| ||||
|
Showing posts with label Schultz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schultz. Show all posts
Saturday, April 30
PS4RS 4/29/2016 Statement: AG Not Pursuing Appeal
Saturday, February 27
"Freeh source materials" confirm the Curley File
Freeh Report source materials already in the public domain, combined with other evidence, confirm that Tim Curley had a file on Sandusky -- and its contents found their way into the so-called Schultz "secret file"
By
Ray Blehar
Even though the alumni-elected members of the Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) have succeeded in gaining access to the Freeh source materials, the court sided with Old Main to keep the information from being publicly disclosed.
Regardless of that ruling, and likely unknown to the public, some of the Freeh source materials are already in the public domain - and they prove that evidence was manipulated and/or tampered with in order to railroad PSU officials (i.e., Curley, Schultz, and Spanier).
However, when the source materials are combined with other existing evidence, the totality of the evidence confirms that former PSU Athletic Director (AD) Tim Curley had information related to the Sandusky matter -- and that information was illegally placed into the so-called "secret file" of former PSU VP for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz.
The Key Evidence?
What appears to be a seemingly insignificant document -- a February 11, 2001 computer printout that lists the names of the Board of Directors of The Second Mile (TSM) and its date/time stamp -- turns out to be a very key piece of evidence.
According to the Freeh Report (at 71), on "February 12, 2001, at about 11:10 AM, Schultz researched the internet about the Board members of The Second Mile, the charitable organization Sandusky founded."
The passage is referenced to End Note #303: Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12), however this printout -- that was printed at the exact same time "Schultz researched the internet" -- was not included in the Freeh Report. Had it been included, most reasonable people (not Sally Jenkins) would have concluded that Freeh was making quite an evidentiary leap to tie an unlabeled computer printout to a specific individual. In short, Freeh excluded the print out as a matter of maintaining his (alleged) credibility.
The document wasn't introduced as evidence in any legal proceeding to date -- for a very good reason.
The timeline of evidence does not support Gary Schultz searching for the names of members of the TSM Board on February 12, 2001.
Curley, Not Schultz, Concerned About TSM
Freeh Report Exhibit 5C, the February 12, 2001 "Confidential" hand-written note of Gary Schultz outlined an early plan for addressing the 2001 incident. Schultz made no mention of TSM in that plan.
According to the grand jury testimony of Curley (at 181 and 188), he originated the plan to inform TSM about the 2001 incident and proposed it during the February 25, 2001 meeting with former PSU President Graham Spanier and Schultz.
Freeh Report Exhibit 5G, Schultz's February 28, 2001 email also confirms Curley proposed informing TSM: "we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed)."
Schultz also memorialized Curley's plan, which included discussions with TSM, on February 25th and 26th, in handwriting (Exhibit 5G) and by email (Exhibit 5F), respectively.
Finally, Freeh Report Exhibit 2J, the notes of Graham Spanier, also confirm that Curley was very concerned about his impending interaction with TSM.
In summary, this evidence reveals that Curley came up with the plan to talk to TSM and had concerns about the charity's reaction. Given the evidence, it was Curley - not Schultz -- who printed out the names of the TSM board members on February 12th.
While the printout turns out to be a very significant document in the grand scheme of things, it's not the only "source" document that provides evidence of manipulation and/or tampering.
March 7, 2001 Email Manipulation/Bias
A March 7, 2001 email allegedly obtained from the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz, memorialized a discussion between Curley and Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble, regarding Curley's follow up on the plan to address the incident.
Freeh Report's Exhibit 5I of the email is on the left, while the source document (introduced as Commonwealth's Exhibit 18 at the July 2013 preliminary hearing) is on the right.
The evidence shows that the Freeh Report exhibit was printed from an email file and was not the full email discussion between Coble and Curley. The Freeh Report excluded any mention of Curley's affirmative response that he had followed through on the plan by March 7th. Note that March 7th is the circled date at top of the full email.
This is significant because the Freeh Report stated, without equivocation, that Curley met with TSM on March 19, 2001. However, the Freeh Report's March 19, 2001 date is based on a hearsay statement from an unnamed legal representative for TSM.
The Freeh Report's conclusion of the March 19th meeting between Curley and TSM was also refuted by Spanier's notes (Freeh Exhibit 2J). Spanier wrote that he met with Curley shortly after their late February meeting that the former AD had followed through on the plan to speak with TSM.
The Freeh Report made several inferences that Spanier had been less than honest with the Freeh investigators, thus excluding the critical evidence of the March 7th date was two fold: to support the Freeh Report conclusion of a March 19th meeting and to undermine the credibility of Spanier.
As shown in email obtained by PSU alumnus, Ryan Bagwell, Freeh made it a point to alert personnel conducting Spanier's background investigation for a security clearance about evidence found during the (criminal) investigation. Spanier would eventually lose his clearance as a result of the charges against him.
The evidence manipulation to persecute PSU officials certainly was more widespread than those documents. Over 80 documents cited as sources in the Freeh Report were excluded, and most importantly, some of the most critical missing evidence is tied to the Curley/Schultz files.
Curley's Notes Turned Over In February 2011
The grand jury questioning by Frank Fina revealed he was not yet aware that Tim Curley possessed any information about Sandusky. Fina didn't ask a single question whether Tim had taken notes during any of the meetings about the 2001 incident. In fact, Fina didn't even ask Curley (or anyone else) if they had searched for documents responsive to Subpoena 1179. Clearly, Fina knew that Baldwin didn't tell these men to search for documents.
According to the Freeh Report (at 84), on February 15, 2011, Baldwin met with members of the football coaching staff to discuss their knowledge of Sandusky. The next day, OAG investigators were present and conducted more interviews. It is likely that the search for documents from the football coaches and AD officials occurred then or very shortly thereafter.
OAG special agent, Anthony Sassano later testified that the legal team of Duane Morris delivered boxes of information (he presumed was from Schultz's office) that contained Sandusky's retirement paperwork. Duane Morris was the former employer of Cynthia Baldwin -- and she brought in members of that firm in to assist her. According to a notation on one of the retirement papers (Freeh Report Exhibit 3H), it was received (by someone, but certainly not Louis Freeh) on February 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm.
While the public has been led to believe that the retirement paperwork came from the Schultz file, it is clear that Curley had a copy of it. As noted on the letter, Sandusky was instructed to return his signed copy to Curley (see below). This indeed confirms that Curley and/or the AD's office had information related to Sandusky in its possession.
But that's not the only significant issue regarding the Curley file.
More Tampering?
According to the testimony of Joan Coble, she had no specific knowledge of anything in the bottom drawer of Schultz's filing cabinet. She testified she never looked in the drawer. As such, Coble's testimony provided no legitimate information regarding the contents of the Schultz file.
Based on the evidence cited previously, by the time Kimberly Belcher removed the file from Schultz's bottom drawer in November 2011, it had been touched by so many hands that the authenticity/integrity of the contents would be compromised.
It also appears that one of the "hands" involved may have tampered with the retirement letter.
Under magnification, it appears that Schultz's signature has been overlaid on a previous signature block. Note that the words "BY UNIVERSITY OFFICER: and "for Finance" do not have shadowing or aliasing around them.
For the purpose of comparison, here is top of page two at similar magnification, showing the clear, bolder, non-shadowed type as the authentic typeface.
It is highly probable that those who tampered with the evidence did so thinking that Freeh's impeccable reputation would prevent anyone from questioning the authenticity of the evidence and that they could get away with railroading the PSU 3.
Under the patently ridiculous narrative of the Freeh Report, it was the lure of the Penn State football facilities that provided the "very currency" that Sandusky used to attract his victims. With Schultz's signature affixed to the document, each of the PSU 3 (and Paterno) would be tried in the court of public opinon for enabling Sandusky's sexual abuse.
Freeh publicly smeared PSU officials for allowing Sandusky to be on campus after there were no charges or findings against him in 1998. Moreover, Freeh ignored the evidence that no crimes occurred on campus after 2001, instead stating that abuse continued on the PSU campus through 2009.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly, evidence timelines or chain of custody of evidence can be counted on to undo the false narratives of the cases prosecuted by the PA Corruption Network.
