Just saw this by Ray, enjoy
Wednesday, February 15
Evidence in 2001 Twisted, Tainted, and Incomplete
The case against PSU officials was built on an incomplete record that was twisted and manipulated by prosecutors to frame PSU officials. The prosecutor's work was good enough to create a massive conspiracy theory that fooled nearly everyone.
By
Ray Blehar
Link: http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/02/evidence-in-2001-twisted-tainted-and.html
The evidence in the so-called Conspiracy of Silence case strongly indicates that the Pennsylvania
Office of Attorney General (OAG), Cynthia Baldwin, and the Freeh Group engaged in a series of intentional misrepresentations in order to make the case of a criminal conspiracy surrounding an alleged failure to report Jerry Sandusky in 2001.
Information is power and in this case information was selectively used, withheld, and reorganized to convince an all too willing public that PSU officials were evil people who put the football program above the welfare of children.
Among these misrepresentations were: all reports of child abuse are investigated; the contents of Gary Schultz’s so-called secret file all belonged to Schultz; that Schultz reviewed the 1998 police report before deciding to act; that the suggestions to get Sandusky help were based solely on the 1998 and 2001 incidents; and several others.
Again, this was good enough to fool almost everyone who didn’t critically look at the information and evidence in the case.
But here’s what happens when those misrepresentations get a dose of reality.
Child Abuse Reports and
Child Protective Services (CPS)
The OAG and Freeh preyed on the public’s ignorance of Pennsylvania’s CPS. In the mind of the public, when a Pennsylvania CPS office receives an allegation of abuse, someone is actually there to answer the phone, dutifully records the complaint, and an investigator is assigned to conduct an investigation.
Welcome to Fantasy Island. It doesn’t work that way.
The testimony of experts on how the system actually works was reported by notpsu.blogspot.com in 2013 – but one part of that report especially bears repeating.
Robert Schwartz, Executive Director of the Juvenile Law Center said this in his address to the PA Task Force on Child Protection:
"Drafters of child protection laws often imagine a call coming into a well-trained, experienced worker who can devote an unlimited amount of time to the call. The worker gets the facts, matches the call to the definitions in the statute, calculates who the perpetrator is, and makes a site visit. There she or he does a careful safety assessment and considers long term risks. The worker matches the child and family to an array of carefully crafted risk-management services, all aimed at promoting child safety and well-being. There is on-going, thoughtful monitoring of the case.
Even if everything went like that, child protection would be difficult, and fraught with misjudgments. But, of course, that’s not the way the system works. There is high turnover in child protective services units. Workers often lack experience. They don’t handle a single case, but many cases. They have fewer risk-management tools than they need. Caseloads are too high for everyone. Legislation that requires sending more and more cases into such a system risks hurting the children who are supposed to be protected by it. When thousands of children who are not at serious risk are referred to child protective services, the losers are the children most at risk."
The PA Task Force ignored the advice of Schwartz, strengthened the laws, and it resulted in thousands of more calls inundating PA ChildLine.
The realities of CPS follow:
Thousands of calls go unanswered.
Not all calls are registered in the ChildLine database. Prior to changes in the law in 2014, there were dual reporting systems and general protective services complaints were not logged into ChildLine.
In cases of an unfounded report or the failure to conduct an investigation within 60 days, the records are expunged.
Many complaints, especially concerning repeat complaints against someone who was formerly cleared, are screened out. This happens in other states too.
In summary, the realities of CPS are far different than the assumptions the OAG relied on to convince the public that the only possible answer to Sandusky not being investigated by CPS in 2001 was the failure to report him.
Obviously, that wasn’t then and never was the reality.
Prosecuting Gary Schultz for perjury for his recollection that the 2001 incident was reported to local child protection services clearly could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the facts just shown regarding PA CPS.
Also, the chance of a successful prosecution on Endangering the Welfare of a Child is also unlikely because reasonable doubt can be established using the same method.
While the possibilities of what happened regarding the 2001 report are many, “screening out” should be at the top of the list given that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 and cleared by CPS and because of his reputation as a foster and adoptive parent in the child welfare community.
Chain of Custody the Schultz File
There is little doubt that the Schultz file and emails are an incomplete record of the actions of PSU officials in 2001. Many of the communications about the Sandusky matter were lost forever when PSU changed its computer systems in 2004. Thus we only know about a few emails that Gary Schultz preserved in his role as overseeing the University Park (UP) police.
Next, the purported contents of the Schultz file -- allegedly recovered in 2012 -- are unlikely to be consistent with the contents that were in the file in 2001.
Also, there are varying accounts on who turned over and/or recovered the Schultz file – including Schultz, his administrative assistant Kimberly Belcher, and attorneys from the Duane Morris law firm.
Schultz’s 2009 replacement, Albert Horvath, occupied that office at the time the subpoena for the Sandusky documents was served to PSU (in late 2010).
