Tom Harmon: Person of Interest

Evidence shows that Harmon may have been in on DPW's cover-up for Sandusky crimes and that could be why former AG Linda Kelly successfully spared him from being interviewed by Freeh's investigators.  

By
Ray Blehar

One of the flaws in the Freeh Report, pointed out by many evaluations, is that the key persons in the case were not interviewed by Freeh.  And while the names most often repeated as being omitted are Joe Paterno, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley, a lesser, but no less important omission was police Chief Tom Harmon.

Back in August 2012, during my first appearance on Kevin Slaten's show, he asked me about Harmon and I really didn't have an answer at that time.   He was on the periphery then, but as I recently started to look at the evidence surrounding the Schultz "secret file," Harmon became a key "person of interest" in the DPW's cover-up of Sandusky's crimes.

Most of the documents that have been confirmed as missing from the Freeh Report involve correspondence and/or communications between Schultz and Harmon.

First the only thing missing from the 2001 case is a communication about the 1998 case.  

End Note 304:  Schultz confidential file note (5-1-12).  Schultz contacts Harmon to inquire about the 1998 file on 2/12/2001.

Tom Harmon and the 1998 Sandusky Case

However, there is much more to the story of Tom Harmon than the Freeh investigation and report revealed - especially when it's viewed in the following context.

1.  He lived on the same street as Jerry Sandusky back in the late 70s (Norle Street).

2.  He attended the same church as Sandusky (St. Paul's United Methodist Church).

3.  He made the decision to file the 1998 police investigation as administrative information to avoid discovery of the investigation by the press.

4.  On May 8, Harmon informed Schultz that DPW was bringing in a psychologist.  

And this is the first clue about something off track about 1998.  

The police file, below, shows  the date that Schreffler requested the evaluation be delayed was changed from May 8 to May 5.  However, it was not possible for Schreffler to make this call at 11:20AM on May 5, 1998 because Lauro didn't become a party to the investigation until 1:55PM on May 5, 1998 (see page 8 of the police report).   This is a definite alteration.

Two other times regarding the interview are changed (note the canting of the numbers), making absolutely no sense from a chronological standpoint.  Finally, the last date on the page is out of order, however, the latter aligns properly and was likely just an oversight by Schreffler in not adding it chronologically.   Regardless, more investigation is needed to determine who made the alterations and why.

5.  At Exhibit 2B, Harmon informed Schultz that a psychologist had interviewed the child.  Note: Exhibit 2B also shows signs of alterations - the time date stamps are out of order.

6.  Harmon, at the preliminary perjury hearing in December 2011, denied knowledge of any psychologists interviewing the children (page 127).

7.  Within two hours of Schreffler's June 1, 1998 interview with Sandusky, Harmon e-mailed Schultz to inform him there would be no charges (Freeh Report, Exhibit 2B).

8.  Harmon, at the preliminary perjury hearing (page 120), stated he never personally discussed the 1998 case with District Attorney, Ray Gricar or Assistant District Attorney J. Karen Arnold.

  

9.  Harmon, at the preliminary perjury hearing, stated he was informed by Schreffler that DA Gricar closed the case (page 120).  

Who Really Closed the 1998 Case?

The closure of this case is interesting for a number of reasons.  First, the Freeh Report equivocates on when Harmon was informed of Gricar closing the case, stating it happened between May 27 and June 1, 1998.  Freeh's reference for the date is the Preliminary Perjury Hearing, at which Harmon made no reference to the May 27th date.  

Why is that date included?  Well, let's keep peeling back the onion....

Clearly, Schreffler was still investigating the case on June 1st and the police file indicates he closed the case AFTER he interviewed Sandusky.  Thus, if there is debate about when the case was closed, it should be about was it closed June 1 or was it closed later?

Exhibit 2D is proof (as much as we can trust Freeh's evidence) that Harmon e-mailed Schultz on June 1st to say the case was closed -- but did he really get that message from Schreffler, who was relaying it from Gricar?

I ask that question because DA Ray Gricar was notorious at reviewing all of the evidence before deciding to charge or not charge a case.  

Based on the police report, Schreffler interviewed Sandusky at 11AM on June 1st.  Allowing a half hour for the interview, that leaves 1.5 hours for Schreffler to immediately go to his desk, type out his report, get it approved by Wayne Weaver, fax it or drive it over to the DA's office, have Gricar review it, and then call or tell Harmon that Gricar wasn't going to press charges.

Uh, yeah.  That didn't happen.  The police report was 94 pages long and had to be completed, then reviewed by two people.

Of course, Gricar also would have also wanted to review the DPW report as well, given his penchant for wanting to know the details of the cases (even summary offenses).

So, this timeline of events, involving the closure of the 1998 investigation - and particularly the timing of the phone call from Harmon to Schultz closing the 1998 case - doesn't add up.

However, in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Schreffler stated the order to close the case came from the DA and that Gricar gave no explanation.  But the story continues...