The Chain of Custody of the Schultz Files
According to OAG officials, the notes of Schultz were not provided to them until April 2012 -- by Schultz and his former administrative assistant, Kimberly Belcher.
Louis Freeh claimed, during his highly publicized press conference, that "we found them in conjunction with the Attorney General." The Freeh Report notes the date of discovery as May 1, 2012.
However, both of those claims are refuted by the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson. On 31 January 2012, which was three months before the Schultz notes were either turned over to the OAG or "found" by Freeh, Erickson wrote that he was to get copies of the notes of Curley and Schultz.
PSU alumnae Eileen Morgan's excellent analysis of the evidence surrounding the grand jury questioning of Curley, Schultz, and the late former PSU football Coach, Joe Paterno almost certainly proves that Frank Fina received the Schultz file from PSU (i.e., Baldwin) prior to the January 12, 2011 proceeding.
While Erickson's notebook confirms that he knew that Freeh's alleged discovery of the Schultz file and the OAG's pretense that the files were not turned over until April 2012 were both shams, it also confirmed that he was aware of Fina's strategy to get Curley and Schultz to flip.
Based on the analysis of the evidence, it is highly probable that Fina, et al, decided to throw the whole kitchen sink of evidence at Schultz, rather than Curley, in an effort to produce the flip.
The Truth
PSU, under Erickson and new puppet President Eric Barron have paid out untold millions to keep various litigants, including some of its own trustees, from accessing the Freeh source materials.
In doing so, Old Main and the Old Guard utilized specious arguments or protecting employee confidentiality and that the Freeh Report didn't impact University decisions as a means to keep the alumni trustees from finding out the truth.
The reality of the matter is that Erickson, Baldwin, and others know that it is only a matter of time before the Freeh source materials expose the truth about the Sandusky matter.
And the only thing Erickson, Baldwin, Harmon, Fina and numerous others fear more than the truth is what the truth will eventually do to them.
Regardless of that ruling, and likely unknown to the public, some of the Freeh source materials are already in the public domain - and they prove that evidence was manipulated and/or tampered with in order to railroad PSU officials (i.e., Curley, Schultz, and Spanier).
However, when the source materials are combined with other existing evidence, the totality of the evidence confirms that former PSU Athletic Director (AD) Tim Curley had information related to the Sandusky matter -- and that information was illegally placed into the so-called "secret file" of former PSU VP for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz.
The Key Evidence?
What appears to be a seemingly insignificant document -- a February 11, 2001 computer printout that lists the names of the Board of Directors of The Second Mile (TSM) and its date/time stamp -- turns out to be a very key piece of evidence.
According to the Freeh Report (at 71), on "February 12, 2001, at about 11:10 AM, Schultz researched the internet about the Board members of The Second Mile, the charitable organization Sandusky founded."
The passage is referenced to End Note #303: Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12), however this printout -- that was printed at the exact same time "Schultz researched the internet" -- was not included in the Freeh Report. Had it been included, most reasonable people (not Sally Jenkins) would have concluded that Freeh was making quite an evidentiary leap to tie an unlabeled computer printout to a specific individual. In short, Freeh excluded the print out as a matter of maintaining his (alleged) credibility.
The document wasn't introduced as evidence in any legal proceeding to date -- for a very good reason.
The timeline of evidence does not support Gary Schultz searching for the names of members of the TSM Board on February 12, 2001.
Curley, Not Schultz, Concerned About TSM
Freeh Report Exhibit 5C, the February 12, 2001 "Confidential" hand-written note of Gary Schultz outlined an early plan for addressing the 2001 incident. Schultz made no mention of TSM in that plan.
According to the grand jury testimony of Curley (at 181 and 188), he originated the plan to inform TSM about the 2001 incident and proposed it during the February 25, 2001 meeting with former PSU President Graham Spanier and Schultz.
Freeh Report Exhibit 5G, Schultz's February 28, 2001 email also confirms Curley proposed informing TSM: "we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed)."
Schultz also memorialized Curley's plan, which included discussions with TSM, on February 25th and 26th, in handwriting (Exhibit 5G) and by email (Exhibit 5F), respectively.
Finally, Freeh Report Exhibit 2J, the notes of Graham Spanier, also confirm that Curley was very concerned about his impending interaction with TSM.
In summary, this evidence reveals that Curley came up with the plan to talk to TSM and had concerns about the charity's reaction. Given the evidence, it was Curley - not Schultz -- who printed out the names of the TSM board members on February 12th.
While the printout turns out to be a very significant document in the grand scheme of things, it's not the only "source" document that provides evidence of manipulation and/or tampering.
March 7, 2001 Email Manipulation/Bias
A March 7, 2001 email allegedly obtained from the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz, memorialized a discussion between Curley and Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble, regarding Curley's follow up on the plan to address the incident.
Freeh Report's Exhibit 5I of the email is on the left, while the source document (introduced as Commonwealth's Exhibit 18 at the July 2013 preliminary hearing) is on the right.
The evidence shows that the Freeh Report exhibit was printed from an email file and was not the full email discussion between Coble and Curley. The Freeh Report excluded any mention of Curley's affirmative response that he had followed through on the plan by March 7th. Note that March 7th is the circled date at top of the full email.
This is significant because the Freeh Report stated, without equivocation, that Curley met with TSM on March 19, 2001. However, the Freeh Report's March 19, 2001 date is based on a hearsay statement from an unnamed legal representative for TSM.
The Freeh Report's conclusion of the March 19th meeting between Curley and TSM was also refuted by Spanier's notes (Freeh Exhibit 2J). Spanier wrote that he met with Curley shortly after their late February meeting that the former AD had followed through on the plan to speak with TSM.
The Freeh Report made several inferences that Spanier had been less than honest with the Freeh investigators, thus excluding the critical evidence of the March 7th date was two fold: to support the Freeh Report conclusion of a March 19th meeting and to undermine the credibility of Spanier.
As shown in email obtained by PSU alumnus, Ryan Bagwell, Freeh made it a point to alert personnel conducting Spanier's background investigation for a security clearance about evidence found during the (criminal) investigation. Spanier would eventually lose his clearance as a result of the charges against him.
The evidence manipulation to persecute PSU officials certainly was more widespread than those documents. Over 80 documents cited as sources in the Freeh Report were excluded, and most importantly, some of the most critical missing evidence is tied to the Curley/Schultz files.
Curley's Notes Turned Over In February 2011
The grand jury questioning by Frank Fina revealed he was not yet aware that Tim Curley possessed any information about Sandusky. Fina didn't ask a single question whether Tim had taken notes during any of the meetings about the 2001 incident. In fact, Fina didn't even ask Curley (or anyone else) if they had searched for documents responsive to Subpoena 1179. Clearly, Fina knew that Baldwin didn't tell these men to search for documents.
According to the Freeh Report (at 84), on February 15, 2011, Baldwin met with members of the football coaching staff to discuss their knowledge of Sandusky. The next day, OAG investigators were present and conducted more interviews. It is likely that the search for documents from the football coaches and AD officials occurred then or very shortly thereafter.
OAG special agent, Anthony Sassano later testified that the legal team of Duane Morris delivered boxes of information (he presumed was from Schultz's office) that contained Sandusky's retirement paperwork. Duane Morris was the former employer of Cynthia Baldwin -- and she brought in members of that firm in to assist her. According to a notation on one of the retirement papers (Freeh Report Exhibit 3H), it was received (by someone, but certainly not Louis Freeh) on February 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm.
While the public has been led to believe that the retirement paperwork came from the Schultz file, it is clear that Curley had a copy of it. As noted on the letter, Sandusky was instructed to return his signed copy to Curley (see below). This indeed confirms that Curley and/or the AD's office had information related to Sandusky in its possession.
But that's not the only significant issue regarding the Curley file.
More Tampering?
According to the testimony of Joan Coble, she had no specific knowledge of anything in the bottom drawer of Schultz's filing cabinet. She testified she never looked in the drawer. As such, Coble's testimony provided no legitimate information regarding the contents of the Schultz file.
Based on the evidence cited previously, by the time Kimberly Belcher removed the file from Schultz's bottom drawer in November 2011, it had been touched by so many hands that the authenticity/integrity of the contents would be compromised.
