardless of any additional information.  This anchor- a number, phrase, idea, or image- derives its name from the fact that it carries so much weight that an individual is unable to change perspective or consider contradictory information or incentive.  Anchoring has most often been studied in economic decision-making, but is prevalent when forming value judgments of any sort.  An anchor, simply put, is a first impression that just won't go away..  

Visual anchors, have received less attention in the literature than numeric anchors, but they have been shown to have powerful effects on behavior and attitude.  Because visual stimuli activate a variety of brain structures involved in memory formation and retrieval, emotional response and physiological arousal, they can immediately and unconsciously influence human thinking. 

What is anchoring the Sandusky narrative?

The predominant anchor in the Sandusky case is that of the little boy "being subjected to anal intercourse" in the shower at Penn State, as reported in the November, 2011 Grand Jury Presentment.  This mental image is one that is impossible to erase, even for those who have followed the case enough to know a) this was not what McQueary said he witnessed, b)the victim has refuted this account, and c) the attorney general retracted this information when she issued a new GJP a year later.    Unfortunately for Penn State, reports of the boy in the shower that flooded the visual media in November of 2011 were invariably accompanied by photos and videos of Joe Paterno, so that the image of that boy became superimposed mentally with the image of Joe Paterno and Penn State football.  Many people in the general public might not be able to remember the name Sandusky, but they can easily conjure that boy in the shower being raped while Paterno turns his back.  As of November 5, 2011, the Sandusky story was firmly anchored in the Lasch building at Penn State.  Four days later, that anchor was more firmly affixed when the PSU Board of Trustees announced that it had fired Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, though the Spanier news was a minor detail in every story.  

Did anchoring affect the Board's decision?

For most who have followed the story, the firing of Paterno is viewed as a colossal blunder that represents the point at which there was no chance of changing the narrative.  Some attribute this blunder to personal vendettas, internal power struggles, protecting self-interests, incompetence, or disengagement: and it is quite possible that one or more of these motives was present for any given individual board member and that they knew what effect their actions would have on the story, but that is an idea to be explored in a later issue.  The question here is whether the initial anchor of child rape in a PSU football locker room influenced their decision to fire Paterno.  Studies by German and American psychologists have shown that anchors significantly influence judicial decisions even when the judges and jurors were informed of their purpose and instructed to disregard the anchor.  Similar results have been shown in the fields of stock analysis, real estate, financial negotiations, probability estimates, social judgments, and general knowledge.  Multiple studies have also shown that the effects of an anchor on decision-making are more pronounced under stress, begging the question of whether the Board would have acted differently had they waited.

Could anchoring have affected the SIC investigation?

Richards J. Heuer spent 45 years in the CIA studying the psychology of evidence analysis and has written extensively about cognitive biases in the investigative process.  In his book Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, he states: 
  

The impact of information on the human mind is only imperfectly related to its true value as evidence. Specifically, information that is vivid, concrete, and personal has a greater impact on our thinking than pallid, abstract information that may actually have substantially greater value as evidence...  Impressions tend to persist even after the evidence that created those impressions has been fully discredited (Chapter 10).  

.

It has been widely publicized that Louis Freeh had a particular dislike of pedophiles and that he personally directed Kenneth Lanning, Jim Clemente's mentor, to establish the Crimes Against Children unit, and tasked Lanning with ensuring that at least two agents in every field office were properly trained in the area .  Freeh's personal predisposition, coupled with the fact that his client, the Board of Trustees, had abruptly fired Paterno could have led Freeh to develop tunnel vision during the investigation.  Even absent any personal, financial, or political motives, it is possible that Freeh was seeking evidence to fit a conclusion that he was not even aware he had already reached.  Heuer's suggestion for avoiding tunnel vision due to anchoring is to have investigators with varying areas of expertise analyze the same evidence and compare their conclusions. This practice is called Alternative Competing Hypotheses and it is a time-tested technique for eliminating bias from a conclusion.

How were Penn Stater's so resistant to the anchor?

