OAG seems to have had Gary Schultz' notes in January 2011

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
26,536
27,681
1
Eileen Morgan and Ray Blehar make an excellent case that Cynthia Baldwin supplied the OAG with Schultz' notes in January 2011.

Seems that the powers-that-be then used Louis Freeh to lie about when Schultz' "secret file" was first "discovered" on (Freeh claims March 30, 2012).
Me: It is "reasonable to conclude" that the notes were used to formulate a narrative that would protect TSM, CYS, DPW, CMHS and the OAG at the expense of Penn State.

Direct link: http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/07/morgan-oag-had-schultz-file-in-january.html
 
Last edited:

JmmyW

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2013
538
2,048
1
Sassano seemed to have a lot of trouble explaining to the court how the Schultz file was found. He said he found documents in Schultz's old office. Then, when asked when he found them, he couldn't give a date. But he said it was after Duane Morris got involved, and that it was actually Duane Morris who turned over the Schultz file. That would have been after the scandal broke in November 2011 unless Duane Morris started working for Penn State before then. And don't forget, Duane Morris is the law firm that Cynthia Baldwin worked for just before she became in-house counsel for Penn State.





 

rmb297

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2013
2,291
3,049
1
All you really have to know about Sassano is that he testified the AG set the date of the trial by his "gum shoe" work tracking down the date using TV guides. RUDY! RUDY! RUDY!

Pretty much goes to show you that either Tony was kept in the dark about the evidence or is quite a liar. In all honesty, I think he was kept in the dark.

He didn't know who John Seasock was when he interviewed a Penn Stater in August 2012.
 

LundyPSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2002
11,470
1,867
1
Do we know yet what was actually found in the Schultz file (paper file) vs what was recovered from his archived emails?
 

rmb297

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2013
2,291
3,049
1
Lundy,
We only know as much as provided in the legal filings -- and those things that Freeh identified that we should have seen, but haven't....

The July 2013 preliminary hearing revealed that Commonwealth’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, and 13 were documents and emails that Freeh EXCLUDED from his report. Freeh promised to "investigate this matter fully, fairly, and completely, without fear or favor," however these omissions revealed that he failed to make good on his promise.

Three of the omitted emails and documents challenged some key (false) assertions of the case, including that CYS was replaced by DPW in the investigation (proven false by Commonwealth’s #5), that DPW's Jerry Lauro didn’t know the details of the case and wasn’t aware of counselor Seasock’s report (proven false by Commonwealth’s #3) and that DPW didn’t know about psychologist Dr. Chambers' report (proven false by Commonwealth’s #13).

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/05/paterno-subpoena-seeks-to-discover-what.html

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/05/missing-documents-from-schultz-file.html

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/05/did-missing-documents-from-schultz-file.html
 

pmjoe

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2004
964
65
1
Meh. While I've long considered the grand jury may have had some part of the notes/emails prior to the Curley/Schultz questioning, this article plays pretty lose with the conjecture - could almost give Freeh a run for the money.

"It is interesting to point out in the second instance, they phrased it, ‘other than your own notes….’ That seems to confirm they indeed were aware of his notes."

Uh, just perhaps they were aware because he mentioned the notes in his previous answer?

"Remember, Schultz’s file was not turned over to the OAG (by Schultz and Belcher) until April 2012, so how could this statement be determined perjurious on March 30, 2012?
There was absolutely no other corroborating evidence that supported Curley knowing of a ‘specific conversation about going to law enforcement or not.’"

Uh, I suspect the perjury charge was based around the part of his response where he says, "I didn't feel personally that any criminal activity had occurred." They aren't going to charge you with perjury over "I don't recall" [about going to law enforcement]. The whole heart of the case at the time was that Schultz lied about how much detail McQueary told them.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,006
23,915
1
Meh. While I've long considered the grand jury may have had some part of the notes/emails prior to the Curley/Schultz questioning, this article plays pretty lose with the conjecture - could almost give Freeh a run for the money.