There is no possible way that the OAG can prove the file remained intact for 10 or 11 years – and that someone, most likely Cynthia Baldwin, manipulated the contents of the file.
In summary, the chain of custody and the integrity of the Schultz file’s contents are absolutely in question.
That brings us to the contents of the file itself and how the OAG relied upon a few phrases, rather than the complete context to make its case.
Out of Proper Context
The OAG drew a number of assumptions about what PSU officials were told and knew based on a few isolated phrases and words in emails and notes that were in the possession of Gary Schultz.
Freeh Report (duplicate) Exhibits 3E and 5C revealed the handwritten note penned by Schultz on February 12, 2001 – two days after being told about the "McQueary" incident.
The OAG and Freeh used the following phrases from that note to push their conspiracy theory:
“reviewed 1998 history”
“unless he confesses to having a problem”
“need to have DPW review the matter”
As I have written many times, what easily seen or observed is important, but so is what is not seen or missing.
In this instance the missing information is the time of day the note was written.
Many might presume the note was written around 5:00 PM because that was after UP police chief Thomas Harmon sent an email to Schultz regarding the 1998 police report. However, it is more likely that the note was written at or before 8:00 AM based on Schultz’s legal consultation with former PSU General Counsel Wendell Courtney.
McQueary informed Paterno of the incident at approximately 8:00 AM on February 10th, as such, Courtney’s legal research on February 11th and subsequent recommendation to inform child welfare had to be completed within 48 hours to comply with the law.
Wendell Courtney recently testified (at the McQueary trial) that he recommended PSU report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare (DPW).
It is very unlikely that Schultz ignored the advice of PSU's attorney.
What would keep him from doing so?
Contrary to popular legend, Schultz did not meet with Joe Paterno. Therefore, the alleged most powerful man at PSU, and some say in the state of Pennsylvania, didn't intervene.
Page 83 and 84 of the Freeh Report revealed that Courtney emailed then PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin on January 9, 2011 and stated that he recalled someone had contacted Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS).
Courtney’s most recent testimony confused/conflated DPW and CC CYS and, apparently the crack attorneys on PSU's legal team didn’t bother to refresh his memory by showing him the email.
Regardless, Courtney and Schultz both believed a report was made to “local child welfare” authorities in 2001. So far, there has been scant evidence presented to refute their recollection of a report. That evidence was testimony of Sassano that he spoke with one individual at DPW and one at CC CYS who didn't recall a report being made. Moreover, neither of these individuals were people who actually answered the phones.
As noted earlier, there are various avenues a child abuse report can take and the lack of a record proves little to nothing.
Under this alternative scenario of a report to CC CYS, Schultz’s reference to DPW was not in the context of making a report -- because it had already been made.
The bottom line is that every line of this note needs to be put into context by aligning it with supporting evidence – instead of jumping to conclusions based on assumptions.
“Talked w TMC”
It is clear from the first line of the note that Schultz conferred with Tim Curley at some point before he wrote the note – likely on Sunday afternoon or evening.
Based on the supervisory relationship (even if informal) between Schultz and Curley, it is highly probable that the Athletic Department and/or Athletic Director Tim Curley shared information with Schultz about Sandusky – and particularly Sandusky’s retirement since it had financial implications.
In summary, “Talked with TMC” can be interpreted as exchanging information about Sandusky – whether it was related to the 1998 incident, the 2001 incident, his retirement, or anything else that may have been discussed.
“reviewed 1998 history”
The OAG assumed that the line meant Schultz had obtained the 1998 UP police report and reviewed it. He was subsequently charged with perjury for testifying he did not recall seeing or asking for the 1998 police report. Recall that Schultz had expressed shock to hear the report was over 100 pages long.
At the July 2013 preliminary hearing, Harmon testified that he had no recollection of Schultz asking for the file nor did he recall providing it to him. As such, this unauthenticated email’s contents purporting to show a response to an inquiry are highly questionable.
There are two other takeaways from Harmon’s testimony.
First and foremost, if Schultz didn’t call or ask for the file, then Harmon did it on his own. And if Harmon did it on his own, then he had to be told that another incident happened involving Sandusky.
Schultz’s communication with Harmon is allegedly memorialized by a document in the so-called secret file (see End Note 304 and index of the Freeh Report). This document has yet to see the light of day.
There is little doubt that potentially exculpatory information is being withheld in this case.
Harmon’s testimony also means that “reviewed 1998 history” was not the police report – but information that Schultz had immediate access to on Sunday and early Monday.
It is practically certain that Schultz reviewed his 1998 emails and Sandusky’s retirement records.
As for the handwritten notes attributed to the so-called secret file, it would be natural to assume that they among the information that Schultz reviewed on that Sunday and into Monday.
But that’s an assumption you shouldn’t make.