At the time, Mr. Gricar spoke to Mr. Schreffler's police chief, Tom Harmon, and that was it.

What?

Harmon testified under oath that Schreffler informed him that Gricar closed the case.  

Schreffler told the Post-Gazette that Harmon talked to Gricar.

Harmon testified under oath that he never personally discussed the case with Gricar.  And he also testified that he didn't know of psychologists being consulted during the investigation.

Based on everything written above -as well as the altered police report - we need some straight answers from Tom Harmon.

And the answer I want to know the most is....

....did the call to close the 1998 case come from Bellefonte or did it come from Harrisburg?

CDT LTE: Keith Eckel - Hypocrite

Letter to the editor | Not so positive

Published: June 11, 2013 

I found Penn State trustee Keith Eckel’s June 4 column (“Critics overlooking positive steps taken by PSU”) to be quite hypocritical.

Eckel touted all of the reforms to enhance openness and transparency made in the aftermath of the Sandusky scandal. Interestingly, if you read Eckel’s biography on the board’s website, you are led to believe he is a farmer elected to the board of trustees by agricultural constituents.

However, his bio from Bloomberg Business Week tells a different story.

Eckel is the chairman and director of Nationwide Mutual Insurance. He is also the former chairman of the Gartmore Global Asset Management Trust and Allied Group Inc. He’s not some simple farmer.

It also should come as no surprise that one of the Freeh report recommendations that has yet to be implemented by the trustees is to make statements of financial disclosures.

To borrow a phrase or two from Louis Freeh, “it is reasonable to conclude” the board and Eckel have delayed making financial disclosures to “avoid the consequences of bad publicity” for their companies.

Eckel, as the chairman of the Legal and Compliance Committee, makes this situation truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

Eckel and his cohorts have refused to do the one thing that puts teeth in the ethical management of any organization: disclosing their financial interests and divesting themselves of any and all concerns that could result in even the perception of a conflict of interest.

RAY BLEHAR

ANNAPOLIS, MD

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/06/11/3648399/letter-to-the-editor-not-so-positive.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/06/11/3648399/letter-to-the-editor-not-so-positive.html#storylink=cpy

What Will Tom Corbett Do Next?

With the dismissal of Tom Corbett's NCAA lawsuit, some believe he should join with the alumni and others who are fighting the Freeh Report's validity and its use as a basis for the NCAA sanctions.  Don't hold your breath -- that's not going to happen.

By
Ray Blehar

On June 6, 2013, Judge Yvette Kane dismissed the Commonwealth (Corbett's) lawsuit against the NCAA, stating, "Each of the [the NCAA's] arguments is strong enough to render the governor's action under anti-trust law a Hail Mary pass."

I used the same "Hail Mary" description when I wrote about the governor's meeting with the former players back in January.  My reference was a bit different, however, as it was about the Governor's attempt to win back favor with the PSU fan base and PA's voters.

Anyone who believed Corbett's motivation was anything but political was fooling themselves.

The lawsuit was not about doing the right thing or about finding the truth.  The lawsuit was clear in continuing to place the blame for enabling Sandusky's crimes on former PSU officials Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley.  And the lawsuit made a hollow attempt - by keeping fines in the Commonwealth - at improving the state's failing child protection system.

The lawsuit did, however, give those whose primary concern is PSU football some hope about fighting the NCAA and voiding the sanctions.  It was a fight the PSU BOT was unwilling to take on and for the matter of months the lawsuit was active, one could say Corbett was doing more for PSU than it's own BOT (of which, ironically, he is a member).

What will Corbett do next?

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) urged the governor and his appointees to the BOT to join the small group of trustees who have taken up the fight against the Freeh Report.  PS4RS noted that with the addition of Corbett, his appointees, and the three newly elected alumni trustees, there would be a majority of trustees who stood in opposition to the Freeh Report.

There is little chance of that happening.

Corbett identified and recommended Louis Freeh to perform the sham investigation of the Sandusky scandal.  He praised Kenneth "OJ" Frazier for his leadership of the Special Investigations Task Force (SITF) and stated that Frazier had put together a team "on behalf of the administration" that was good.  For the record, the SITF included such stalwarts as Mark Dambly (who has a criminal record),  Keith Eckel (who didn't graduate from college), Ronald J. Tomalis (who denied a contract existed for the Freeh investigation), and Karen Peetz (whose made contradictory statements about the purpose of the Freeh Report).  Corbett considers these people as a  "good team," thus it's pretty clear whose side he is on.

However, always looming in the back of Corbett's head is the fact that the purpose for bringing in Freeh was to cover-up for the Commonwealth's (DPW and CYS) failure to bring Sandusky to justice in 1998.  There is no way Corbett wants to repudiate the Freeh Report to a level that would place the blame for enabling Sandusky's crimes where it belongs.  He has to stay aligned with the BOT members who are the defenders of the Freeh Report.