As stated previously, anchor biases are a natural human tendency that are resistant even to conscious attempts to avoid them.  The only technique that has been clinically shown to significantly mitigate an anchor is to have equally strong contrasting anchors and to actively focus on the differences at the outset of the problem.  For Penn State alumni and fans, the image of Joe Paterno had for years signified The Penn State Way; it evoked the athletes, classmates, professors, administrators, activities and experiences that largely defined ourselves and shaped how we thought about the world.  This anchor was so well entrenched in Penn Staters that it served to counteract the merging of Penn State football's image with that of the boy in the shower.  We felt, and still feel, the same visceral reaction to that boy's image; we grieve for the victims as much as everyone else does.  We are neither blindly loyal to an icon (as critics have claimed) nor smarter and more open-minded than others (as some of us would prefer to believe).  We simply started our evaluation from a very different position and were therefore more readily receptive to new evidence as it became known.  

What can be done to remove this obstacle?

The toughest thing about anchors are that they are virtually impossible to remove once they are established.   As events of the last 15 months have shown, the Sandusky story is so well anchored in the sodomy/Penn State football juxtaposition  vast amounts of definitive, compelling contradictory information will be needed to change public opinion.  And even that may not be enough.  In most cases, the anchor can only be broken when incontrovertible evidence is found that proves the original narrative false, as happened in the Duke Lacrosse case, the case of Richard Jewell, and the Dan Rather National Guard document.

In summary, anchoring provides a very plausible explanation for how readily the current narrative of Penn State football culpability was accepted and of how difficult it would be to change that narrative from the outset.  However, anchoring cannot adequately account for the fact that this narrative has remained virtually unchanged for 15 months even as considerable contradictory facts have come to light.  Other cognitive and social factors sustaining the narrative will be discussed in later issues.

Next issue:  Fundamental Attribution Error

.

Did Penn State Officials Know Jerry Sandusky Was a Pedophile Since 1998?

by
Eileen Morgan


If you accept the scathing conclusions drawn by Louis Freeh in his July 2012 report, then
you believe that Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, and Gary Schultz knew that Jerry
Sandusky was a pedophile since at least 1998 and enabled him to continue to molest boys
for over a decade. At the time Sandusky was investigated in 1998, Curley had been AD for
about 4 years, Schultz had been in his position for a similar length of time, and Spanier had
been president for only about two and a half years. These men knew that Sandusky had a
reputation of being a pillar of the community, a caring man who had dedicated his life to
helping young, underprivileged children maximize their potential in life. According to
Freeh, these men also knew that Sandusky used his prestige and celebrity to gain access
into the lives of young, unassuming boys through his Second Mile Foundation. It is there,
where he met and preyed on boys, destroying their innocence, leaving them
psychologically damaged for a lifetime.

Freeh had us believing that these high ranking men of Penn State, Joe Paterno-Head
Football Coach, Tim Curley-Athletic Director, Graham Spanier-President, and Gray SchultzSenior VP of Business & Finance, conspired to cover-up Sandusky’s vile behavior with
innocent children for over 14 years in order to avoid bad publicity and to protect their
precious football program of Penn State.

According to Freeh’s report, these four men knew that Sandusky was investigated for
suspected child abuse in 1998 and, although the District Attorney did not bring charges
after a thorough investigation, these men somehow knew the allegations were legitimate
and that Sandusky was a pedophile. But what were they to do with this knowledge? Since
the DA would not press charges, which would keep the truth about Sandusky out of public
eye, Freeh’s theory suggests that they now needed to band together and cover-up
Sandusky’s sexual molestation of children.

A ‘cover-up’ is defined as ‘a concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous
from becoming public.’ Could it be that these men, from this point forward in mid-1998,
were in ‘cover-up’ mode? Apparently, they needed to conceal Sandusky’s behavior at all
costs in order to protect the football program from bad publicity.

PSU Officials Despised Sandusky

At this juncture, Freeh’s theory would require us to consider the thoughts and attitudes of
these men toward Sandusky after realizing he was a pedophile. A child molester is
probably the lowest form of humanity on this earth. It is doubtful there are any human
beings detested more than a pedophile. Even when incarcerated for their depravity towards children, pedophiles are often harmed by fellow inmates. That is the pinnacle of
hatred. Fellow criminals will not even tolerate the nefarious ways of a child molester. If
pedophiles survive jail time or get a light sentence, they have nowhere to go. They are
completely ostracized from society, despised and given little value as a human being.
Paterno, Curley, Spanier, and Schultz must have absolutely abhorred Sandusky. They
would have had zero respect, zero tolerance, and zero concern for him. And, they would
have wanted nothing to do with him being that they all had reputations for promoting the
well-being and development of children and youth. Not only was Sandusky the lowest
form of life, but, by Freeh’s account, Sandusky now brought them into his sick world, and in
order to protect the football program they had to accept his lifestyle and stand idly by
while he continued to destroy children’s lives while they turned a blind eye.