Like practically all of the critical evidence in this case, no chain of custody has been established for those documents.
It is highly likely that Harmon asked Schultz for any notes related to the incident because Harmon took it upon himself to label the report as administrative information so that the 1998 report wouldn’t be found by the media and then become known to the public.
Finally, whatever contents were alleged to be part of the Schultz secret file and most other evidence turned over by PSU (literally) has Cynthia Baldwin’s fingerprints on them.
Baldwin's fingerprints should be the kiss of death when it comes to determining if evidence is admissible.
“TMC will discuss with JVP”
This is another one of the most overlooked, but possibly one of the most important lines in the document.
Under questioning by police and prosecutors, Joe Paterno stated twice – and one of those times under oath -- that he spoke to Tim Curley on the phone (on Saturday, February 10th) and didn’t discuss the incident after that. He also implied that in his last interview.
“So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did.”
Tim Curley testified that he met with Paterno at his house after receiving the phone call on Sunday, February 11th. That doesn’t support Paterno’s recollection of events.
Curley also testified that he circled back and spoke to Joe Paterno about the plan of action. That also doesn’t support Paterno’s recollection of events.
Paterno also didn’t recall that the reason he didn’t call Curley immediately was because he had to catch a flight to Pittsburgh to attend the Dapper Dan dinner.
Paterno didn’t recall that he called Curley on Sunday or the meeting with Curley at his home. Paterno’s recollection was that “he didn’t want to interrupt anyone’s weekend.”
In light of all of Paterno’s erroneous statements, his advanced age when questioned, and time that passed since the incident, it was irresponsible for the OAG to cherry pick one or two things that were said that supported McQueary’s version of events.
The selective use of information is essential to run a deception – and that’s what this case has been from the start.
“TMC should meet w/ JS on Friday”
The Friday referenced would have been February 16, 2001. Records indicate Curley did not meet with Sandusky until early March 2001.
What, or more appropriately, who kept this meeting from taking place?
It is highly probable that CC CYS intervened and instructed PSU officials to hold off talking to anyone until they made a decision about the 2001 incident. The timing of the interviews of Sandusky is very similar between 1998 and 2001.
In 1998, the incident was reported to PSU on May 4, 1998 and the police did not interview Sandusky until June 1st. Almost one month later.
In 2001, the information about Sandusky made it to PSU officials on February 11th and he was not interviewed until early March. Almost one month later.
In 1998, CC CYS met after the first day of the investigation to "decide what to do." In other words, whether or not to investigate Sandusky. They remained unsure what to do but "either way, caseworker felt they would interview Jerry" (see Freeh Exhibit 2I)
It is highly probable that a similar discussion took place at CC CYS in 2001 -- and the decision was to not investigate.
Given the notoriety of the Sandusky matter -- and the people who are really behind this deception, there is little chance of anyone at CC CYS would be brave enough to come forward and tell the truth.
Not to say there haven't been anonymous sources who have admitted that CC CYS knew about 2001.
“unless he confesses to having a problem”
The OAG and Freeh made this one of the most incriminating lines.
It absolutely had to mean that a sexual incident was reported in 2001 and, after reviewing the 1998 police report Schultz had concluded that Sandusky was a pedophile.
At this stage of the incident, Schultz had conferred with Courtney and Curley.
Curley testified he was told only of horseplay – and his information came from Joe Paterno. As the evidence revealed, Paterno’s recollection (and testimony) of the 2001 incident is inaccurate in many regards.
Thus the conclusion that Jerry had “a problem” is more likely to mean that his conduct was inappropriate, but not abusive, based on Courtney’s legal advice.
However, it is almost certain that Schultz had a copy of Sandusky’s retirement paperwork because he signed off on it. Sandusky’s request stated:
“I am concerned about my mental health.”
While this note is addressed to Curley, the note states that the two men discussed the incident and that Schultz had reviewed “the 1998 history.”
Sandusky retired in 1998.
“we want to assist the individual to get professional help”
The aforementioned exhibit also sheds possible light on the meaning of Tim Curley’s statement in his purported statement in a still unauthenticated email of February 27, 2001.
“TMC will indicate we need to refer the matter to DPW as an independent agency concerned w(ith) child welfare.”
The OAG’s interpretation of this line also preys on the public’s ignorance – and willingness to accept the worst allegations about people.
The line about DPW was interpreted by the OAG as a failure to report the incident to the authorities; however, evidence reveals that Schultz understood from the 1998 investigation that DPW and CC CYS were separate authorities with different roles. CC CYS was local and had ties to The Second Mile (TSM). DPW was not local and was independent from TSM.
Schultz’s “1998 history” also indicated that there were issues related to the previous investigation that were of concern to Harmon.
While the Freeh Report alleged that that CC CYS recused itself from the investigation (in early May 1998) over its conflict of interest with TSM, Harmon testified that CC CYS prevented the UP police from interviewing Sandusky on May 27th, 1998.