Checkers, Not Chess

I've said all along that Corbett is better suited for checkers, not chess.

He certainly didn't expect for his own Middle District judge to side against him on the Commonwealth's lawsuit.  And looking at Judge Kane's history, Corbett had every reason to think she would grant the Commonwealth standing in the case.

Judge Kane served as a Deputy Attorney General in the PA AG's Office under LeRoy Zimmerman and  Ernie Preate.  Both of these AGs have checkered pasts, as Zimmerman resigned in aftermath of the Hershey Trust Scandal, while Preate resigned after being charged with federal racketeering and corruption charges.  He eventually plead guilty to mail fraud and spent a year in Federal prison.  So, given her past associations, Corbett must have thought he had this one locked up.

However, Kane was appointed to the bench in by President Bill Clinton in 1998 and was made chief judge of the district in 2006.  And in this case, she correctly ruled that the argument that the threat of the death penalty as a threat to commerce "failed to advance the ball" in the antitrust world.

Corbett response to the ruling indicates he's unsure about what to do next.
"I am disappointed with the court’s decision and believe that the sanctions have harmed the citizens, students, athletes, alumni and taxpayers of Pennsylvania. Countless individuals and small businesses throughout the state will continue to suffer because of the NCAA’s actions.

“I feel strongly that the claims we raised in this lawsuit were compelling and these issues deserved a complete and thorough review by the court.

“I will continue to analyze the ruling with my legal team and review our options.’

Given Corbett's political bent, I suspect he will throw another "Hail Mary" and appeal the court's decision.  In fact, it is about the only option he has -- the other would be to stand down, admit defeat, and brace for a loss if he decides to run for re-election.

A recent poll indicated that with the lawsuit failing to gain traction, Corbett's approval rating is at an all-time low.  Those approving of Corbett's job are at 35% while those believing he deserves re-election is even worse at 32%.

If Corbett looks on the bright side, the 32% is 20 points higher than the amount of findings that Freeh got right (12%) in the his fatally flawed report that was used as the basis for the NCAA Sanctions.

But Corbett's next step is to appeal.  He needs it -- and for the process to be prolonged -- to keep alive his political lifeline.

Impact of Judge Kane's Decision on the Paterno Lawsuit

Boston attorney, Paul Kelly, correctly stated that the dismissal of the Corbett lawsuit has no impact on the lawsuit filed the the estate of the Paterno family, select trustees, faculty, alumni, and former players.  The Paterno lawsuit charges the NCAA and Mark Emmert with various contractual violations and defamation/public disparagement.  It is not related to anti-trust laws, thus Judge Kane's ruling will have almost no bearing on the case.  Kelly stated with regard to the Corbett dismissal, "This doesn't impact our decision to go forward with our lawsuit in any manner."

Conclusion

Corbett has little choice, from a political standpoint, other than to appeal the lawsuit and hope that the higher courts overrule Judge Kane's ruling.  While Corbett might stand a better chance with the higher court, I have a feeling this isn't the last time someone named Kane won't take Corbett's side on a legal issue.

Catching Up With Costas and the Paterno Lawsuit

After nearly 19 months of the media swallowing a false narrative - hook, line, and sinker - Bob Costas finally decides to give truth a chance.

By
Ray Blehar

Better late than never.

On May 29th, Bob Costas mediated representatives of the Paterno family on his show, Costas Tonight.  I was in the upper reaches of Pennsylvania and well "off the grid," so I missed the live showing.   And my first recap of the show was when I read John Ziegler's account on Friday afternoon.

While I won't go as far a John did to label it "vindication," it was a very well done show and definitely the most positive step from the media that the "truth" (not "truther") movement has seen to date.

Personally, I had long lost any hope that the media would change its view of the Sandusky scandal and am still quite convinced that the media will only come around when the Kane and other investigations conclude.  That said, the Costas Tonight show at least made an argument that there is another side of the story that needs to be heard.  At least, that's how Bob summarized his feelings on Morning Joe the following morning.

Highlighting Costas Tonight

Where's Mark and Louis?  One of the highlights of the first segment included Bob's announcement that NCAA President Mark Emmert and Louis Freeh were invited to participate in the discussion but declined.

Applying Today's Knowledge to 2001.  Bob Costas remains "guilty" of applying what we know about Sandusky today to the 2001 incident and implying that people should have reacted differently.   I believe Dan McGinn made the very strong case that former-FBI profiler Jim Clemente revealed that Sandusky was a sophisticated criminal who was able to fool not only Paterno, but the police and child protection caseworkers.  McGinn's statement that Sue Paterno stated she let their children and grand children play in the pool with Sandusky reinforced the idea that they had no idea about Sandusky's criminal behavior.