The Alleged Cover-Up Begins

The first investigation of Sandusky began in May 1998. However, just a couple months
earlier, in February, Paterno and Sandusky began talks about Sandusky’s retirement. So,
within two months of the first talks of Sandusky’s retirement, the four senior officials at
Penn State allegedly became aware that Sandusky was a serial pedophile. Sandusky’s
retirement would have been the perfect way out of this mess. Given the circumstances
and their likely disgust for Sandusky, they would have wanted to distance themselves from
him as far as possible and as quickly as possible. A speedy retirement would have been the
clear-cut remedy.
Knowing the probable mindset the Penn State officials must have had toward Sandusky
and his repugnant behavior, consider the following timeline of events that transpired since
1998. Do the actions of the Penn State officials harmonize with their aversion to
Sandusky? Was there a speedy retirement and a quick disengagement from all contact
with him? Keep in mind that year after year these men were becoming more deeply
involved within their cover-up, Freeh speculates, so they had to protect themselves and
their criminality even more. Incredulously, we are asked to believe that these actions were
indicative of how the four men would have interacted with Sandusky, the man they were
trying to distance themselves from as quickly as possible.

Interactions of Paterno, Curley, Spanier and Schultz with Sandusky

1998 (Page numbers/Exhibits are referenced from Freeh Report)

February 1998
- Paterno made it clear to Sandusky that Sandusky would not be the next head
football coach (p.56) (due to his time spent with Second Mile. (Exhibit 3D))- Curley considered offering Sandusky an Assistant Athletic Director position.
Sandusky declined. (p.56)

May 1998
- Report of suspected child abuse of Sandusky to UP Police, State College Police,
DPW, CYS, DA. (p.41)

June 1998
- DA determined no charges would be filed following a thorough investigation.
(p.50)

1999
January 1999
- Email from Curley to Spanier and Schultz, “I had a good meeting with Jerry
today. He is interested in going one more year (coaching) and then transition
into a spot that handles the outreach program….We need to have Joe in
support.” (p.57, Exhibit 3C)

May 1999
- Sandusky’s letter re Retirement requesting: Second Mile to have an ‘on-going’
relationship with Penn State, Second Mile to have continuing ‘visibility’ at Penn
State, Sandusky wanted ‘active involvement in developing an outreach program
featuring Penn State Athletes’ and wanted ‘ways for him to continue to work
with young people through Penn State.’ (p.58, Exhibit 3E)

- Sandusky also requested a $20,000 yearly annuity in addition to his pension, an
office with telephone, a title reflecting his relationship with Penn State, football
ticket options, access to training and workout facilities, opportunity to run a
football camp, and other options of maintaining visibility with Penn State. (p.58,
Exhibit 3F)

June 1999
- 13th
, Curley emailed Spanier and Schultz that ‘Jerry is leaning towards
retirement if they agree to the $20,000 annuity.’ The email also stated that ‘Joe
did give him the option to continue to coach as long as Joe was coach.’ And
‘Perhaps we could suggest another option of him coaching three more
seasons….Since Joe is okay with him continuing to coach this might make more
sense to all concerned.’ (p.58, Exhibit 3G)

- 29th, PSU finalized a retirement agreement which was agreed to by Sandusky
and PSU on June 29, 1999 which gave Sandusky a one-time lump sum (in lieu of
the yearly $20,000 annuity); football tickets for life; basketball tickets for life;
use of locker, weight rooms and locker room facilities for life; for 5 years,
subject to renewal, Sandusky and PSU agreed to work collaboratively with each
other in community outreach programs, such as Second Mile, and Second Mile
will have occasional recognition in the Beaver Stadium Pictorial and the Penn
State Football Story Show; and Sandusky will have an office and a phone in the East Area locker room complex for purposes of these collaborative
arrangements. (p.59, Exhibit 3H)

- 30th, Curley sought to have Sandusky re-employed as an ‘emergency hire’ for
the 1999 football season. Sandusky was re-hired for 95 days at his existing
salary plus 6% cost of living increase. (p.60)

July 1999
- Curley announced Sandusky’s retirement and said Sandusky ‘will continue to
offer his services on a volunteer basis to the athletic department’s Lifeskills and
Outreach programs.’ (p.108)

- In the same announcement, Paterno praised Sandusky’s contributions to the
University’s football program and said Sandusky was ‘…a person of great
character and integrity.’ (p.108)

August 1999
- University officials agreed to give Sandusky Emeritus Rank. Provost Rodney
Erickson signed off granting Sandusky Emeritus Status. (pp. 60-61)

August-December 1999
- Sandusky’s final season as a Penn State football coach.