"It is interesting to point out in the second instance, they phrased it, ‘other than your own notes….’ That seems to confirm they indeed were aware of his notes."

Uh, just perhaps they were aware because he mentioned the notes in his previous answer?

"Remember, Schultz’s file was not turned over to the OAG (by Schultz and Belcher) until April 2012, so how could this statement be determined perjurious on March 30, 2012?
There was absolutely no other corroborating evidence that supported Curley knowing of a ‘specific conversation about going to law enforcement or not.’"

Uh, I suspect the perjury charge was based around the part of his response where he says, "I didn't feel personally that any criminal activity had occurred." They aren't going to charge you with perjury over "I don't recall" [about going to law enforcement]. The whole heart of the case at the time was that Schultz lied about how much detail McQueary told them.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,006
23,915
1
And how often are perjury charges filed on he said...he said? Why then would MM not be the one who could be lying?
 

rmb297

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2013
2,291
3,049
1
"Remember, Schultz’s file was not turned over to the OAG (by Schultz and Belcher) until April 2012, so how could this statement be determined perjurious on March 30, 2012?
There was absolutely no other corroborating evidence that supported Curley knowing of a ‘specific conversation about going to law enforcement or not.’"

Uh, I suspect the perjury charge was based around the part of his response where he says, "I didn't feel personally that any criminal activity had occurred." They aren't going to charge you with perjury over "I don't recall" [about going to law enforcement]. The whole heart of the case at the time was that Schultz lied about how much detail McQueary told them.

Once you stop confusing Curley and Schultz, you may actually understand the evidence.

Regardless, a perjury charge cannot be made on what someone believed or felt at the time of the incident, yet the OAG frequently made perjury charges based on thoughts, feelings, and "recollections" of what transpired.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates

SteveMasters

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2014
247
160
1
Once you stop confusing Curley and Schultz, you may actually understand the evidence.

Regardless, a perjury charge cannot be made on what someone believed or felt at the time of the incident, yet the OAG frequently made perjury charges based on thoughts, feelings, and "recollections" of what transpired.

The State doesn't have a case against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Irregardless of what Baldwin thought; Curley, Schultz, and Spanier all thought Baldwin was their lawyer and that is what was important. Getting access to the Freeh Report raw materials will expose the FR farce for what it is and end the CS&S charade. I believe that the OAG charged CS&S with crimes when they apparently have no interest in trying them so that they wouldn't be called as witnesses in the JS trial and rebut the charges of v2 and v6. If they would have been allow to testify, I believe that none of the charges of malfeasance associated with Penn State would have stuck and Penn State would have escaped with zero culpability.

The OAG making knowingly false statements concerning knowledge of the date of the v2 incident (2001 or 2002) so that the statute of limitations would not be in effect in 2011 is an example of prosecutorial misconduct IMO. In addition, I believe that the OAG denying knowledge of Schultz's secret Sandusky file on Jan. 12, 2011 in order to provide cover for Baldwin is also prosecutorial misconduct.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
15,671
19,956
1
www.qmap.pub
Sassano seemed to have a lot of trouble explaining to the court how the Schultz file was found. He said he found documents in Schultz's old office. Then, when asked when he found them, he couldn't give a date. But he said it was after Duane Morris got involved, and that it was actually Duane Morris who turned over the Schultz file. That would have been after the scandal broke in November 2011 unless Duane Morris started working for Penn State before then. And don't forget, Duane Morris is the law firm that Cynthia Baldwin worked for just before she became in-house counsel for Penn State.










Jimmy you've been killing it this weekend. Please post more often my friend (especially since my work computer recently started blocking Twitter and I know you share most of your work there)! It is much appreciated.