No Cover-Up.  Paterno family lawyer Wick Sollers made the case that a cover-up didn't make sense because Sandusky was not only retired from PSU in 2001, but was not even liked by Paterno.  Former Governor and Attorney General Dick Thornburg and Paterno family spokesperson Dan McGinn laid to rest any idea that Paterno and/or Penn State covered up Sandusky's crimes and the 2001 incident specifically.   Costas, McGinn, and Thornburg all stated that numerous individuals were told about the incident and no one even attempted to keep the incident from being spread.  Thornburg added that there was little evidence proving crimes were concealed.

The John Ziegler Moment:  At the beginning of the third segment, Bob Costas repeated one of John Ziegler's key points -- that McQueary did not say he was coerced or told to be quiet about the 2001 incident in his lawsuit against PSU.   One would think that being silenced about 2001 would be a key point in a "whistleblower" lawsuit. The fact is that Paterno and PSU did not ask or request that McQueary stay silent about the 2001 incident.

Doing the Minimum:  Costas  pushed the argument that Paterno and Penn State did the minimum possible in reacting to the 2001 incident and suggested that PSU should have cut all ties with Sandusky after that incident.  His point was not very well rebutted by the panel, who should have stated that it is a matter before the courts regarding whether PSU did enough and that the PSU intervention did stop assaults from occurring on campus after 2001.

The Paterno Legacy.   While Dan McGinn said that the legacy is important to the University, the former players, and its alumni, all that the Paterno wishes is that the truth and the facts will come out.   McGinn believes that in the end, a more "balanced view" of Paterno will be revealed.

The Paterno Lawsuit - Hits and Misses

Hit:  The lawsuit addresses the most obvious damages wrought by the NCAA, namely, defamation of Joe Paterno, pecuniary and emotional damages brought on by the false accusations in the report, and violations of due process rights of individuals damaged by the NCAA, including current and former PSU employees and football players.

Hit:  The lawsuit names Mark Emmert individually and as President of the NCAA as a defendant.  In addition, it names Edward Ray, Chairman of the NCAA Executive Committee as a defendant.  These two men ignored the NCAA's own procedures, then forced a member institution to not only violate its own rules of governance, but to forfeit its rights of due process.

Hit:  The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction of the Consent Decree, as well as declaring the decree unlawful and void ab initio (from the beginning).  It also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Miss:  The lawsuit should have named PSU Trustee Kenneth Frazier as a defendant and co-conspirator.  Frazier should have been named as a co-conspirator in the civil conspiracy for his role as the co-leader of the Board of Trustees Special Investigations Task Force (SITF), who selected Louis Freeh and signed the contract.   Also, Frazier should be sued for his statements at the July 12, 2012 press conference that repeated the false allegations of the Freeh Report and placed guilt on Paterno and other PSU officials for concealing Sandusky's crimes.

Miss: The lawsuit should have named PSU President Rodney Erickson as a defendant.  In the time between the release of the Freeh Report and the NCAA's action, President Erickson could have and should have had the PSU legal counsel conduct a review of the Freeh Report and offer a rebuttal.   Erickson's failure to do so was deemed as tacit acceptance of the Freeh Report and "invited" the NCAA to levy sanctions.  While the Paterno team called the consent decree a "cram down," President Erickson was negligent in not referring the matter to the full Board of Trustees for a vote and violated PSU's own rules of governance.

That said, the lawsuit is a strong effort, although the Paterno team should have spared key members of PSU no quarter after their incomprehensible and irresponsible conduct in responding to the Sandusky scandal.  Had the Paterno team named Erickson and the Frazier in the suit, then it would have enabled discovery of evidence of negotiations and other communications between PSU, Freeh, and the NCAA.

However, I am also eager to see if the Paterno lawsuit plaintiffs will gain standing and then what transpires in the discovery process.

And perhaps we got a hint of what's coming in the discovery process from the current lawsuit.

The "Inside" Story of the Lawsuit

Point 54 of the lawsuit (page 15) indicates that the Paterno team was helped by a member of Freeh's investigation team or the NCAA because the facts presented in that passage reveal facts that only persons in those parties would know.   While you could make a case that the information came from a PSU person, such as a trustee, none of the trustee plaintiffs named in the lawsuit were part of the SITF, thus would not have been privy to those details.  Of course, there could be a "leaker" from within the SITF or someone closely associated with an SITF member.

Point 54 follows:

"54. Instead of demanding that Penn State provide answers to its questions, the NCAA 
waited for the Freeh firm to complete its investigation. Attorneys and investigators working for 
the Freeh firm collaborated with the NCAA and frequently provided information and briefings to the NCAA. During the course of the seven-and-a-half-month investigation, the Freeh firm 
periodically contacted representatives of the NCAA to discuss areas of inquiry and other 
strategies. The final report released by the Freeh firm states that as part of its investigative plan, 
the firm cooperated with “athletic program governing bodies,” i.e., the NCAA." 

In successful investigations and prosecutions of conspiracies and fraud, typically an "insider"provides the key evidence to break the case.  I suspect this passage of the lawsuit is particularly chilling to Mark Emmert, Kenneth Frazier, PSU BOT members, and, particularly Louis Freeh.