It also appears that one of the "hands" involved may have tampered with the retirement letter.
Under magnification, it appears that Schultz's signature has been overlaid on a previous signature block. Note that the words "BY UNIVERSITY OFFICER: and "for Finance" do not have shadowing or aliasing around them.
For the purpose of comparison, here is top of page two at similar magnification, showing the clear, bolder, non-shadowed type as the authentic typeface.
It is highly probable that those who tampered with the evidence did so thinking that Freeh's impeccable reputation would prevent anyone from questioning the authenticity of the evidence and that they could get away with railroading the PSU 3.
Under the patently ridiculous narrative of the Freeh Report, it was the lure of the Penn State football facilities that provided the "very currency" that Sandusky used to attract his victims. With Schultz's signature affixed to the document, each of the PSU 3 (and Paterno) would be tried in the court of public opinon for enabling Sandusky's sexual abuse.
Freeh publicly smeared PSU officials for allowing Sandusky to be on campus after there were no charges or findings against him in 1998. Moreover, Freeh ignored the evidence that no crimes occurred on campus after 2001, instead stating that abuse continued on the PSU campus through 2009.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly, evidence timelines or chain of custody of evidence can be counted on to undo the false narratives of the cases prosecuted by the PA Corruption Network.
The Chain of Custody of the Schultz Files
According to OAG officials, the notes of Schultz were not provided to them until April 2012 -- by Schultz and his former administrative assistant, Kimberly Belcher.
Louis Freeh claimed, during his highly publicized press conference, that "we found them in conjunction with the Attorney General." The Freeh Report notes the date of discovery as May 1, 2012.
However, both of those claims are refuted by the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson. On 31 January 2012, which was three months before the Schultz notes were either turned over to the OAG or "found" by Freeh, Erickson wrote that he was to get copies of the notes of Curley and Schultz.
PSU alumnae Eileen Morgan's excellent analysis of the evidence surrounding the grand jury questioning of Curley, Schultz, and the late former PSU football Coach, Joe Paterno almost certainly proves that Frank Fina received the Schultz file from PSU (i.e., Baldwin) prior to the January 12, 2011 proceeding.
While Erickson's notebook confirms that he knew that Freeh's alleged discovery of the Schultz file and the OAG's pretense that the files were not turned over until April 2012 were both shams, it also confirmed that he was aware of Fina's strategy to get Curley and Schultz to flip.
Based on the analysis of the evidence, it is highly probable that Fina, et al, decided to throw the whole kitchen sink of evidence at Schultz, rather than Curley, in an effort to produce the flip.
The Truth
PSU, under Erickson and new puppet President Eric Barron have paid out untold millions to keep various litigants, including some of its own trustees, from accessing the Freeh source materials.
In doing so, Old Main and the Old Guard utilized specious arguments or protecting employee confidentiality and that the Freeh Report didn't impact University decisions as a means to keep the alumni trustees from finding out the truth.
The reality of the matter is that Erickson, Baldwin, and others know that it is only a matter of time before the Freeh source materials expose the truth about the Sandusky matter.
And the only thing Erickson, Baldwin, Harmon, Fina and numerous others fear more than the truth is what the truth will eventually do to them.
Friday, January 22
PS4RS Press Statement on PA Superior Court Ruling
PRESS STATEMENT (my emphasis added)
PA Superior Court Ruling Upends Case Against Penn State Admins
January 22, 2016 —— Members of Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship are pleased with today’s ruling by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania resulting in the dismissal of multiple charges against Penn State administrators. The ruling dismisses the charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy against Penn State administrators Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier. But we are not finished. All we have asked since November 2011 is for due process for everyone involved. Unfortunately, the Penn State Board of Trustees, their hired gun Louis Freeh, and the opportunistic NCAA all ignored the concept that is the very foundation of our country. Each rushed to judgment and in the process impugned loyal, respectable, generous and -- most of all -- innocent men. The court overturned the despicable violation of these men’s constitutional rights by the Office of the Attorney General in collusion with former Penn State trustee and Counsel Cynthia Baldwin. Their actions have cost the state's flagship university hundreds of millions of dollars and caused untold anguish for hundreds of thousands of Penn State alumni and supporters.
It is a travesty that Jerry Sandusky and his use of The Second Mile to prey on at-risk children was not identified sooner by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. It is inexcusable that he was not promptly indicted by then-Attorney General Tom Corbett and his deputy, Frank Fina. As we have contended from Day One, this was never a Penn State problem. It was – and still very much is -- a state of Pennsylvania problem.
Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS), with more than 40,000 members nationwide, was formed to promote positive change within the University Board of Trustees, demanding transparent, trustworthy leadership. For further information on PS4RS, please visitwww.PS4RS.org, email ps4rsinfo@ps4rs.org, or go tohttp://www.facebook.com/PS4RS. Follow PS4RS on Twitter at @PS4RS
Friday, August 28
"Nifonged" Part 2: The Real Conspiracy of Silence
According to the Moulton Report, "the Penn State state emails" were turned over by July 7, 2011, proving a key obstruction of justice allegation was false and that Fina suppressed this evidence to charge Curley and Schultz with failure to report.
By
Ray Blehar
In Part 1 of the series, the evidence indicated that Frank Fina's expectation that Curley and Schultz would "flip" was among the reasons behind his use of unreliable evidence. Fina's reliance in pressing charges on flimsy evidence was much worse than that of Durham DA Mike Nifong, who was eventually disbarred over his misconduct in the Duke lacrosse case. In Part 2, the Moulton Report and a lot of other evidence reveal the misconduct on the part of Fina and then-Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin during the Sandusky investigation -- in the lead up to the eventual Conspiracy of Silence case.
On November 1, 2012, the Conspiracy of Silence (CoS) presentment levied allegations of obstruction justice against Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley. While a long list of allegations were included in the presentment, many of which were not crimes, the key allegation of obstruction of justice was the lack of compliance with Subpoena 1179.
GJ Subpoena 1179 (Sandusky case), issued on December 29, 2010 requested:
"Any and all records pertaining to Jerry Sandusky and incidents reported to have occurred on or about March 2002, and any other information concerning Jerry Sandusky and inappropriate contact with underage males both on and off University property. Response shall include any and all correspondence directed to or regarding Jerry Sandusky."
"July 7, 2011. Tpr. Rossman receives a thumb drive containing Penn State emails."
Trooper Scott Rossman and OAG Agent Anthony Sassano were the two investigators assigned to the case in July 2011. Obviously, Rossman's receipt of the Penn State emails proves the charge of a "total lack of compliance" was false.
Additionally, the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson appears to confirm that Penn State had Schultz's notes by at least January 31, 2012 -- a little under a year before the obstruction charges were filed.
The analysis performed by Eileen Morgan made a very strong case that Penn State provided the OAG with the Schultz file in early January 2011 and that Fina utilized it in the grand jury examinations of Curley and Schultz.
However, the falsity of the obstruction charges doesn't stop there. Not by a long-shot.
Smoke and Mirrors
PSU Policy AD49, effective July 19, 2010, clearly states that the General Counsel (Baldwin) was responsible for answering subpoenas:
All legal documents including subpoenas are to be referred to or routed through The Office of General Counsel. The Office has the prerogative to send them to other parties after receipt. The Office of General Counsel shall establish all procedures for handling and addressing legal documents."
The entire obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy ruse is based on the assumption that Baldwin followed through on her responsibilities.
Baldwin's grand jury testimony (pages 16-21) was clear that she met with each man one-on-one to discuss the subpoena.
The evidence tells a different story.
Baldwin not only stonewalled the PSU Three about the subpoena, but of all of her knowledge of the evidence relevant to the Sandusky case.
"LEGAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING SUBPOENAS:
 |
| Baldwin "stonewalled" the PSU Three |
The entire obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy ruse is based on the assumption that Baldwin followed through on her responsibilities.
Baldwin's grand jury testimony (pages 16-21) was clear that she met with each man one-on-one to discuss the subpoena.
Baldwin not only stonewalled the PSU Three about the subpoena, but of all of her knowledge of the evidence relevant to the Sandusky case.