NOTE: Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel did not find any evidence that Sandusky’s
retirement was associated with Sandusky’s alleged criminal behavior on May 3, 1998. (pp.
55, 58)
_________________________________________________________________________

Overview of Sandusky’s Post Retirement Relationship with Penn State

1999-2008
- Sandusky operated summer youth football camps at University Park campus
(1999-2008), Behrend campus (2000-2008) and Harrisburg campus (2007-2008).
(pp.105, 108)

- After his retirement, PSU made 71 payments to Sandusky for travel, meals,
lodging, speaking engagements, and camps. Speeches were at American
Football Coaches Association, Penn State Leadership Conference, and a
presentation at Penn State Spring Conference. (p.106)

2000-2011
- Sandusky had regular access to premium season seats in the Nittany Lion Club
for all home PSU football games. (p.105)

2003-2011
- Penn State football staff and players helped Sandusky with his annual Second
Mile Golf Outings. (p.108)
_________________________________________________________________________
2001
February 2001
- Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky alone in the shower with a boy in the
football locker room. (p.62)

- McQueary told his father, John, and Dr. Dranov (omitted by Freeh), who told
Mike to tell Paterno, who informed Curley and Schultz, who informed Spanier.
McQueary also met directly with Curley and Schultz. Curley informed the
executive director of Second Mile, Jack Raykovitz, who told two Second Mile
board members. (p.62)

- Schultz discussed the matter with PSU outside legal counsel Wendell Courtney.
(p.62)

- Schultz and PSU legal counsel Wendell Courtney recollected that Centre County
CYS was informed.(p.84 and p. 213 of Preliminary Perjury hearing transcripts)

- Curley and Schultz discussed, according to an email that was CC’d to Schultz’s
assistant Joan Coble, the possibility of informing Dept. of Public Welfare. (p.73,
Exhibit 5F)

- Sandusky was told by Curley and Raykovitz not to bring children into the
football facility any more. (pp.76-78)

September 2001
- In a press release, Gary Schultz praised Sandusky for his work with Second
Mile. (p. 79)

2008
- Late 2008, Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) reports abuse by Sandusky.

2009
March 2009
- 12th, Attorney General (Tom Corbett) launches his Sandusky investigation.

2010
January 2010
- Investigation is ramped up. PSU subpoenaed for Sandusky’s records. (p. 82)

May 2010
- 14th, Curley wrote a letter of recommendation for Sandusky for the American
Football Coaches Association Outstanding Achievement Award. (p.106)December 2010

- 28th, PSU counsel Cynthia Baldwin was informed that Paterno, Curley and
Schultz would be subpoenaed. (p.82)

- 28th, Baldwin informed Spanier and Schultz. (p.83)

2011
January 2011
- 3rd, Baldwin met with Paterno. (p.83)

- 12th, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz appeared before the Grand Jury. (p.84)

March 2011
- 24th, Spanier subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury. (p.85)

- 28th, Curley and Spanier received word that the Patriot-News was running a
story about the Sandusky investigation. (p.85)

- 31st, Patriot-News ran story about Sandusky investigation. (p.85)

November 2011
- 4th, Charges filed against Curley, Schultz and Sandusky. (p.91)

- 9th, Paterno and Spanier terminated from PSU (p.94)

Do PSU Officials’ Actions Correlate with Freeh’s Depiction?

To summarize, in 1998 the PSU men would have been repulsed by Sandusky and desperate
to disassociate themselves from him immediately. Since, according to Freeh, they were
now presumably covering up Sandusky’s crimes, implicating themselves in criminal activity,
they would have been in all out ‘protective mode.’ But the last thing they would have
allowed, once Sandusky retired, was for him to have unlimited access to the football
facilities. Logical thinking would suggest they couldn’t have taken the chance of Sandusky
committing additional crimes at these facilities, increasing the possibility of exposing their
own cover-up and criminal activity. This would have been much too risky.