Freeh made his reputation at the FBI on the "pizza connection" case, which was broken open by getting FBI agent Joseph Pistone (alias Donnie Brasco) on the inside of the mafia.  Pistone was able to learn the command and control structure of the mafia and also was able to leverage Sicilian mafioso member Tommaso Buscetta into testifying against the mob.

I suspect that Louis Freeh understands that it is now just a matter of time before this whole charade is turned inside out.

The PSU-Miami Connection

Regardless of the success or failure of the lawsuit, it appears that key evidence showing collusion between Freeh and the NCAA has been found.  We also know, by virtue of the "Bagwell e-mails" that there was collusion between Freeh and the former officials in the PA Office of Attorney General.

Given that information, it is easy to connect the dots that indicate the NCAA may have used information obtained in the criminal investigation of Sandusky for its investigation of PSU.

In other words, the NCAA's use of the Freeh Report for the PSU investigation provides similar problems that surfaced in the NCAA's investigation of the University of Miami for using information from the criminal investigation of booster Nevin Shapiro.

Did "Missing" Documents from the Schultz File Show DPW's Failure in 1998? (Part 2)

"Missing" documents from the Schultz file may have focused on Harmon's concerns about DPW's role in the 1998 investigation.

By
Ray Blehar

In the previous blog about the "missing" documents from the Schultz file regarding the 2001 incident, correspondence between Senior V-P for Business and Finance, Gary Schultz, and Police Chief Tom Harmon were not made public.

It is more of the same with the 1998 incident.

Confirmed "Missing" Documents

The Freeh Report contained a hand-full of references to documents and notes that should have been part of the Schultz file or the e-mail records, but were not made public or included in the Appendices of his report.

Control #00649354, Refs. 149 and 150:  This document provides information regarding Harmon's decision not to classify the incident as a crime or make a crime log entry.

Schultz Confidential File Note (5-1-12), Ref. 159:  Harmon provided Schultz with information about his concerns that DPW had conflicts of interest with The Second Mile.

May 8, 1998 e-mail, Harmon to Schultz (page 49 of Freeh Report):  Lauro "indicated that it was his intent to have a psychologist who specializes in child abuse interview the children.  This is expected to occur in the next week and a half.  I don't anticipate anything to be done until that happens."

The latter is an interesting piece of information because it is in conflict with the 1998 police report in several ways.  First, the e-mail contradicts the police report that stated  Lauro's supervisor (Richard Houston) ordered the investigation.  Next, the "psychologist," John Seasock, was not an expert in child abuse and worked with primarily adult offenders.  And, finally, Seasock only interviewed one of the children.

On May 13, 1998, 4:48PM,  Harmon e-mailed Schultz (Freeh Report Exhibit 2B)  to inform him that the interview with the child was complete.  There was no mention of the interview with the second child.  Harmon also stated in the e-mail that "they (DPW) want to resolve this quickly."

Suspected "Missing" Documents

Based on the 1998 investigation timeline and Tom Harmon's testimony at the Preliminary Perjury hearing (page 120), it is likely that at least two documents memorializing conversations between he and Gary Schultz are missing from the file.  

Harmon stated he had at least four phone conversations with Schultz regarding the 1998 incident, two of which likely occurred on May 4 and May 5 and are memorialized in Freeh Report Exhibits 2H and 2I, respectively.

Given Harmon's position as the Chief of police, it is highly probable that he telephoned Schultz after Schreffler conducted the two stings at the home of Victim 6.

Note memorializing conversation regarding May 13, 1998 sting.  Officer Schreffler and Detective Ralston hid in a adjoining rooms to listen to a conversation between the mother of Victim 6 and Sandusky.   The Freeh Report references this sting as Penn State Police Report 41-98-1609 at 14, however that is likely an incorrect citation because the summary of the May 13 sting is available on the public record.  The sting occurred around 4PM, thus it is likely that Harmon called Schultz later that evening to report on it.

Note memorializing conversation regarding May 19, 1998 sting.  Officer Schreffler and Detective Ralston again hid in adjoining rooms to between the mother of Victim 6 and Sandusky.  The Freeh Report references this sting as Penn State Police Report 41-98-1609 at 14, however that page is missing from the publicly available report.

A June 8, 1998 e-mail between Schultz and Harmon noted concerns over some aspects of the investigation. As noted earlier, one other document expressed concern about DPW's conflict of interest with The Second Mile, thus it is possible that this was an ongoing concern throughout the investigation.

 Moreover, the public record reveals no investigative activities by DPW or Centre County CYS from May 8 (the Seasock interview) until June 1 (the Sandusky interview).   It is also very possible that Harmon raised  concerns over the lack of activity or progress from the state and local agencies involved in his discussions of the stings with Schultz.