The Baldwin Stonewall
1998 Incident: According to the Freeh Report (page 83), Baldwin obtained a copy of the 1998 police report on January 4, 2011. Based on the consistent lack of recall of the 1998 incident by Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, it is quite obvious she didn't share the report to help prepare them for their appearance. Similarly, Spanier recalled almost nothing about the 1998 incident when he appeared at the grand jury in April 2011.
2002 Incident: Subpoena 1179 clearly identified 2002 as the date of the McQueary incident, but when under questioning at their pre-grand jury interviews, neither Curley nor Schultz got the date correct. Curley guessed 2000, while Schultz believed the incident was in 2003. At Spanier's April 2011 grand jury appearance, he correctly stated 2002, although he said he wasn't sure of the date, but recalled it was about three years after Sandusky retired.
Subpoena 1179: Baldwin did not advise Penn State officials of their responsibility to search for materials relevant to the subpoena.
Curley: According to Curley's omnibus pre-trial motion, he twice met with Baldwin, once at the Outback Bowl in Tampa, Florida (prior to the issuance of the subpoena) and once in State College, Pennsylvania to discuss his appearance at the grand jury. Curley's motion makes no mention that Baldwin advised him to search for materials responsive to the subpoena.
Paterno: Scott Paterno, son of legendary coach, Joe Paterno, stated that Baldwin resisted providing him with his father's subpoena to testify and didn't provide it until April 2011. He also stated that Baldwin never asked his father to search for any documents. The Paterno family later volunteered numerous documents regarding Sandusky to assist in the Freeh investigation.
Schultz: According to Schultz's omnibus pretrial motion, in December 2010, Baldwin informed him that he was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury in January 2011. Schultz agreed to let Baldwin accept service of the subpoena on his behalf. Schultz's affidavit made no mention of Baldwin informing him to search for Sandusky related materials.
"In that period from January, February, March, she [Baldwin] only gave me a report that these folks are going to the grand jury. She told me somewhere along the way that they were interviewing staff in the football program, and she would be there for all the interviews. But she never told me what was asked about in the interviews, never told me what came up with Curley and Gary Schultz in their testimony."
Motions To Quash: Baldwin never filed a motion to quash the Subpoena 1179 nor did she make any other formal appeal to the OAG for relief. As such, the OAG was likely expecting many documents to be produced.
According to the presentment, PSU had only turned over a handful of documents prior to the testimony of Curley, Schultz, and Paterno.
In consideration of the evidence above, Baldwin was either a completely incompetent attorney or she was intentionally undercutting PSU officials. The circumstances of her hiring appears to point to the latter.
But what do Baldwin's follies have to do with Frank Fina?
Unwitting Targets
During the January 2011 grand jury, Sandusky case prosecutors Eshbach and Fina didn't ask Curley, Schultz, and Paterno if they were informed about Subpoena 1179 or if they conducted searches to find relevant information. |
| Fina: No questions about Subpoena 1179 |
Based on the evidence, it is almost certain that the Commonwealth knew Baldwin had not informed Curley, Schultz, and Paterno about their responsibilities to gather information in response to Subpoena 1179.
This is not a case about a bunch of incompetent lawyers, but more likely a case of Fina, Eshbach, and Baldwin collaborating to extract sworn testimony from Penn State officials who had no idea they were targets of the Sandusky investigation.
More Lies About Emails
Page 23 of the presentment alleges that Penn State did not use its established procedures or personnel to conduct the searches for emails. The allegations (below) are false, as # 3 and #4 were disproved by the testimony of Penn State employee, John Corro, who works for Security Operations and Services (SOS).
On July 29, 2013, Corro testified (on page 89 and 90) that in April 2011, he recovered the emails based on the searches for Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, then provided them to Baldwin (page 91).
Corro further elaborated (pages 91 and 92) that he provided three USB keys to Baldwin, one which contained the entire set of emails and two that were of specific searches.
When asked if he saw Subpoena 1179, like the others, Corro stated had not. He had only seen a few lines of it as part of another document, but understood that he was searching for information related to the Sandusky investigation.
According to the agreement made at the Spanier GJ colloquy on April 13, 2011, Penn State was ordered to provide the entire history of emails from PSU officials dating back the University's implementation of email (i.e., prior to 1997) for Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno.
Due to the system cut-over in 2004, the search for emails responsive to Subpoena 1179 (citing 2002) required Penn State to access the archived files where Gary Schultz's 1998 and 2001 email files were located. Corro didn't testify to any issues with accessing the archived files.
Penn State was to provide the full set - everything found - to the grand jury judge and then a "culled set" specifically related to Sandusky to the OAG.
Baldwin agreed to provide everything by April 15, 2011.
No evidence to date identifies the exact date on which Baldwin provided the USB keys to the grand jury judge and/or the OAG, however, the testimony of Corro, and statements by Fina and Eshbach reveal that all of the 1998 and 2001 the emails were in the OAG's possession by April 2011.
As for Louis Freeh's alleged discovery of the 1998 and 2001 emails...the evidence reveals that it didn't happen.
Summary of Evidence
The bottom line is that Fina, et al, knew that Penn State had indeed used the SOS to gather materials responsive to Subpoena 1179 and that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz were not guilty of obstructing the investigation by failing to turn over information. To wit:1. Schultz was retired from Penn State when Subpoena 1179 was served and had no access to the Sandusky file in his old office or to his 1998 and 2001 (archived) emails. According to an affidavit filed by Schultz, he informed Baldwin of the possible existence of the Sandusky file. Any failure to provide those materials was because of Baldwin, not Schultz.
2. Spanier did not possess materials responsive to the subpoena.
3. There has been no evidence provided to date, aside from a reference in Erickson's notebook, that Curley possessed any evidence responsive to the subpoena.
The only other conspiracy to obstruct justice charge is wholly dependent upon the Commonwealth's legally impossible task of proving that Mike McQueary informed Curley and Schultz that a crime was being committed.
In other words, the Commonwealth has nothing.
And let's face it, if there was any material/inculpatory evidence to be found, Louie Freeh would have put in his report.
Fina vs. Nifong
One of the reasons Durham County DA Mike Nifong was disbarred was for failure to disclose evidence that negated the guilt of the defendants. Nifong failed to provide the complete results of the DNA tests that concluded two of the three defendants were not involved in the alleged rape of Crystal Mangum and made numerous misrepresentations about the nature of the evidence before the court. The withholding of evidence was in violation of former Rule 3.8(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct. The misrepresentations were in violation of Rule 8.4 (c).Fina's case is a bit different than Nifong's, however the same rules of conduct apply.
The fact that the Penn State emails were in the Commonwealth's possession by at least July 2011 (if not April 2011) is proof that the Commonwealth knowingly lied about Penn State's failure to comply with Subpoena 1179.
Given that the emails (and the Schultz file) included the date of the 2001 incident witnessed by McQueary, the evidence also proves that Fina, et al, purposely misstated the year of the McQueary incident in order to charge Curley and Schultz with failure to report in November 2011.
The Sandusky prosecution team of Fina and Eshbach filed numerous documents with the court misrepresenting the date of the Victim 2 incident as March 1, 2002. It was not until May 7, 2012 that Fina and McGettigan's Motion to Amend the Bill of Particulars to provided the correct date of February 9, 2001.
The evidence shows that Fina, et al, made numerous misrepresentations to the court during the Sandusky proceedings, in initially charging Curley and Schultz, and during Baldwin's grand jury testimony in October 2012.
Conclusion
The evidence regarding Penn State's provision of the email evidence is exactly the type of information that Frank Fina and his cohorts likely feared would be exposed when their "flip" strategy failed.While Moulton's investigation didn't highlight it, there is little doubt that his investigative team uncovered the email ruse. If not for the toxic politics of the Sandusky case -- and the pre-emptive strike by Fina -- AG Kane might have already went public about Fina's deception.
No doubt, there was a "conspiracy of silence" related to the Sandusky case, but not by the people accused of it.
Next: Freeh "Fail"
Tuesday, March 10
Analysis: Evidence Rules Out PSU Cover-Up in 2001
Police and OAG investigators interviewed 67 former and/or current Centre County CYS employees -- but none were presented as grand jury witnesses regarding the 2001 case. That is one of many pieces of evidence that demonstrate the weakness of the Commonwealth's case.