The Freeh Report likely got this intentionally wrong as part of its whitewashing of the CC CYS failures in 1998.
“TMC will keep me posted”
This is another overlooked, but important phrase of Schultz’s note.
The 2001 incident was handled in two parts. The first part regarding child welfare was handled by Schultz, Courtney, and Harmon and likely resulted in a report to CC CYS.
The second part of the incident involved deciding on the means in which to handle Jerry’s mental problem.
As reported by notpsu.blogspot.com on February 27, 2016, the evidence in this case clearly shows that Curley had the ball from February 12th forward to determine the next steps for handling the Sandusky matter.
At the time of the 2001 incident, PSU had no idea whether or not TSM had been informed about the 1998 incident. Nothing in the history that was reviewed by Schultz and Curley would have provided them with that information.
Getting Sandusky to admit his odd behavior of showering with children and then let the supposedly unwitting charity know was a big deal. Curley likely expected Sandusky to deny everything for fear of TSM finding out.
Curley testified the he formulated the plan to contact TSM. It is clear that Schultz’s note of 12 February made no mention of the charity. A printout of the members of TSM's board that recovered at some phase of the investigation was used by Freeh to support a claim that Schultz had searched the internet to find the name of the chairman of TSM.
Freeh's story fails the logic test, however, because Schultz's handwritten note of February 25th asked “who’s the chair?”
It was Curley who did that research and generated the printout.
These two pieces of evidence seemingly prove the so-called Schultz file is an amalgamation of documents found in the athletic department, in Schultz’s office, and elsewhere.
The OAG’s strategy was to get Curley and Schultz to “flip” on Spanier (based on Erickson’s notebook) – and they made Schultz the primary target. They were trying to get him to cop a plea using all of the evidence they had collected.
There is likely other missing information that indicates more wrongdoing.
During the 1998 investigation, Curley was in continuous email contact with Schultz.
In 2001, there is no email traffic between the two men until February 25th. Moreover, Harmon was also involved in the email chains throughout the 1998 investigation, but not in 2001.
No emails about setting up a meeting with McQueary.
No emails discussing the results of the meeting.
No emails to or from Harmon after telling Schultz about the 1998 police report.
No communications from February 12th to the 25th. Really?
The OAG wants the public to believe that this was because of the clandestine nature of the alleged cover up. However, it is just as or more likely that the email traffic from Harmon and Curley to and from Schultz has been suppressed – and the public (and defense teams) have only been allowed to see the alleged inculpatory information.
We know that at least one document from 2001 has been suppressed thanks to the Freeh Report – and there is little doubt there are more.
“vulnerable for not having reported it”
Even if the Schultz note of February 12th has a completely different meaning, the Commonwealth’s key piece of inculpatory evidence is the unauthenticated email between Curley, Spanier, and Schultz.
Spanier’s purported statement about becoming “vulnerable” seems rather incriminating – in isolation.
However, when closely examining Curley’s proposal, Spanier’s response is illogical because contacting DPW hasn't been taken off the table.
Next, Spanier did not consult with Courtney, nor is he a lawyer, nor did nearly anyone in 2001 have any idea what the reporting laws were.
What would give rise to Spanier believing a report was legally required? Nothing.
As a matter of fact, most people in the United States of America had no idea what a mandated reporter was or that there was even a mandated reporter category of job positions until November 2011.
There is little doubt that this line was inserted into the email.
And that’s not the only thing that was inserted.
“and and maybe”
While notpsu.blogspot.com has long contended that the phrase “after talking it over with Joe” was inserted into Curley’s purported response, close examination reveals it was the person who tampered with the email, not Curley who made the contact with DPW optional.
Curley’s original email likely read:
Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups.
That statement is entirely logical and properly written. And it sure does look like “and maybe” was added by someone else after the first “and.”
Tainted Evidence Taints Case
In conclusion, the evidence that the OAG has put into the record cannot be trusted because of the reputations of the individuals who were in charge of gathering it – Frank Fina and Cynthia Baldwin.
Both have proven to be deceptive individuals -- at least during this case.
Fina conduct in questioning Baldwin about privileged matters after telling the grand jury judge he would not do so was found to be “highly improper” by the Superior Court. There is evidence of other deceptions by Fina in front of Judge Feudale during this case.
Baldwin’s misrepresentations in front of Judge Feudale were breath taking, particularly when she informed the Court that she “represented the University, solely,” then proceeded to allow Spanier to believe she was his attorney. As a result of Baldwin’s duplicity, a host of charges in the case were dismissed.
The bottom line is that the evidence in this case is tainted.
That leaves AG Josh Shapiro with a few options: continue the case with tainted evidence; drop the remaining charges; or direct the emails be re-recovered from the PSU server and attempt legitimize the remaining evidence.