Conclusion
As noted in the previous blog post, it is probable that exculpatory evidence that cleared PSU officials in the 2001 incident was removed from the Schultz file.  It also appears that evidence indicating PSU officials were concerned about DPW's conflict of interest with The Second Mile and its slipshod 1998 investigation were also removed from the file.

I find it appalling that the former-Attorney General, Freeh, and/or the PSU officials may have removed evidence from the Schultz file in order to shield Pennsylvania's failing child protection agencies from criticism, and, in doing so, are keeping the Commonwealth's children at risk.

David Jones Commentary on "Pro-Paterno" People Is Completely Wrong

David Jones opined that the Pro-Paterno forces who contributed to the Sports Illustrated story on PSU medical staff changes are looking out for their own self interest.  He couldn't be more wrong.

By 
Ray Blehar

David Jones, in his May 15 column, opined that Pro-Paterno forces are simply out for themselves and are upset that they are no longer in positions of power.

However, Jones does not provide a single example of a person who is "clawing" to get back anything remotely related to a position of power at PSU.

Spanier?   No.
Curley?    No.
Schultz?   No.
Bradley?   No.
Sherburne? No.
JayPa?     No.

The only person who has made any public pronouncement about being wronged and deserving something more from PSU is Mike McQueary.  And it is clear from his lawsuit that he is only out for himself.  McQueary is not exactly part of the "Pro-Paterno" camp, so who are these loyalists clawing for power?

A small skirmish over the medical staffing is hardly a representative example of what the divisiveness at PSU is about.

So, David Jones, it's time to put up or shut up.

Name names.  Who wants their power back?

If anyone is "clawing" to retain power, it's the incompetent members of the PSU BOT who totally screwed the pooch in November 2011 and continue to do so.

However, the most important part of this story is that Jones has fallen for the false narrative that the so-called Penn State "Leadership" (i.e., Erickson and the BOT) is all about moving the University "forward" from this devastating scandal brought upon it by rogue administrators and an out of control football program.

The facts of the case are the opposite, but Jones and most others in the media don't have an ounce of common sense to see them as they are.

The yarn spun by Louis Freeh about PSU covering for Sandusky's crimes to "avoid the consequences of bad publicity" doesn't hold water.  Penn State, who faced the worst on slaught of bad publicity due to their lack of any response to false charges, has not collapsed.

On the other hand, The Second Mile, who had the most incentive to cover up Sandusky's crimes, and could not weather a storm of bad publicity, is in ruins.  And it is in ruins, even though the PA Office of Attorney General did it's level best to protect it.

In addition, the PA DPW and CYS have been largely unscathed by the scandal.  These organizations had the opportunity to roll up Sandusky in 1998, but have gotten little or no criticism in the press for their colossal failures.

The so-called "Pro-Paterno" people understand that the evidence against PSU and the football program doesn't hold water.  And they also understand that the false narrative blaming Sandusky's crimes on a few administrators and coaches is a diversion that deflects the public's attention from the serious problems regarding child protection in Pennsylvania.


In response to a "spin-off" article on the Jones fallacy, I posted this comment:


On one side, are the so-called "Pro-Paterno" people, who have uncovered more facts about the Sandusky child abuse case than did Louis Freeh. This group understands that the Freeh Report was a whitewash on several levels, but most importantly, the Freeh Report keeps the children of Pennsylvania in harm's way by not calling out the failures of the state's child protective services. The so-called "Pro-Paterno" group will not rest until the children of Pennsylvania are getting the protection they deserve and that the truth is exposed about the roles of The Second Mile, the PSU Board, the PA DPW, and Centre County CYS in enabling Sandusky's abuse of children.

On the other side are a handful of trustees, the media, and the public who are pushing a false narrative about what happened and who are, in effect, enabling the continued abuse of children in Pennsylvania.

This is not about football. And it's not about Joe Paterno. It's about protecting kids.

The folks who are telling everyone to "move forward" are leaving the children behind.

<end comment>

David Jones is among those who are leaving the children behind.

"Missing" documents from the Schultz file would exonerate PSU (Part 1)

The acknowledgement of the Schultz file and the publication of some of its contents was a risky move by Freeh.  This information not only outed DPW and CYS for their failures in 1998, but provided confirmation that the file contained more than was revealed to the public.

by
Ray Blehar

Any analyst can assess what is present, but seasoned analysts are able to consider evidence that is not present to deliver an assessment.

For many years, I examined companies who were pursuing award winning levels of quality.  More often than not, what was missing from discussions in the board room to what was missing on the factory floor provided indicators of the level of quality the company had achieved.

Similarly, in the analysis of evidence during investigations, often missing evidence, such as a missing page from a phone log, a missing expense report, or other missing information often provided valuable insights to discover fraud or malfeasance.

And so it is with the Sandusky Scandal.

From the first Patriot News report about the grand jury to the November 2011 grand jury presentment, to the Freeh Report, to the Sandusky trial, and to the Cleland ruling on the Sandusky appeal, missing information has been some of the most telling "evidence" in the scandal.