Evidence For
1. Mike McQueary testified that he conveyed to PSU officials "that it was a in a very bad sexual act, a molestation act with a minor"
2. Under the 2007 law, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were required to report the incident to the authorities because they were "school employees."
3. No records exist to verify that Penn State made a report of the incident in 2001.
4. An unauthenticated email covering the period on February 25-27, 2001, suggests (but not conclusively) that a report was not made to child welfare authorities in 2001.
5. Former University Park police chief Tom Harmon was the only witness (with first hand knowledge) to testify that no report was made to the police about the 2001 incident.
Evidence Against
McQueary's Report
1. McQueary testified that he did not use any explicitly sexual language with any of the PSU officials and, in fact, said he could not remember the exact words he used. McQueary testified that the men "definitely received from me that it was sexual." (July 29, 2013 hearing, page 29)
2. There are not corroborating witnesses for McQueary's statements to Curley and Schultz.
3. Other individuals who McQueary informed about the incident on February 9th, 2001 did not advise him to make a report to the police and/or child welfare. Those individuals also did not make a report.
The Law
4. Under the child abuse reporting statute in 2001, no Penn State officials were among the enumerated individuals who were mandated to report child abuse.
5. The statute's definition of a student (under section 6303) was "[a]n individual enrolled in a public or private school, intermediate unit or area vocational-technical school who is under 18 years of age." The statute did not apply to colleges and universities in 2001.
Child Abuse Reports/Records
6. Under Pennsylvania law, there is no requirement for reporters of child abuse to maintain a record of the report.
7. In 2001, local child welfare authorities were not required to report General Protective Services complaints to the State-wide database. Note: Required to be included as of July 1, 2014.
8. Under the Public Welfare Code provision for General Protective Services, local child welfare authorities have the discretion to prioritize and investigate complaints based on a risk assessment of the alleged abuse report.
9. Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) assisted in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky and was aware the investigation did not result in an abuse finding.
10. Records of investigations of unfounded complaints are expunged upon notification by ChildLine.
History of Penn State's Reports of Sandusky's Behavior
13. There is no evidence that PSU officials were aware of any inappropriate conduct by Sandusky with children after February 9, 2001.
14. PSU officials openly communicated about the 1998 and 2001 incidents over email and courtesy copied support staff on some of the communications.
15. PSU Senior Vice-President of Business and Finance, Gary Schultz, reported his knowledge of the 2001 incident to the University's legal counsel, Wendell Courtney.
16. According to the grand jury presentment and other court proceedings, Schultz recalled that a report of the 2001 incident was made to local child welfare authorities (i.e., CC CYS).
17. According to an email (page 84 of Freeh Report) from Wendell Courtney, he recalled that in 2001 "someone...contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation."
Lack of Corroborating Witnesses/Witness Credibility
18. According to the Moulton Report (page 156), the Director of CC CYS testified at the Sandusky grand jury on March 10, 2011, however her testimony did not address the 2001 incident.
19. According to the Moulton Report's timeline (pages 142 to 166) none of the 66 former and/or current employees of CC CYS interviewed by the police and/or general investigators were presented as grand jury witnesses about the 2001 incident.
20. Prosecution witness, former University Park police chief Tom Harmon testified that he purposely mislabeled the 1998 police report of the Sandusky investigation so that the press would not be able to discover it in the police logs.
21. The University Park police under Harmon's direction had no qualms about arresting football players and properly reporting the arrests as such in the police logs.
22. Harmon was formerly a neighbor of Sandusky's and attended the same church.
23. Harmon was a mandated reporter of child abuse in 2001 and he could have been charged with failure to report child abuse if he admitted knowledge of the 2001 incident.
24. On the Monday after the incident, Harmon emailed Schultz to confirm that a report of the 1998 incident existed in the imaged archives. Harmon testified that Schultz didn't ask him about the file nor did he recall giving the file to Schultz.
The numbers don't lie.
There is reasonable doubt at every turn (without introducing more doubt based on the actions an inactions of The Second Mile).
Note: This is a companion post, titled "What Are They Hiding?" that will examine the possible reasons why Commonwealth officials and the Board of Trustees pinned the blame on PSU officials for enabling Sandusky's crimes.
By
Ray Blehar
The existing media scenario and the view of law enforcement is one and the same -- PSU officials conspired to cover-up Sandusky's crimes to protect the school's and the football program's reputation.
The evidence, however, tells a very different story.
When the evidence for and against a cover-up is weighed, the evidence stacks up heavily against the existing/accepted scenario.
The evidence, however, tells a very different story.
When the evidence for and against a cover-up is weighed, the evidence stacks up heavily against the existing/accepted scenario.
Evidence For
1. Mike McQueary testified that he conveyed to PSU officials "that it was a in a very bad sexual act, a molestation act with a minor"
2. Under the 2007 law, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were required to report the incident to the authorities because they were "school employees."
3. No records exist to verify that Penn State made a report of the incident in 2001.
4. An unauthenticated email covering the period on February 25-27, 2001, suggests (but not conclusively) that a report was not made to child welfare authorities in 2001.
5. Former University Park police chief Tom Harmon was the only witness (with first hand knowledge) to testify that no report was made to the police about the 2001 incident.
Evidence Against
McQueary's Report
1. McQueary testified that he did not use any explicitly sexual language with any of the PSU officials and, in fact, said he could not remember the exact words he used. McQueary testified that the men "definitely received from me that it was sexual." (July 29, 2013 hearing, page 29)
2. There are not corroborating witnesses for McQueary's statements to Curley and Schultz.
3. Other individuals who McQueary informed about the incident on February 9th, 2001 did not advise him to make a report to the police and/or child welfare. Those individuals also did not make a report.
The Law
4. Under the child abuse reporting statute in 2001, no Penn State officials were among the enumerated individuals who were mandated to report child abuse.
5. The statute's definition of a student (under section 6303) was "[a]n individual enrolled in a public or private school, intermediate unit or area vocational-technical school who is under 18 years of age." The statute did not apply to colleges and universities in 2001.
Child Abuse Reports/Records
6. Under Pennsylvania law, there is no requirement for reporters of child abuse to maintain a record of the report.
7. In 2001, local child welfare authorities were not required to report General Protective Services complaints to the State-wide database. Note: Required to be included as of July 1, 2014.
8. Under the Public Welfare Code provision for General Protective Services, local child welfare authorities have the discretion to prioritize and investigate complaints based on a risk assessment of the alleged abuse report.
9. Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) assisted in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky and was aware the investigation did not result in an abuse finding.
10. Records of investigations of unfounded complaints are expunged upon notification by ChildLine.
History of Penn State's Reports of Sandusky's Behavior
11. PSU cooperated fully with a 1998 investigation of then active assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky.
12. In 2001, PSU Athletic Director Timothy Curley reported (then-retired) Sandusky's shower incident outside of the University his employer, The Second Mile.13. There is no evidence that PSU officials were aware of any inappropriate conduct by Sandusky with children after February 9, 2001.
14. PSU officials openly communicated about the 1998 and 2001 incidents over email and courtesy copied support staff on some of the communications.
15. PSU Senior Vice-President of Business and Finance, Gary Schultz, reported his knowledge of the 2001 incident to the University's legal counsel, Wendell Courtney.
16. According to the grand jury presentment and other court proceedings, Schultz recalled that a report of the 2001 incident was made to local child welfare authorities (i.e., CC CYS).
17. According to an email (page 84 of Freeh Report) from Wendell Courtney, he recalled that in 2001 "someone...contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation."
Lack of Corroborating Witnesses/Witness Credibility
18. According to the Moulton Report (page 156), the Director of CC CYS testified at the Sandusky grand jury on March 10, 2011, however her testimony did not address the 2001 incident.
19. According to the Moulton Report's timeline (pages 142 to 166) none of the 66 former and/or current employees of CC CYS interviewed by the police and/or general investigators were presented as grand jury witnesses about the 2001 incident.
20. Prosecution witness, former University Park police chief Tom Harmon testified that he purposely mislabeled the 1998 police report of the Sandusky investigation so that the press would not be able to discover it in the police logs.