The truth demands the latter.
Wednesday, February 15
Evidence in 2001 Twisted, Tainted, and Incomplete
The case against PSU officials was built on an incomplete record that was twisted and manipulated by prosecutors to frame PSU officials. The prosecutor's work was good enough to create a massive conspiracy theory that fooled nearly everyone.
By
Ray Blehar
Link: http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/02/evidence-in-2001-twisted-tainted-and.html
The evidence in the so-called Conspiracy of Silence case strongly indicates that the Pennsylvania
Office of Attorney General (OAG), Cynthia Baldwin, and the Freeh Group engaged in a series of intentional misrepresentations in order to make the case of a criminal conspiracy surrounding an alleged failure to report Jerry Sandusky in 2001.
Information is power and in this case information was selectively used, withheld, and reorganized to convince an all too willing public that PSU officials were evil people who put the football program above the welfare of children.
Among these misrepresentations were: all reports of child abuse are investigated; the contents of Gary Schultz’s so-called secret file all belonged to Schultz; that Schultz reviewed the 1998 police report before deciding to act; that the suggestions to get Sandusky help were based solely on the 1998 and 2001 incidents; and several others.
Again, this was good enough to fool almost everyone who didn’t critically look at the information and evidence in the case.
But here’s what happens when those misrepresentations get a dose of reality.
Child Abuse Reports and
Child Protective Services (CPS)
The OAG and Freeh preyed on the public’s ignorance of Pennsylvania’s CPS. In the mind of the public, when a Pennsylvania CPS office receives an allegation of abuse, someone is actually there to answer the phone, dutifully records the complaint, and an investigator is assigned to conduct an investigation.
Welcome to Fantasy Island. It doesn’t work that way.
The testimony of experts on how the system actually works was reported by notpsu.blogspot.com in 2013 – but one part of that report especially bears repeating.
Robert Schwartz, Executive Director of the Juvenile Law Center said this in his address to the PA Task Force on Child Protection:
"Drafters of child protection laws often imagine a call coming into a well-trained, experienced worker who can devote an unlimited amount of time to the call. The worker gets the facts, matches the call to the definitions in the statute, calculates who the perpetrator is, and makes a site visit. There she or he does a careful safety assessment and considers long term risks. The worker matches the child and family to an array of carefully crafted risk-management services, all aimed at promoting child safety and well-being. There is on-going, thoughtful monitoring of the case.
Even if everything went like that, child protection would be difficult, and fraught with misjudgments. But, of course, that’s not the way the system works. There is high turnover in child protective services units. Workers often lack experience. They don’t handle a single case, but many cases. They have fewer risk-management tools than they need. Caseloads are too high for everyone. Legislation that requires sending more and more cases into such a system risks hurting the children who are supposed to be protected by it. When thousands of children who are not at serious risk are referred to child protective services, the losers are the children most at risk."
The PA Task Force ignored the advice of Schwartz, strengthened the laws, and it resulted in thousands of more calls inundating PA ChildLine.
The realities of CPS follow:
Thousands of calls go unanswered.
Not all calls are registered in the ChildLine database. Prior to changes in the law in 2014, there were dual reporting systems and general protective services complaints were not logged into ChildLine.
In cases of an unfounded report or the failure to conduct an investigation within 60 days, the records are expunged.
Many complaints, especially concerning repeat complaints against someone who was formerly cleared, are screened out. This happens in other states too.In summary, the realities of CPS are far different than the assumptions the OAG relied on to convince the public that the only possible answer to Sandusky not being investigated by CPS in 2001 was the failure to report him.
Obviously, that wasn’t then and never was the reality.
Prosecuting Gary Schultz for perjury for his recollection that the 2001 incident was reported to local child protection services clearly could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the facts just shown regarding PA CPS.
Also, the chance of a successful prosecution on Endangering the Welfare of a Child is also unlikely because reasonable doubt can be established using the same method.
While the possibilities of what happened regarding the 2001 report are many, “screening out” should be at the top of the list given that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 and cleared by CPS and because of his reputation as a foster and adoptive parent in the child welfare community.
Chain of Custody the Schultz File
There is little doubt that the Schultz file and emails are an incomplete record of the actions of PSU officials in 2001. Many of the communications about the Sandusky matter were lost forever when PSU changed its computer systems in 2004. Thus we only know about a few emails that Gary Schultz preserved in his role as overseeing the University Park (UP) police.
Next, the purported contents of the Schultz file -- allegedly recovered in 2012 -- are unlikely to be consistent with the contents that were in the file in 2001.
Also, there are varying accounts on who turned over and/or recovered the Schultz file – including Schultz, his administrative assistant Kimberly Belcher, and attorneys from the Duane Morris law firm.
Schultz’s 2009 replacement, Albert Horvath, occupied that office at the time the subpoena for the Sandusky documents was served to PSU (in late 2010).