As I noted in my last blogpost, there are "chain of custody" issues with the delivery of the Schultz file to the OAG and it is certain that some of the documents in the Schultz file were not made public.

One additional piece of missing information is an interview with police Chief Tom Harmon.  Given that Harmon and Schultz were not interviewed, their exchanges were either memorialized by e-mail or by handwritten notes of Schultz.  These discussions occurred in 1998 and 2001.

Confirmed "Missing" Schultz Documents - 2001

The first set of documents that are "missing" were referenced in the Freeh Report, but not included as exhibits.

End Note 304:  Schultz confidential file note (5-1-12).  Schultz contacts Harmon to inquire about the 1998 file on 2/12/2001.  If this request was simply for the 1998 file, why wasn't it included?  What other information did it contain?  Perhaps Schultz informed Harmon of the situation before asking about 1998.  That would be entirely logical - and result in a perjury charge for Harmon.

End Note 303:  Schultz confidential file note (5-1-12).  Note memorializing Schultz's internet search for the chair of The Second Mile on 2/12/2001.  If Schultz searched for the Board members on 2/12/2001, why did he make a note asking "who's the chair?" on 2/25/2001?

End Note 318:  Control Number 00681288. Schultz e-mail to Spanier and Curley stating plan to meet with Curley on Sunday, February 25, 2001.  Freeh stated that all three men met on that Sunday.  This e-mail indicates the original plan was for Schultz and Curley to meet.

End Note 319:  Control Number 00681288. Spanier acknowledged the February 25, 2001 meeting. Note that Spanier sent no "acknowledgements" to the 1998 e-mails, which was unusual for Spanier who was known to answer e-mail until the early hours of the morning.

About the e-mail evidence and the 2004 system switch over

E-mail evidence obtained regarding 1998 and 2001 was definitely in digital form. This was confirmed by comparing the time/date stamps of e-mails printed from PSU systems, which are on Eastern Time, to the e-mail evidence in the Commonwealth's Answer to Defendent's Motion To Sever, which are on Greenwich Mean Time.   Also in keeping with the theme of missing information, the Commonwealth did not include Freeh Report Exhibit 2B - which document and computer forensic experts deemed suspicious - as evidence supporting the charges against Curley and Schultz.

Schultz's Behavior

One of the most important notes in the Schultz file is Exhibit 5E, dated 2/25/01, which is a handwitten note stating: "3) Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile. 2) Report to Dept of Welfare.  1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Building.  *who's the chair?"   (Shown below)

The significance of this note is that it is an indication of Schultz's behavior.  More to the point, it is a note that Schultz has written to himself, memorializing the recommendations/agreements reached by he and Curley.   Interestingly, the next day, Schultz types essentially the same information in an e-mail to Curley, then retained the 2/25/2001 note in his file.   If he had typed the information into an e-mail, why didn't Schultz throw the other note away?   Schulltz also kept the results of an internet search and a request he made to Harmon in which he got an e-mail reply.  The retention of these files indicates Schultz may have been a "pack rat" of sorts and thus would have held onto most everything he wrote about the incident.

Exhibit 5C, dated 2/12/2001,  also appears to be a note from that Schultz has written to himself, memorializing his conversation with Curley regarding follow-up that should be taken.  This note was likely written late in the evening of 2/12/2001 -- after Harmon indicated the police file from 1998 was available for review at 4:57PM.  This note would not contain the advice of Wendell Courtney, who stated that he was not aware of the 1998 incident. 

Exhibits 2H and 2I are extensive notes (4 pages for each telephone conversation)  that Schultz had with Harmon during the first two days the 1998 incident.  

These notes establish that Schultz was a habitual note taker, who documented discussions from telephone and face-to-face meetings and held onto records involving police matters. 

Suspected Missing "Schultz" Documents 

Given Schultz's propensity for taking and retaining notes, one could conclude there are some very important notes missing from the Schultz file.  To wit:

1.  No handwritten notes or e-mail messages memorializing the Sunday, 2/11/2001 meeting with Paterno and Curley held at Paterno's home.  It is difficult to imagine that neither Gary Schultz nor Tim Curley took notes of the discussion with Paterno.

2.  No handwritten notes or e-mail messages memorialzing the meeting with Mike McQueary and Tim Curley on or about 2/19/2001.  Between Curley and/or Schultz, someone undoubtedly documented what was said at the meeting with McQueary.

3.  No handwritten notes or email messages memorializing instructions/advice provided by then PSU Legal Counsel, Wendell Courtney, on 2/11/2001.  Exhibit 5A, a timesheet from McQuaide-Blasko, indicates that Courtney twice conferenced with Gary Schultz about the 2001 incident.    It is difficult to believe that Courtney did not provide written instructions for Schultz or that Schultz did not write down any advice provided by Courtney.