21. The University Park police under Harmon's direction had no qualms about arresting football players and properly reporting the arrests as such in the police logs.
22. Harmon was formerly a neighbor of Sandusky's and attended the same church.
23. Harmon was a mandated reporter of child abuse in 2001 and he could have been charged with failure to report child abuse if he admitted knowledge of the 2001 incident.
24. On the Monday after the incident, Harmon emailed Schultz to confirm that a report of the 1998 incident existed in the imaged archives. Harmon testified that Schultz didn't ask him about the file nor did he recall giving the file to Schultz.
The numbers don't lie.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence on the public record to date, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Commonwealth to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for its allegation of a failure to report and a cover-up by PSU officials.There is reasonable doubt at every turn (without introducing more doubt based on the actions an inactions of The Second Mile).
Note: This is a companion post, titled "What Are They Hiding?" that will examine the possible reasons why Commonwealth officials and the Board of Trustees pinned the blame on PSU officials for enabling Sandusky's crimes.
Thursday, July 31
Patriot News: Part 9 of 9: Chapter 1, Leaks
Sara Ganim: "I just followed the facts, piece by piece, as they came to us."
Ganim later linked a copy of the docket in a later column, but the time stamp on the docket in the bottom right corner of the page read 2:21PM – five minutes prior to her original report. The magisterial district number, 49-201, was on the docket, identifying that it was from Centre County and Judge Dutchcot’s magisterial district. The date/time stamp therefore disproved her “scoop” that the charges were on a “state website” but that they didn’t make it to Centre County.
Continuing with her bungling of crime information, on Saturday Ganim -- the "crime and courts reporter" -- incorrectly reported that charges had been filed against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. While this was in agreement with the OAG’s November 5th press release, a check of the magisterial docket system would have revealed no charges were filed against the two men until November 7th (see Schultz docket search result below).
March 22, 2012 screen capture:
He
defended the paper’s reporting on the “Penn State child sex abuse scandal,”
stating had they known anything prior to 2009 they would have “investigated
with vigor.” The evidence does not
support that a rigorous investigation ever occurred. Coincidentally, like the police, the P-N staff didn’t think to check the
source of Sandusky’s child victims – TSM – for leads.
Information made public in a searing grand jury presentment showed that Sandusky allegedly admitted to touching the boy known as Victim 6 while they were both naked and saying, “I wish I were dead.”
What wasn’t made public until now was that two days before Gricar closed the case, a psychologist concluded Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky.
The psychologist — John Seasock — was identified in court documents by Sandusky’s attorney as he asked a judge to force prosecutors to hand over the document, along with juvenile records and current and past addresses and phone numbers of the alleged victims.
The judge ruled that the defense can have them. But he made an exception. Unless prosecutors can convince the judge otherwise within the next week, Amendola can read through the psychological evaluation, but he can “make no use of the information contained in the reports without prior authorization of the court.”
A source who reviewed the documents and has knowledge of the case said he believed Seasock’s report was the reason the investigation was closed.
However, the source said, Seasock was not the only psychologist to make an evaluation.
Other information scrubbed from the column included this passage regarding the psychology report of Dr. Alycia Chambers (who in a familiar pattern, is not mentioned by name).
The day after Victim 6 came home from a tour of the football building with then-defensive coordinator and charity founder Jerry Sandusky and told his mom Sandusky had showered with him and a friend, the mother called police. She also called a psychologist.
“And that psychologist concluded that this incident, what the boy described, and I’m paraphrasing ... the psychologist concluded that what the boy described was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” the source said.
Amendola confirmed that Seasock’s report and another psychologist’s report have been referenced in several other pieces of evidence turned over by prosecutors, but Amendola said he hasn’t yet seen the reports.
The source reviewed the entire police report from 1998. The investigation, which was done by Penn State University police, took a few weeks. It included a sting in which police set up a meeting between the boy’s mother and Sandusky as officers hid in another room.
Note: Full article can be obtained either by search of archive.org/web or by paying for archived version on PennLive.
The McQueary Handwritten Statement
Dr. Dranov’s Testimony
By
Ray Blehar
When the Patriot News broke the story of the
Sandusky grand jury investigation in March 2011, many people believed it was a result of grand jury leaks.
Those
people were right.
The 1998
University Park Police Report was leaked to the P-N sometime in January 2011 – right after the police investigating
the 2008 Sandusky allegations had obtained it from PSU two years into the
probe. January 2011 coincidentally, is
the same month that Sara Ganim took her Patriot News reporting job in
Harrisburg.
However,
the most famous leak in the Sandusky case was the November 2011 grand jury
presentment.
The
presentment was ready on November 4th, approved, and put under seal
by the supervising grand jury judge, Rolando Jackson.
However, it is not clear if the P-N possessed it on November 4th as Ganim's reporting did not provide evidence or special knowledge of its contents.
However, it is not clear if the P-N possessed it on November 4th as Ganim's reporting did not provide evidence or special knowledge of its contents.
The
Sandusky criminal charges (or court docket) was the “other” leak that wasn’t described a leak. Allegedly it was accidentally posted online.
Early in
the afternoon of November 4, the Centre County magisterial judge, Leslie
Dutchcot, approved the affidavit of probable cause in the Sandusky case and completed
the docket sheet for the Sandusky charges.
At approximately 12:21PM the docket was (allegedly) mistakenly posted to the magisterial court system by her office.
At approximately 12:21PM the docket was (allegedly) mistakenly posted to the magisterial court system by her office.
Sometime
later that afternoon, Sara Ganim received a phone call (likely from one of
the AG prosecutors) informing her of the pending charges in the Sandusky
case. Ganim assumed she was being leaked
the information and promptly wrote her “scoop” at 2:26PM.
Her statement that the charging paperwork hadn’t made it to Centre County is the “giveaway” that she thought she had received another “leak.”
Her statement that the charging paperwork hadn’t made it to Centre County is the “giveaway” that she thought she had received another “leak.”
The charging paperwork has not yet made it
to the District Magistrate Judge's office in Centre County. However, felony
charges of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse of someone under 16,
aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault of someone under 16, indecent
assault of someone under 13, and corruption of minors charges have been filed
in the state court docket system.
Dockets are approved by the magisterial judge before being posted to Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial system, therefore what Ganim wrote was an impossibility.
That afternoon, Ganim received a phone call from another reporter that the docket had been posted. The reporter noted that Ganim "shrieked" when she found out the charges were in the public domain. Ganim updated her column at 3:54PM to report that Centre County posted the charges.
That afternoon, Ganim received a phone call from another reporter that the docket had been posted. The reporter noted that Ganim "shrieked" when she found out the charges were in the public domain. Ganim updated her column at 3:54PM to report that Centre County posted the charges.
Ganim later linked a copy of the docket in a later column, but the time stamp on the docket in the bottom right corner of the page read 2:21PM – five minutes prior to her original report. The magisterial district number, 49-201, was on the docket, identifying that it was from Centre County and Judge Dutchcot’s magisterial district. The date/time stamp therefore disproved her “scoop” that the charges were on a “state website” but that they didn’t make it to Centre County.
How did she
make that mistake?
Most likely, she never visited a “state court” web site to find the docket. Instead, she wrote the column on the charges based on information she got from someone else (likely an AG official). Even after being told that the docket was posted, her articles over the next three days reveal that she didn't check the unified judicial system to verify any information.
Most likely, she never visited a “state court” web site to find the docket. Instead, she wrote the column on the charges based on information she got from someone else (likely an AG official). Even after being told that the docket was posted, her articles over the next three days reveal that she didn't check the unified judicial system to verify any information.
The next
day, Ganim reported that the charges had been accidentally posted and the OAG’s
Nils Frederiksen only confirmed that the state police and OAG officials were not at fault.
Continuing with her bungling of crime information, on Saturday Ganim -- the "crime and courts reporter" -- incorrectly reported that charges had been filed against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. While this was in agreement with the OAG’s November 5th press release, a check of the magisterial docket system would have revealed no charges were filed against the two men until November 7th (see Schultz docket search result below).
The evidence presented reveals
that Ganim may not have been the “gumshoe” she was made out to be and simply
relied on others to provide her with information. It was also rather obvious that she had a limited knowledge of the court reporting system.