There is no possible way that the OAG can prove the file remained intact for 10 or 11 years – and that someone, most likely Cynthia Baldwin, manipulated the contents of the file.
In summary, the chain of custody and the integrity of the Schultz file’s contents are absolutely in question.
That brings us to the contents of the file itself and how the OAG relied upon a few phrases, rather than the complete context to make its case.
Out of Proper Context
The OAG drew a number of assumptions about what PSU officials were told and knew based on a few isolated phrases and words in emails and notes that were in the possession of Gary Schultz.
Freeh Report (duplicate) Exhibits 3E and 5C revealed the handwritten note penned by Schultz on February 12, 2001 – two days after being told about the "McQueary" incident.
The OAG and Freeh used the following phrases from that note to push their conspiracy theory:
“reviewed 1998 history”
“unless he confesses to having a problem”
“need to have DPW review the matter”
As I have written many times, what easily seen or observed is important, but so is what is not seen or missing.
In this instance the missing information is the time of day the note was written.
Many might presume the note was written around 5:00 PM because that was after UP police chief Thomas Harmon sent an email to Schultz regarding the 1998 police report. However, it is more likely that the note was written at or before 8:00 AM based on Schultz’s legal consultation with former PSU General Counsel Wendell Courtney.
McQueary informed Paterno of the incident at approximately 8:00 AM on February 10th, as such, Courtney’s legal research on February 11th and subsequent recommendation to inform child welfare had to be completed within 48 hours to comply with the law.
Wendell Courtney recently testified (at the McQueary trial) that he recommended PSU report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare (DPW).
It is very unlikely that Schultz ignored the advice of PSU's attorney.
What would keep him from doing so?
Contrary to popular legend, Schultz did not meet with Joe Paterno. Therefore, the alleged most powerful man at PSU, and some say in the state of Pennsylvania, didn't intervene.
Page 83 and 84 of the Freeh Report revealed that Courtney emailed then PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin on January 9, 2011 and stated that he recalled someone had contacted Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS).
Courtney’s most recent testimony confused/conflated DPW and CC CYS and, apparently the crack attorneys on PSU's legal team didn’t bother to refresh his memory by showing him the email.
Regardless, Courtney and Schultz both believed a report was made to “local child welfare” authorities in 2001. So far, there has been scant evidence presented to refute their recollection of a report. That evidence was testimony of Sassano that he spoke with one individual at DPW and one at CC CYS who didn't recall a report being made. Moreover, neither of these individuals were people who actually answered the phones.
As noted earlier, there are various avenues a child abuse report can take and the lack of a record proves little to nothing.
Under this alternative scenario of a report to CC CYS, Schultz’s reference to DPW was not in the context of making a report -- because it had already been made.
The bottom line is that every line of this note needs to be put into context by aligning it with supporting evidence – instead of jumping to conclusions based on assumptions.
“Talked w TMC”
It is clear from the first line of the note that Schultz conferred with Tim Curley at some point before he wrote the note – likely on Sunday afternoon or evening.
Based on the supervisory relationship (even if informal) between Schultz and Curley, it is highly probable that the Athletic Department and/or Athletic Director Tim Curley shared information with Schultz about Sandusky – and particularly Sandusky’s retirement since it had financial implications.
In summary, “Talked with TMC” can be interpreted as exchanging information about Sandusky – whether it was related to the 1998 incident, the 2001 incident, his retirement, or anything else that may have been discussed.
“reviewed 1998 history”
The OAG assumed that the line meant Schultz had obtained the 1998 UP police report and reviewed it. He was subsequently charged with perjury for testifying he did not recall seeing or asking for the 1998 police report. Recall that Schultz had expressed shock to hear the report was over 100 pages long.
At the July 2013 preliminary hearing, Harmon testified that he had no recollection of Schultz asking for the file nor did he recall providing it to him. As such, this unauthenticated email’s contents purporting to show a response to an inquiry are highly questionable.
There are two other takeaways from Harmon’s testimony.
First and foremost, if Schultz didn’t call or ask for the file, then Harmon did it on his own. And if Harmon did it on his own, then he had to be told that another incident happened involving Sandusky.
Schultz’s communication with Harmon is allegedly memorialized by a document in the so-called secret file (see End Note 304 and index of the Freeh Report). This document has yet to see the light of day.
There is little doubt that potentially exculpatory information is being withheld in this case.
Harmon’s testimony also means that “reviewed 1998 history” was not the police report – but information that Schultz had immediate access to on Sunday and early Monday.
It is practically certain that Schultz reviewed his 1998 emails and Sandusky’s retirement records.
As for the handwritten notes attributed to the so-called secret file, it would be natural to assume that they among the information that Schultz reviewed on that Sunday and into Monday.
But that’s an assumption you shouldn’t make.
Like practically all of the critical evidence in this case, no chain of custody has been established for those documents.