4.  No handwritten notes or email messages memorializing actions taken as a result of the discussion with Courtney on 2/11/2001.  It is interesting that both Schultz and Courtney recalled that the local CYS was contacted about this incident, but no notes memorializing the contact have been made public by Freeh or the former-OAG officials.  However, Agent Anthony Sassano "slipped up" (for the sixth or seventh time) and testified that DPW had a record of a report of the 2002 (sic) incident (Preliminary Perjury Hearing page 170 - below). 

Who Made the 2001 Report?

Considering that Curley, Schultz, and Spanier did not contact DPW, this leaves two probable alternatives for how the report was made:

1)  CYS officials, who were contacted by PSU, filed the report with ChildLine/DPW - and the report was never expunged per the rules on unfounded reports.

2)  Police chief Harmon filed the report with either CYS or DPW after being informed of the incident by Schultz and the report was not expunged per the rules on unfounded reports.

In either case, there is no doubt, someone from PSU contacted someone at either CYS and/or DPW about the 2001 incident. 

The record at DPW did not materialize without someone calling it in.

There is also little doubt that the public has yet to find out the original contents of the Schultz file.

Next:  What's missing from 1998 (Part 2)

Robert Bannon: Comments at BOT Meeting of 3 May 2013

 Prepared Statement of Robert Bannon before Pennsylvania State University’s Board of Trustees

May 3, 2013

My name is Robert Bannon. I am a Penn State World Campus student as well as Co-Chairman of the Jason Bannon Foundation whose sole purpose is to raise funds and award scholarships to graduating seniors of Rancocas Valley Regional High School who plan on attending Penn State University. I am not your typical Penn State student, despite meeting my wife at a Penn State campus. I have never attended a class in a traditional Penn State classroom. Nevertheless, I have a love for this institution beyond words probably due to my brother.

You see, 20 years ago my brother was shot in the back of the head by another student and died. He was never able to attend Penn State and play Penn State football - a life long ambition of his so much so that his was buried wearing a Penn State jersey.  It would be a mistake to think I am the least bit motivated by football. With the exception of a Blue and White game, I have never seen a football game from inside Beaver Stadium. I just can't bring myself to do it - too much emotional baggage I'm guessing.

I've also had the unique perspective of looking at the events of the past 18 months as both a dedicated member of the Penn State community as well as a victim of childhood molestation.

In November 2011, I sent each of the Penn State Trustees a letter regarding my unique dual perspective stressing the importance of objectivity.  With the exception of a letter I received on behalf of President Erickson and his wife, I received no response.  I said that I often received well-intentioned advice to simply "put it behind me". As a sexual abuse survivor, I can’t begin to tell you how bad that advice was. I pray you now recognize that as well; however, it appears you have not.

Just as a physician cannot treat a patient without exams, x-rays and, at times, invasive procedures, you cannot fix a problem by a simple desire to bet better and MOVE ON. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty. All of you need to get your hands dirty.

Your actions remind me of an experience I had as a child.  My sister gave me a haircut and my mother, well intentioned, tried to fix it.  With each cut of the scissors she only made it worse. She realized her limitations and took me to a professional to fix the problem.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for you to realize your limitations, MOVE ON and let professionals fix the problem just as my mother did many years ago.

I constantly have to remind myself the Board of Trustees is made up of educated people but your actions continue to give me pause.

In March of this year, State Auditor General Eugene DePasquale said before the State Senate's Committee on Government that it would be a "big mistake" to allow Penn State University's Board of Trustees to reform itself.  Minutes later and just after the prepared statement by Trustee Broadhurst, the very first question by the Chairman of the Committee dealt with proposed recommendations not yet approved by the Board of Trustees.  He asked Trustee Broadhurst if individual members would be able to vote for some recommendations and not others.  After a vague response by Trustee Broadhurst, Trustee Masser interrupted, "Let me clarify - As Chair of the Board, my plan is to vote on each recommendation one by one by the full Board".

The Board continues to demonstrate its ineptitude. The highest arbiter of dispute in our country, the Supreme Court, provides dissenting opinion; dissent is healthy. Disfavor with this Board has created grassroots reform groups.  If you approve the so-called "Lubrano Rule", or worse yet use it, ranks in those reform groups will grow exponentially.

Comments from Trustees seem to know no bounds. Trustee Frasier's infamous "People who look like you" comment was made significantly worse when he added, "Yea, I said it."  His affirmation of his racist and degrading comment only demonstrated it was knowing and not, as he later described in his apology, in the proverbial heat of the moment.

Trustee and Vice-Chair Stephanie Nolan Deviney is both a Trustee and a candidate for re-election to the Board.  Deviney's re-election Facebook page is littered with examples of her patronizing the very people to whom she is asking for votes. Virtually every question is ignored and of the ones answered, the responses from Trustee Deviney are mostly condescending.  She refuses to answer even the most substantive and respectful questions.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, your failure to resign is unfortunate; running for re-election or accepting another term is repugnant.  To quote Trustee Frasier, "Yea, I said it."