The Schultz timeline is fascinating to me. Most people probably didn't know that Schultz retired in 2009 two YEARS before the scandal broke. Then PSU asked him to come back on an interim basis in fall 2011 to help them out of a jam after Horvath left only to completely throw him under the bus in Nov '11. What a nice welcome back gift!! Freaking scumbags. You know they are the worst when even the mob thinks they're despicable rats....
 
Last edited:

pkg5002

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2013
649
534
1
35
I swear amma drop kick Baldwin and L.Freeh right in the kisser if I ever see them.. lol
 

ralpieE

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
879
357
1
Jimmy you've been killing it this weekend. Please post more often my friend (especially since my work computer recently started blocking Twitter and I know you share most of your work there)! It is much appreciated.

The Schultz timeline is fascinating to me. Most people probably didn't know that Schultz retired in 2009 two YEARS before the scandal broke. Then PSU asked him to come back on an interim basis in fall 2011 to help them out of a jam after Horvath left only to completely throw him under the bus in Nov '11. What a nice welcome back gift!! Freaking scumbags. You know they are the worst when even the mob thinks they're despicable rats....


You think that return wasn't a sham to set him up?
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
15,671
19,956
1
www.qmap.pub
You think that return wasn't a sham to set him up?

I think it was. I think PSU asked Schultz back when they did for a very specific reason. They wanted him to be "employed" by psu when they threw him under the bus in 11/11. It was all part of their plan. If he was retired when 11/11 happened psu/freeh couldnt claim he was keeping his "secret" file hidden.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,006
23,915
1
Who is Harmon's benefactor and how has he skated on this? There is no way he was not in the middle of 2001,
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion

rmb297

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2013
2,291
3,049
1
Who is Harmon's benefactor and how has he skated on this? There is no way he was not in the middle of 2001,
Harmon simply cut a deal. Corbett wanted Spanier and believed he could get him by putting the pressure on Curley and Schultz to flip.

Harmon's testimony about 2001 is an absolute farce in light of his evidence altering back in 1998.

Q: If you had received such a report [in 2001], what would you have done with it.

A: We would have investigated it and, again, there would have been an immediate notification of the District Attorney under those circumstances.

LOL! Harmon testified he changed the title of the 1998 report from criminal investigation to administrative information because they (the police) allegedly didn't know what they were dealing with. Truth be told, if that complaint went through Harmon, he would have quashed the investigation of his buddy, Jerry.

Harmon also testified (p 123) that the football team was using the Lasch building in 1998 -- two years before it was built.

I think we can all see why the Commonwealth will never try this case. Star witnesses Harmon, Baldwin, and McQueary will get ripped to shreds.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,006
23,915
1
Harmon simply cut a deal. Corbett wanted Spanier and believed he could get him by putting the pressure on Curley and Schultz to flip.

Harmon's testimony about 2001 is an absolute farce in light of his evidence altering back in 1998.

Q: If you had received such a report [in 2001], what would you have done with it.

A: We would have investigated it and, again, there would have been an immediate notification of the District Attorney under those circumstances.

LOL! Harmon testified he changed the title of the 1998 report from criminal investigation to administrative information because they (the police) allegedly didn't know what they were dealing with. Truth be told, if that complaint went through Harmon, he would have quashed the investigation of his buddy, Jerry.

Harmon also testified (p 123) that the football team was using the Lasch building in 1998 -- two years before it was built.

I think we can all see why the Commonwealth will never try this case. Star witnesses Harmon, Baldwin, and McQueary will get ripped to shreds.
Harmon and
Baldwin will feign Commonwealth Dementia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

pennstatekev

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2015
77
115
1
Assuming that the file was in OAGs hands, is it possible to gomto trial and not have this come out?
 

ralpieE

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
879
357
1
All I have to say about 2001 is that if Mike (witness), the "victim" or the "victim's" family did not file a report, there likely is none. Those are the people responsible for going to the police.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

rmb297

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2013
2,291
3,049
1
All I have to say about 2001 is that if Mike (witness), the "victim" or the "victim's" family did not file a report, there likely is none. Those are the people responsible for going to the police.
Based on the discretion CYS has in "screening out" reports of abuse, the failure to report case will never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralpieE

Ceasar

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
13,596
10,921
1
Based on the discretion CYS has in "screening out" reports of abuse, the failure to report case will never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's interesting - are you saying CYS does not have to investigate a report? Can you elaborate? Thanks
 

rmb297

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2013
2,291
3,049
1
That's interesting - are you saying CYS does not have to investigate a report? Can you elaborate? Thanks


CYS can simply screen out reports of abuse if they choose to do so. In the recent case of the death of Jarrod Tutko, Jr., Dauphin County CYS received numerous complaints from hospitals and schools about the neglect and abuse of the children. They screened several of those calls out and did not investigate.

Prior to the new laws being enacted in 2014, CYS could classify calls as General Protective Service calls and make no record of them. Under the GPS scenario, CYS assessed the call and determined if an investigation or intervention was needed. At the same time, other calls were classified as Child Protective Services complaints, which required an investigation. However, even in those cases there was no timeline for investigating the complaint. As a result, complaints not investigated went "off the books" after 60 days.

The new law eliminated GPS discretion and required that ALL complaints be reported to ChildLine. That is why ChildLine has been inundated with calls and cannot keep up.

You can read more here: http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/02/eileen-morgan-pennsylvanias-children-in.html
 

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,171
6,565
1
.

Harmon also testified (p 123) that the football team was using the Lasch building in 1998 -- two years before it was built..

Well, Harmon is correct. What's now called The East Area Locker Rooms was called Lasch at that time. At what point in time that facility took on the Lasch name, I"m not certain. But, when the current football facility was built, it took the name(The Louis and Mildred Lasch football building) with it.

http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_1999/May6/alerts.html

Armed with this "new" knowledge, Ray, reread the Amended Bill of Particulars and see if you can be certain where the scene of the crime took place:

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS.pdf
 

psu00

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2010
23,204
10,668
1
Eileen Morgan and Ray Blehar make an excellent case that Cynthia Baldwin supplied the OAG with Schultz' notes in January 2011.

Seems that the powers-that-be then used Louis Freeh to lie about when Schultz' "secret file" was first "discovered" on (Freeh claims March 30, 2012).

Me: It is "reasonable to conclude" that the notes were used to formulate a narrative that would protect TSM, CYS, DPW, CMHS and the OAG at the expense of Penn State.

Direct link: http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/07/morgan-oag-had-schultz-file-in-january.html



If true- it just highlites the main problem with how the case was/ is handled. If this came out when the whole 'secret file' nonsense was news it would have created a real stir. Now- .....not so much. No one cares. It's like the BoTs promise to not see Freeh until we all did. Now known as a complete lie but no one cares as too much time has passed. At this point the state could clear CSS completely and it wouldn't matter to most outside of PA.
 

Ceasar

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
13,596
10,921
1
CYS can simply screen out reports of abuse if they choose to do so. In the recent case of the death of Jarrod Tutko, Jr., Dauphin County CYS received numerous complaints from hospitals and schools about the neglect and abuse of the children. They screened several of those calls out and did not investigate.

Prior to the new laws being enacted in 2014, CYS could classify calls as General Protective Service calls and make no record of them. Under the GPS scenario, CYS assessed the call and determined if an investigation or intervention was needed. At the same time, other calls were classified as Child Protective Services complaints, which required an investigation. However, even in those cases there was no timeline for investigating the complaint. As a result, complaints not investigated went "off the books" after 60 days.

The new law eliminated GPS discretion and required that ALL complaints be reported to ChildLine. That is why ChildLine has been inundated with calls and cannot keep up.

You can read more here: http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/02/eileen-morgan-pennsylvanias-children-in.html
Thank you Ray. Very enlightening.