Recap of Behavior

Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel did not find any evidence that Sandusky’s retirement
was associated with his alleged criminal behavior on May 3, 1998. If PSU officials knew of
Sandusky’s pedophilia, why didn’t they jump at the chance to firm up his retirement quickly
in 1998? Retirement talks began in February 1998 but did not come to fruition until June 1999, 1.5
years later. Paterno gave Sandusky the option to continue to coach as long as Paterno was
head coach, and Curley and Paterno discussed the option of Sandusky coaching 3 more
years. Sandusky asked for many special retirement perks. If the PSU officials were
covering up for his pedophilia, Sandusky would have had NO negotiating power and his
retirement would have been post-haste. Curley negotiated an emergency re-hire for the
1999 season at Sandusky’s regular salary PLUS 6% cost of living, a very generous offer and
increase for someone he must have loathed if he knew Sandusky was molesting children.
Per the retirement agreement, University officials granted Sandusky Emeritus status and
the men ‘allowed’ the retirement to include unlimited access to the football facilities,
workout room and locker room, the very place Freeh believes they knew that some of
Sandusky’s depraved sexual events frequently occurred.

The PSU officials agreed to an on-going relationship with Sandusky and Second Mile.
Sandusky continued to run camps for young boys at Penn State’s Main Campus for almost a
decade after he retired, was paid for speeches, travel, food, etc. at PSU functions, and had
premium seating for all home football games. PSU football coaches and players
participated throughout the years in Second Mile golf outing fundraisers.

In July 1999, Paterno publicly praised Sandusky and said he was ‘a person of great
character and integrity.’ In 2001, Schultz publicly praised Sandusky for his Second Mile
work. And in May 2010, Curley wrote a letter of recommendation for Sandusky for the
American Football Coaches Association Outstanding Achievement Award.

Do these actions represent actions of men who knew Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile? Do
these actions depict animosity one would have toward a serial child molester, who they
knew had unfettered access to young boys through the Second Mile and who could, at any
time of day, week after week, month after month, year after year, be molesting innocent
boys?

Where Are The Emails and Phone Records?

By December 28, 2010, Spanier and Schultz knew that Paterno, Curley and Schultz were
subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury on January 12, 2011. Freeh discovered a
chain of two emails dated January 10, 2011 between Wendell Courtney and Gary Schultz.
Courtney was giving Schultz a heads-up that Baldwin had called him inquiring about the
2001 incident. (Exhibit 5B) If these four men at PSU had conspired for over a decade to cover-up Sandusky’s pedophilia, there would probably have been a rash of emails and phone calls between
them once they found out they were being subpoenaed to testify about Sandusky. Around
the end of December 2010 and beginning of January 2011 these men would have been
scrambling to talk to one another, to get their story straight, and to review their knowledge
of 1998 and 2001 so that they would be on the same page regarding Sandusky’s behavior.
Freeh found two routine emails between Courtney and Schultz on January 10, 2011. That’s
it. Where are all the other emails between Curley, Spanier, and Schultz? Certainly Freeh
would have discovered numerous emails between these men discussing the subpoenas and
their plan of attack regarding Sandusky and their cover-up. These men were about to have
their presumed 14 year cover-up of a former coach molesting boys on the Penn State
campus blown wide open. This was a five alarm fire. So where are the five alarm fire
related emails?

What about phone records? The Attorney General subpoenaed the men’s PSU office
phone records, as well as their home and cell phone records. Surely there would have
been a conspicuous trail of relevant phone calls between these men who were desperate
to talk to each other so their stories regarding the last 14 years would corroborate with
one another.

In addition, knowing they were complicit with Sandusky’s crimes all those years and
knowing they would probably be facing criminal charges, wouldn’t Curley, Schultz and
Spanier have retained competent counsel who specialized in criminal matters?

Do the lack of emails, lack of phone records, and lack of proper counsel portray the
behavior of men being subpoenaed who had conspired in a child molestation cover-up?

Do their actions represent actions of men who knew Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile since
1998?

No. In reality, the PSU officials’ behavior suggests that they had absolutely no idea
Sandusky was ever a pedophile. Freeh’s most ‘saddening finding’ that Paterno, Curley,
Spanier, and Schultz knowingly allowed Sandusky to molest boys for over a decade is
clearly NOT SUPPORTED by facts, actions, or records.