It is highly likely that Harmon asked Schultz for any notes related to the incident because Harmon took it upon himself to label the report as administrative information so that the 1998 report wouldn’t be found by the media and then become known to the public.
Finally, whatever contents were alleged to be part of the Schultz secret file and most other evidence turned over by PSU (literally) has Cynthia Baldwin’s fingerprints on them.
Baldwin's fingerprints should be the kiss of death when it comes to determining if evidence is admissible.
“TMC will discuss with JVP”
This is another one of the most overlooked, but possibly one of the most important lines in the document.
Under questioning by police and prosecutors, Joe Paterno stated twice – and one of those times under oath -- that he spoke to Tim Curley on the phone (on Saturday, February 10th) and didn’t discuss the incident after that. He also implied that in his last interview.
“So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did.”
Tim Curley testified that he met with Paterno at his house after receiving the phone call on Sunday, February 11th. That doesn’t support Paterno’s recollection of events.
Curley also testified that he circled back and spoke to Joe Paterno about the plan of action. That also doesn’t support Paterno’s recollection of events.
Paterno also didn’t recall that the reason he didn’t call Curley immediately was because he had to catch a flight to Pittsburgh to attend the Dapper Dan dinner.
Paterno didn’t recall that he called Curley on Sunday or the meeting with Curley at his home. Paterno’s recollection was that “he didn’t want to interrupt anyone’s weekend.”
In light of all of Paterno’s erroneous statements, his advanced age when questioned, and time that passed since the incident, it was irresponsible for the OAG to cherry pick one or two things that were said that supported McQueary’s version of events.
The selective use of information is essential to run a deception – and that’s what this case has been from the start.
“TMC should meet w/ JS on Friday”
The Friday referenced would have been February 16, 2001. Records indicate Curley did not meet with Sandusky until early March 2001.
What, or more appropriately, who kept this meeting from taking place?
It is highly probable that CC CYS intervened and instructed PSU officials to hold off talking to anyone until they made a decision about the 2001 incident. The timing of the interviews of Sandusky is very similar between 1998 and 2001.
In 1998, the incident was reported to PSU on May 4, 1998 and the police did not interview Sandusky until June 1st. Almost one month later.
In 2001, the information about Sandusky made it to PSU officials on February 11th and he was not interviewed until early March. Almost one month later.
In 1998, CC CYS met after the first day of the investigation to "decide what to do." In other words, whether or not to investigate Sandusky. They remained unsure what to do but "either way, caseworker felt they would interview Jerry" (see Freeh Exhibit 2I)
It is highly probable that a similar discussion took place at CC CYS in 2001 -- and the decision was to not investigate.
Given the notoriety of the Sandusky matter -- and the people who are really behind this deception, there is little chance of anyone at CC CYS would be brave enough to come forward and tell the truth.
Not to say there haven't been anonymous sources who have admitted that CC CYS knew about 2001.
“unless he confesses to having a problem”
The OAG and Freeh made this one of the most incriminating lines.
It absolutely had to mean that a sexual incident was reported in 2001 and, after reviewing the 1998 police report Schultz had concluded that Sandusky was a pedophile.
At this stage of the incident, Schultz had conferred with Courtney and Curley.
Curley testified he was told only of horseplay – and his information came from Joe Paterno. As the evidence revealed, Paterno’s recollection (and testimony) of the 2001 incident is inaccurate in many regards.
Thus the conclusion that Jerry had “a problem” is more likely to mean that his conduct was inappropriate, but not abusive, based on Courtney’s legal advice.
However, it is almost certain that Schultz had a copy of Sandusky’s retirement paperwork because he signed off on it. Sandusky’s request stated:
“I am concerned about my mental health.”
While this note is addressed to Curley, the note states that the two men discussed the incident and that Schultz had reviewed “the 1998 history.”
Sandusky retired in 1998.
“we want to assist the individual to get professional help”
The aforementioned exhibit also sheds possible light on the meaning of Tim Curley’s statement in his purported statement in a still unauthenticated email of February 27, 2001.
“TMC will indicate we need to refer the matter to DPW as an independent agency concerned w(ith) child welfare.”
The OAG’s interpretation of this line also preys on the public’s ignorance – and willingness to accept the worst allegations about people.
The line about DPW was interpreted by the OAG as a failure to report the incident to the authorities; however, evidence reveals that Schultz understood from the 1998 investigation that DPW and CC CYS were separate authorities with different roles. CC CYS was local and had ties to The Second Mile (TSM). DPW was not local and was independent from TSM.
Schultz’s “1998 history” also indicated that there were issues related to the previous investigation that were of concern to Harmon.
While the Freeh Report alleged that that CC CYS recused itself from the investigation (in early May 1998) over its conflict of interest with TSM, Harmon testified that CC CYS prevented the UP police from interviewing Sandusky on May 27th, 1998.
