"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."

That allegation was blown away by the Moulton Report's timeline, specifically:

"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: 

"LEGAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING SUBPOENAS:

Baldwin "stonewalled" the PSU Three

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.  

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. 

Spanier:  According to Graham Spanier's New Yorker interview, he was not told to search for documents by Baldwin.  

"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  

Given the allegation that Penn State had turned over just a handful of documents just TWO DAYS before the testimony of PSU officials,  it strains credulity that Fina and Eshbach didn't ask anyone a question about that subpoena or any questions at all about searching for documents related to Sandusky.  The only person asked about documents was Schultz, likely because Baldwin had already passed his notes to them.

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"

Unsealed documents hammer Feudale, Fina, Baldwin. Lead to more questions.

Recently unsealed documents in the cases of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier reveal possible misconduct by Feudale and alleged obstruction by Baldwin.  They also add to real questions about the evidence in this case.

By
Ray Blehar

While I have not had a chance to get through all of the filings that were unsealed, the few documents I reviewed were not good news for former PSU General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, Frank Fina,  and former grand jury supervisory Judge Barry Feudale.

Baldwin Grand Jury Subpoena Compliance

As reported at the November 2013, Upon Further Review presentation,  e-mails that were turned over to Ryan Bagwell by the Pennsylvania Department of Education revealed that Baldwin was allegedly not complying with grand jury subpoenas.  It was unclear which subpoenas were impacted, however the subpoena specifically referenced by Frank Fina's letter was issued before Baldwin was hired as General Counsel.

The email conversations among Ken Frazier, John Surma, and others called for urgency in handling the issue at hand (i.e., throwing Baldwin under the bus). 

Ken Frazier's mention of "issues with the incumbent" and timeline of decisions revealed that the inner circle used Fina's letter to force Baldwin's abrupt retirement in January 2012.  

However, the recently unsealed documents revealed the December 19, 2011 e-mail in its entirety at Exhibit O of  the Supplemental Memorandum Support of Motion to Quash Criminal Complaint (Exhibits G-O).  The e-mail, from Frank Fina to then-PSU Counsel Baldwin castigated her for failing to comply with a subpoena concerning Sandusky's retirement information, requested on December 29, 2010, as well as for a "lengthy history of noncompliance."   

Fina stated that the retirement information had just been received on December 19, after Baldwin had been admonished by the grand jury judge.  The full e-mail follows, however, the subject of the alleged foot-dragging on the turnover of Sandusky's retirement information is easily explained because: 

1) Baldwin was not PSU's General Counsel at the time of the subpoena on January 8, 2010 that requested Sandusky's employment records. 

2) Baldwin  did not provide a copy of the subpoena (duces tecum) issued on December 28, 2010 to Paterno.   The Paterno family turned over some of Sandusky's retirement files to Louis Freeh to assist in his investigated (as documented in the Freeh Report exhibits).  

In summary, Baldwin was unaware of what was turned over in regard to the Sandusky employment records and could easily be duped about the matter. 

Cynthia Baldwin understood her responsibilities to answer subpoenas.  She served on the bench in Allegheny County for 16 years.  Moreover, on July 19, 2010, while Baldwin was legal counsel, PSU revised Policy AD49, which contains language stating:  

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.   

Contrary to popular belief, Baldwin was not incompetent.  She knew exactly what she was doing and the evidence indicates she was cooperating with the OAG to keep PSU officials in the dark about the Sandusky investigation.   She never told Curley, Schultz, or Spanier about any of the documents or evidence that was turned over and may have actually had a role in altering some of it (according to a well placed source). 

Sandusky's Retirement and Emeritus Status

In an earlier blogpost, I contended that the issue of emeritus status was overblown and that the granting of the title and benefits was not all that unusual, according the PSU OHR official Janine Andrews.  However, the Freeh Report blamed the emeritus status (granted by Spanier) and Sandusky's access to facilities as enabling his crime spree - despite the evidence that no crimes occurred on campus after 2001.

Given that abuse incidents on campus by Sandusky after his retirement were few, there were other issues that may have caused PSU to delay in handing over some of the information.

First, the approval of Sandusky's emeritus status was given by then-PSU Provost Rodney Erickson.  Freeh Report Exhibit 3I reveals that Erickson approved the emeritus position and title on or about August 31, 1999.   

Next, a hand-delivered letter dated June 29, 1999, titled "IN RE: Retirement Perquisites" (Freeh Report Exhibit 3H) was signed off by then-Athletic Director Tim Curley and allegedly approved by Senior Vice President for Finance and Business/Treasurer, Gary Schultz.  However, upon closer inspection of the letter it appears that Schultz may not have been the original signatory.

When viewed at high magnification, it appears that Schultz signature and title block may have been pasted over the original signature.  Note that some of the text has "aliasing" (or shadowing) while other text is very clear. In other words, this is yet another document of questionable provenance that has been discovered in the Freeh Report. 

It is also notable that former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff identified documents of questionable provenance in his review of Freeh's report on the Wynn Resorts. 

Once again, this is not proof of evidence tampering, but it is suspicious and it raises the question:  Was Schultz's signature put on this document in order to "implicate" him, along with Curley and Spanier, in the granting of emeritus status (and related benefits) to Sandusky? 

While it is well established that Baldwin was not being forthright in gathering evidence in responses to the various subpoenas during this case.  However, the bigger question that must be answered is whether or not the information she turned over, such as the Schultz document and the e-mail evidence, was authentic.

Feudale's and OAG Misconduct

In Exhibit K of the Supplemental Memorandum Support of Motion to Quash Criminal Complaint (Exhibits G-O)​, Feudale made a minimum of two false statements with regard to his knowledge of the circumstances of the case.  

First, Feudale stated (at k., page 9)  he was not aware that Spanier was the subject of the investigation and was there to simply move the case along.

That statement appears to be false, based on the transcripts of Spanier's 13 April 2011 colloquy.  

Prior to Spanier taking the stand, Fina concluded an in-camera argument regarding the justification for the expansive scope of a subpoena for PSU e-mails from 1997 and earlier. 

During that argument, Fina stated that Curley and Schultz had been informed about the incident witnessed by Mike McQueary that was of a sexual nature and the men met with Spanier to discuss possible actions.  Fina stated the men chose to report the incident to the nonprofit involved, but not report the incident to the proper authorities - a summary offense.

Fina then made this statement implying that PSU officials were among "quite a number of people" who knew (i.e., "notorious") about Sandusky's conduct.