First, as I noted earlier, it would
have been impossible for the Sandusky court docket to be found on a “state
court web-site” without first being processed by the District Magistrate’s
office.
Next, the
state court website is organized to perform searches for dockets in four
categories: magisterial, common pleas, appellate, and the city of
Philadelphia. To find the Sandusky
charges, Ganim would have had to type his name and one other characteristic
(e.g., DOB, status of case, county of case, etc) into the query to find the
docket.
A typical
query screen is shown below.
Upon
entering the Sandusky information, she would have gotten the docket with a
Centre County identifier at the top. The number 49 is the identifier for Centre
County and 49201 is Judge Dutchcot’s district.
Thus, her story that the docket and details had
not made their way to Centre County at 2:26 PM was impossible.
The docket posted
to the P-N had a time/date stamp of
11/4/2011 at 2:21PM, which revealed that Ganim could not have seen it on-line before
she wrote about it (otherwise, she would have known the charges had "made it to Centre County").
On
Saturday, November 5th, Ganim’s 12:25PM and 5:59PM columns (captured
from a blog) repeated information from the OAG’s 8:00AM press release of the
Curley and Schultz charges. Ganim didn’t
verify the information herself.
If she had, she would have seen that the charges were pending on the 5th and not filed until the 7th (in Dauphin County). Ganim updated that column one last time on November 7th at 1:22PM, but did not change any of the content (verified by blog entry below). I presume the update was made because Ganim learned the charges were filed on that day. As a result, the phrase “and this morning” would now be accurate with regard to when Curley and Schultz were charged.
If she had, she would have seen that the charges were pending on the 5th and not filed until the 7th (in Dauphin County). Ganim updated that column one last time on November 7th at 1:22PM, but did not change any of the content (verified by blog entry below). I presume the update was made because Ganim learned the charges were filed on that day. As a result, the phrase “and this morning” would now be accurate with regard to when Curley and Schultz were charged.
Expecting Leaks
Ganim
believed the Sandusky court docket was released accidentally because she, like others in the media, was told
to expect it to be released on November 7th. As a result, she likely believed that the information she received on the 4th
was “leaked” in advance of the charges being filed. As noted earlier, she "shrieked" when she was told the charges were actually filed in the judicial system. Her reaction suggested she was working with the expectation that she would be (exclusively) provided with information and tips about the case before the rest of the public was
informed.
After being taken by surprise by the public release of the Sandusky charges, she contacted Nils
Frederiksen, the OAG press official to find out what had happened. According to another local news reporter, the
P-N then called Dutchcot’s office to
complain about the posting, which resulted in it being temporarily removed from
the internet.
At that point, Ganim had the “scoop” that she expected to get about the charges and wrote the following column.
At that point, Ganim had the “scoop” that she expected to get about the charges and wrote the following column.
As with the
news of the grand jury investigation back in March, many assumed the P-N’s possession of the court docket was
them benefiting from another leak. The
truth was that it only became a “scoop” for the P-N after they complained to Judge Dutchcot, who ordered its
temporary removal from the magisterial docket system.
The Leak That Broke the Case:
The 1998 University Park Police Report
The 1998 University Park Police Report
According
to the investigative report of Geoffrey Moulton of the Sandusky investigation,
the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) obtained the 1998 UP police report on
January 3, 2011. However, there is some
evidence that the OAG knew about the 1998 report much sooner than it was
obtained. Mike Gillum, the psychologist
of Aaron Fisher, revealed the OAG may have had knowledge of the 1998 incident as
early as June 2009. Meanwhile, Ganim and
the P-N reported in two columns in November and December 2011
that the PSP obtained the report
in late 2010.
The actual date the OAG learned of the 1998 Sandusky incident remains a matter in some dispute.
The actual date the OAG learned of the 1998 Sandusky incident remains a matter in some dispute.
In a November 23, 2011 column, the PN reported it had obtained the police report in early 2011 and
used it to break the story of the Sandusky grand jury investigation in March. Another source revealed that Ganim had repeated the report verbatim over the phone in a conversation that took place in January 2011.
In an
article accompanying the grand jury column on March 31st, 2011, that
explained how the P-N investigated
the Sandusky grand jury, it made no
mention of the 1998 police report.
Instead, then-editor David Newhouse, a Benjamin Bradlee Editor of the
Year winner in 2011, wrote that Ganim had knocked on the doors of 26 people and
had found five persons who had knowledge of the grand jury.
He noted
that they used “other information” to corroborate the information gathered by
Ganim. “Other information” could be a
veiled reference to the 1998 police report or it could be other information
obtained from government officials.
In
retrospect, Newhouse’s article seems a bit on the defensive regarding how the P-N came by its information.
No names were provided for the five persons who had knowledge of the investigation. According to the book, Silent No More, Ganim contacted Aaron Fisher, Dawn Daniels, and Mike Gillum in February 2011 – three of the five people with knowledge of the investigation.
No names were provided for the five persons who had knowledge of the investigation. According to the book, Silent No More, Ganim contacted Aaron Fisher, Dawn Daniels, and Mike Gillum in February 2011 – three of the five people with knowledge of the investigation.
My email
exchange with the mother of Victim 6 revealed that Ganim used the 1998 police
report to track her (and her son) down in January 2011. That brings the total of persons with some
knowledge of the investigation to five.
The P-N disclosed its possession of the 1998
police report in late November 2011. However, either they forgot to tell Ganim or
she forgot about the disclosure. On December 3, 2011 and March 22, 2012 she wrote columns implying that she
did not have knowledge of the report.
December 3,
2011 screen capture:
March 22, 2012 screen capture:
The significance of
the latter story is that Ganim, who possessed the police report at the time,
had to have known Lauro was lying to her
about his knowledge of the evaluations of the boy (victim). Rather than challenge his assertions, Ganim
published a known falsehood by accepting Lauro’s version of events. The rest of the media then followed Ganim’s
lead story when the police report was released to the public on March 23, 2012
– stating that Lauro never saw the reports.
And what were Newhouse
and the P-N legal team doing when
Ganim was perpetrating the ruse that she didn’t know what was in the 1998
police report?
The deceptive practices
continued on – and once again, Newhouse would expose the P-N when he made a second attempt to defend the paper’s reporting
on the Sandusky scandal.
Newhouse’s Timeline Ruse
Much like
his column on March 31, 2011, Newhouse wrote a column on November 10 (revised
November 12) about how the P-N broke
the story.
I have yet
to find evidence that either Sara Ganim or Jan Murphy developed a solid lead
prior to 2011, however, that didn’t stop Newhouse from fabricating a story that
Ganim had tracked down one of the mothers while she was working for the Centre Daily Times (CDT).
Apparently, Newhouse wanted to make it appear that Ganim had uncovered information prior to her hire and that she simply didn’t benefit from leaks. But the truth was that Ganim contacted both mothers after she was hired away from the CDT.
Apparently, Newhouse wanted to make it appear that Ganim had uncovered information prior to her hire and that she simply didn’t benefit from leaks. But the truth was that Ganim contacted both mothers after she was hired away from the CDT.
It is unclear who the “other sources”
were who could talk about both the 1998 and 2008 investigation, however, the
most likely candidates with knowledge of both incidents were Supervisory Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale, Agent Sassano,
Trooper Rossman, Corporal Leiter, Supervisory Agent Randy Feathers, and OAG prosecutors Fina and Eshbach. One other person of interest is OAG press officer Nils Frederiksen.
Evidence suggests that Sassano or Rossman can be ruled out, as they appeared to be kept in the dark on many aspects of the investigation. Also, it is doubtful that Fina was leaking information, given that he was one of the primary foot-draggers on the case.
Feathers is suspected of leaking email information to CNN's Susan Candiotti, as the two were former high school classmates. However, it is unlikely that Feathers was Ganim's source.
Other evidence found in my investigation revealed that grand jury transcripts had been leaked to at least one other newspaper in Central Pennsylvania, which happened to be in close proximity to Sunbury, PA, where Feudale presides as a judge.
Given that Jonelle Eshbach was frustrated with the pace of the investigation and the failure to file charges, she would be among the candidates for leaking information to Ganim. As would Nils Frederiksen, given his role as a press official.