The Freeh Report likely got this intentionally wrong as part of its whitewashing of the CC CYS failures in 1998.
“TMC will keep me posted”
This is another overlooked, but important phrase of Schultz’s note.
The 2001 incident was handled in two parts. The first part regarding child welfare was handled by Schultz, Courtney, and Harmon and likely resulted in a report to CC CYS.
The second part of the incident involved deciding on the means in which to handle Jerry’s mental problem.
As reported by notpsu.blogspot.com on February 27, 2016, the evidence in this case clearly shows that Curley had the ball from February 12th forward to determine the next steps for handling the Sandusky matter.
At the time of the 2001 incident, PSU had no idea whether or not TSM had been informed about the 1998 incident. Nothing in the history that was reviewed by Schultz and Curley would have provided them with that information.
Getting Sandusky to admit his odd behavior of showering with children and then let the supposedly unwitting charity know was a big deal. Curley likely expected Sandusky to deny everything for fear of TSM finding out.
Curley testified the he formulated the plan to contact TSM. It is clear that Schultz’s note of 12 February made no mention of the charity. A printout of the members of TSM's board that recovered at some phase of the investigation was used by Freeh to support a claim that Schultz had searched the internet to find the name of the chairman of TSM.
Freeh's story fails the logic test, however, because Schultz's handwritten note of February 25th asked “who’s the chair?”
It was Curley who did that research and generated the printout.
These two pieces of evidence seemingly prove the so-called Schultz file is an amalgamation of documents found in the athletic department, in Schultz’s office, and elsewhere.
The OAG’s strategy was to get Curley and Schultz to “flip” on Spanier (based on Erickson’s notebook) – and they made Schultz the primary target. They were trying to get him to cop a plea using all of the evidence they had collected.
There is likely other missing information that indicates more wrongdoing.
During the 1998 investigation, Curley was in continuous email contact with Schultz.
In 2001, there is no email traffic between the two men until February 25th. Moreover, Harmon was also involved in the email chains throughout the 1998 investigation, but not in 2001.
No emails about setting up a meeting with McQueary.
No emails discussing the results of the meeting.
No emails to or from Harmon after telling Schultz about the 1998 police report.
No communications from February 12th to the 25th. Really?
The OAG wants the public to believe that this was because of the clandestine nature of the alleged cover up. However, it is just as or more likely that the email traffic from Harmon and Curley to and from Schultz has been suppressed – and the public (and defense teams) have only been allowed to see the alleged inculpatory information.
We know that at least one document from 2001 has been suppressed thanks to the Freeh Report – and there is little doubt there are more.
“vulnerable for not having reported it”
Even if the Schultz note of February 12th has a completely different meaning, the Commonwealth’s key piece of inculpatory evidence is the unauthenticated email between Curley, Spanier, and Schultz.
Spanier’s purported statement about becoming “vulnerable” seems rather incriminating – in isolation.
However, when closely examining Curley’s proposal, Spanier’s response is illogical because contacting DPW hasn't been taken off the table.
Next, Spanier did not consult with Courtney, nor is he a lawyer, nor did nearly anyone in 2001 have any idea what the reporting laws were.
What would give rise to Spanier believing a report was legally required? Nothing.
As a matter of fact, most people in the United States of America had no idea what a mandated reporter was or that there was even a mandated reporter category of job positions until November 2011.
There is little doubt that this line was inserted into the email.
And that’s not the only thing that was inserted.
“and and maybe”
While notpsu.blogspot.com has long contended that the phrase “after talking it over with Joe” was inserted into Curley’s purported response, close examination reveals it was the person who tampered with the email, not Curley who made the contact with DPW optional.
Curley’s original email likely read:
Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups.
That statement is entirely logical and properly written. And it sure does look like “and maybe” was added by someone else after the first “and.”
Tainted Evidence Taints Case
In conclusion, the evidence that the OAG has put into the record cannot be trusted because of the reputations of the individuals who were in charge of gathering it – Frank Fina and Cynthia Baldwin.
Both have proven to be deceptive individuals -- at least during this case.
Fina conduct in questioning Baldwin about privileged matters after telling the grand jury judge he would not do so was found to be “highly improper” by the Superior Court. There is evidence of other deceptions by Fina in front of Judge Feudale during this case.
Baldwin’s misrepresentations in front of Judge Feudale were breath taking, particularly when she informed the Court that she “represented the University, solely,” then proceeded to allow Spanier to believe she was his attorney. As a result of Baldwin’s duplicity, a host of charges in the case were dismissed.
The bottom line is that the evidence in this case is tainted.
That leaves AG Josh Shapiro with a few options: continue the case with tainted evidence; drop the remaining charges; or direct the emails be re-recovered from the PSU server and attempt legitimize the remaining evidence.
The truth demands the latter.