There may be more than one leaker in this case and the top three candidates are Eshbach, Frederiksen, and Feudale.
Evidence suggests that Sassano or Rossman can be ruled out, as they appeared to be kept in the dark on many aspects of the investigation. Also, it is doubtful that Fina was leaking information, given that he was one of the primary foot-draggers on the case.
Feathers is suspected of leaking email information to CNN's Susan Candiotti, as the two were former high school classmates. However, it is unlikely that Feathers was Ganim's source.
Other evidence found in my investigation revealed that grand jury transcripts had been leaked to at least one other newspaper in Central Pennsylvania, which happened to be in close proximity to Sunbury, PA, where Feudale presides as a judge.
Given that Jonelle Eshbach was frustrated with the pace of the investigation and the failure to file charges, she would be among the candidates for leaking information to Ganim. As would Nils Frederiksen, given his role as a press official.
There may be more than one leaker in this case and the top three candidates are Eshbach, Frederiksen, and Feudale.
The P-N’s Possession of Leaked
Information About Seasock
On March 21st, one day before
Ganim misled the public about Lauro’s lack of knowledge of the psychology
reports, she penned an “exclusive” report that former DA Ray Gricar may have
closed the 1998 case due to a report from then unlicensed counselor, John
Seasock. Curiously, Seasock’s last name appears in paragraph four of the March 21st,
2012 article with no previous mention of him in the article. The use of less that Seasock’s full name the
first time it appeared in the article was an obvious giveaway that something
had been deleted.
An internet search found the missing text, which revealed
information that was NEVER made public – specifically, that Seasock’s
report made it to DA Ray Gricar two days before he closed the case.
A web-archive version provides the deleted text, and again, Ganim conceals that she had possession of the Seasock report at the time the column was published and that she had somewhat exclusive knowledge of the discussions regarding documents under seal.
What wasn’t made public until now was that two days before Gricar closed the case, a psychologist concluded Victim 6 was not sexually abused by Sandusky.
The psychologist — John Seasock — was identified in court documents by Sandusky’s attorney as he asked a judge to force prosecutors to hand over the document, along with juvenile records and current and past addresses and phone numbers of the alleged victims.
The judge ruled that the defense can have them. But he made an exception. Unless prosecutors can convince the judge otherwise within the next week, Amendola can read through the psychological evaluation, but he can “make no use of the information contained in the reports without prior authorization of the court.”
A source who reviewed the documents and has knowledge of the case said he believed Seasock’s report was the reason the investigation was closed.
However, the source said, Seasock was not the only psychologist to make an evaluation.
The P-N’s attempt to cite an alternative
source of the information in its March 21st column was actually foiled when the leaked
information from NBC on March 23rd failed to reveal any information about the report being released two days prior to Gricar's decision.
Other information scrubbed from the column included this passage regarding the psychology report of Dr. Alycia Chambers (who in a familiar pattern, is not mentioned by name).
The day after Victim 6 came home from a tour of the football building with then-defensive coordinator and charity founder Jerry Sandusky and told his mom Sandusky had showered with him and a friend, the mother called police. She also called a psychologist.
“And that psychologist concluded that this incident, what the boy described, and I’m paraphrasing ... the psychologist concluded that what the boy described was a classic example of how a sexual abuser grooms his victim,” the source said.
Amendola confirmed that Seasock’s report and another psychologist’s report have been referenced in several other pieces of evidence turned over by prosecutors, but Amendola said he hasn’t yet seen the reports.
The source reviewed the entire police report from 1998. The investigation, which was done by Penn State University police, took a few weeks. It included a sting in which police set up a meeting between the boy’s mother and Sandusky as officers hid in another room.
Note: Full article can be obtained either by search of archive.org/web or by paying for archived version on PennLive.
The McQueary Handwritten Statement
When Ganim
didn’t have the benefit of lawyers watching her every word, she sometime
bragged about digging up information that was likely leaked to her. Such is the case of the McQueary hand-written
statement to the police.
The tweet
by Ganim was in conflict with her November 16th story that she had
only viewed the handwritten statement
of McQueary’s. Her report also contained an error regarding
the content of McQueary’s statement.
In his
expose’ about McQueary, titled The Whistleblower’s Last Stand, ESPN’s Don Van Natta obtained McQueary’s hand
written statement and reported it verbatim in the story (confirmed by Van
Natta). It contains nothing about Curley
and Schultz.
Full text of the statement follows:
On
the Friday before spring break in either the year 2001 or 2002, 2002 I think,
at approx 10 pm in the Lasch Football Building on the Penn State campus I
witnessed improper behavior by Jerry Sandusky in regards to a male juvenile. As
I walked in to the staff locker room I heard rythmic [sic] slapping
sounds. The locker room lights were on & I did hear the showers running [a second "running" is crossed out]. Upon
my entry I turned immediately to my right to open my locker. While placing items in my locker I looked
into the mirror at a 45 [degree] angle; in the reflection I could see a young boy
approx. 10/11 yrs old facing a wall with Jerry Sandusky directly behind him. I
did not see actual insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being
sodomized was occuring [sic].
I looked away. In a hurried/hastened
state, I finished at my locker. I
proceeded out of the locker room. While
walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky
looked directly in my direction. After leaving the locker room I proceeded to
my office, made a phone call to my father and then immediately left the
building.
I
drove to my parents house. Spoke with my
father about the incident and received advise [sic]. On the next Saturday morning at roughly 8 am --
less than 12 hrs after the incident -- I alerted Coach Paterno -- my superior at
PSU -- at his house in person as to what I saw!
To
be clear: From the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was
maybe 1 minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered.
I
would not be able to recognize the boy. Both individuals were wet and the looks
were quick -- I had not seen the boy before nor have I seen him after to my
knowledge
<end
statement>
Much like the court docket of
November 4th, this is another instance of Ganim receiving
information from an inside source sight unseen and reporting what she was
told.
McQueary's written statement eventually made its way to the P-N. On December 11, Ganim reported that it was in the paper's possession.
McQueary's written statement eventually made its way to the P-N. On December 11, Ganim reported that it was in the paper's possession.
Dr. Dranov’s Testimony
Ganim’s
tweet stating the McQueary’s handwritten statement supported the testimony of
Dr. Dranov is clearly false. There is
nothing in the handwritten statement confirming Dr. Dranov’s testimony of an
arm pulling the boy back from around a corner.
Ganim’s
article on Dr. Dranov again cites an
unnamed source with knowledge of his testimony. Who that source might that be is likely a person from within the previously mentioned, small group.
On February
2013, Judge Barry Feudale ordered an investigation into the grand jury leaks
associated with the 33rd state-wide investigating grand jury (Sandusky),
the 2006 Dauphin County Grand Jury that investigated the slot machine licensing
to Louis DeNaples, and the yet to be impanelled 36th state-wide
investigating grand jury. The probe was
to end by August 8, 2013, however, nothing to date has been reported on the
progress of these investigations by Special Prosecutor, James M. Reeder.
Why should we be surprised that another Sandusky related investigation is going nowhere?
Why should we be surprised that another Sandusky related investigation is going nowhere?
Conclusion
The evidence in the case reveals that quite a bit of leaking was going on and not just to Ganim and the P-N. However, the P-N appeared to use the leaked information to persevere on its theme of a "Penn State sex scandal" and to quash competing information before it could gain traction with the other media.
The reporting of leaked information and the back-tracking by the P-N also revealed that Ganim was much too inexperienced to take on the reporting of the scandal by herself and needed a lot of help from the P-N's lawyers and editors David Newhouse and Cate Barron to ensure the paper's reliance on leaked information was not exposed.
As the evidence shows, their attempt to cover-up the leaked information was far from "adept."
In the end, they failed.
The reporting of leaked information and the back-tracking by the P-N also revealed that Ganim was much too inexperienced to take on the reporting of the scandal by herself and needed a lot of help from the P-N's lawyers and editors David Newhouse and Cate Barron to ensure the paper's reliance on leaked information was not exposed.
As the evidence shows, their attempt to cover-up the leaked information was far from "adept."
In the end, they failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
