The secret story of Schultz’s so-called “secret” file

Published August 2, 2013
Gary Schultz

Dauphin County court officials yesterday posted transcripts of this week’s preliminary hearing. In the event you didn’t immediately read the more than 300 pages of testimony, they reveal many details not previously known, including some that poke even more holes into the sieve that’s commonly known as the Freeh report.

The testimony of Kim Belcher, Gary Schultz’s former secretary, was perhaps the most enlightening, because it completely obliterates Freeh’s idea that Gary Schultz kept a secret file about how they handled the Sandusky matters.

During a Q&A session with reporters after he released his report,  Freeh talked about how difficult Schultz’s notes were to obtain:

“It was a question of skill and luck, I don’t discount either. He actively sought to conceal those records. We found them in conjunction with the attorney general. They’re very critical notes, very critical records … it was an active case of trying to conceal evidence, you know. You don’t do that. It’s a dumb thing to do.”

(Thanks to Linda Berkland for the video of Freeh’s comments.)

And in his report, his team offered the following explanation:

After the Commonwealth brought criminal charges against Schultz in November 2011, Schultz’s assistant removed some of the Sandusky files from Schultz’s Penn State office and delivered them to Schultz.  The assistant failed to disclose in two interviews with the Special Investigative Counsel that the Sandusky files had been removed. Only in May 2012 did the existence of these important files come to light so that the documents could be retrieved. Page 69 of the Freeh Report.

Actively sought to conceal. Removed files. There was no question in Freeh’s mind that Schultz took steps to hide evidence from investigators.

However, testimony and court documents tell a different story.

Schultz retired from Penn State in 2009, leaving his files and other data with the university. But state’s Sandusky investigation continued, and on January 5, 2011, he met with Cynthia Baldwin about being subpoenaed by the grand jury. During that meeting, Schultz told Baldwin that a Sandusky file might still be in the vice president’s office, but Baldwin told him not to look for it or retrieve it, according to an affidavit filed with the court in November last year.

Like other administrators, Schultz testified before the grand jury later that month. When asked if he was “in possession of any notes regarding the 2002 incident,” Schultz said he was not.

I have none of those in my possession. I believe that there were probably notes taken at the time. Given my retirement in 2009, if I even had them at that time, something that old would have probably been destroyed. I had quite a number of files that I considered confidential matters that go back years that didn’t any longer seem pertinent. I wouldn’t be surprised. In fact, I would guess if there were any notes, they were destroyed on or before 2009.

As Schultz told prosecutors that he might have taken notes which were probably long gone, a file filled with Sandusky notes was sitting in the bottom of a locked drawer in the vice president’s office. Only two people knew about it – a secretary who retired in 2007, and Schultz himself. Neither were employed by Penn State at the time.

Schultz was called back to the vice president’s position temporarily in October 2011 when Al Horvath left for a job at the Smithsonian and a search for a permanent replacement began. He and Tim Curley were charged on Nov. 5, 2011. Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno were fired shortly thereafter. Penn State fell into complete disarray.

In that tumultuous week, Schultz phoned his secretary, Kim Belcher, and asked her to bring him his “transitory file,” which contained documents relevant to his transition back into the position. “When I went in to pick that file up, it occurred to me that if there was a file on Sandusky, it would be in that bottom drawer,” Belcher said this week.

What happened next has been well reported. Belcher made a copy of the Sandusky file, but wound up giving Schultz the original documents instead of the the copy. She held on to her copy until her own grand jury appearance in April 2012, never mentioning it to Freeh’s investigators during two separate interviews. Schultz’s attorney kept the originals confidential until about the same time too.

It doesn’t seem possible that Belcher could have managed to mishandle crucial evidence so severely. If you believe her story, it was all a mistake, compounded by the panic of having given away evidence to a defendant. “I didn’t make the right choices,” she said.

But prosecutors had a different theory. The morning of her grand jury appearance, Belcher met with prosecutor Frank Fina. Here’s what Belcher said about that conversation this week:

Attorney: And you told Mr. Fina that it was not Mr. Schultz that suggested to you that you remove the file. You told Mr. Fina that?

Belcher: I did.

Attorney: And Mr. Fina insisted that you were not telling the truth, right?

Belcher: He did not believe I was telling the truth, that’s correct.

Attorney: He tried to get you to say that Gary Schultz took the files, didn’t he?

Belcher: It was my understanding that he was looking for me to say that.

Attorney: Mr. Fina was looking for you to say that Gary Schultz told you to take the file, right?

Belcher: Right.

Belcher’s testimony completely contradicts the conventional narrative that Schultz lied about knowledge of his notes, then coerced her into concealing their existence from both prosecutors and Freeh investigators. With context, his testimony before the grand jury seems accurate: he might have taken notes years earlier, and they might still be in his old office, but as a retiree, he had no way of confirming their existence, and thought they had been tossed when he left office in 2009.

Freeh’s team got hold of the notes in May 2012, a month after they were turned over to prosecutors. He claims they were “independently” discovered. Instead, in the wake of Belcher’s testimony, it’s more reasonable to conclude that Fina, who by May 2012 had developed a cozy relationship with Freeh investigator Greg Paw, provided Freeh’s team with a copy of the notes for his report.

By now it’s clear that Freeh’s report simply reflected the views of state prosecutors that were spoon fed to his team for months. There was absolutely nothing independent about his inquiry.

But what could turn out to be revolutionary is that Gary Schultz just might be telling the truth after all. Of the three administrators charged, Schultz’s grand jury testimony seemed the most dishonest. If he told the truth, what else did Freeh and prosecutors get wrong?

  • Anonymous

    Thanks Ryan for the information.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, the earlier narrative delivered in Freeh’s report and dog and pony show certainly don’t jive with the actual testimony from Belcher. It also seems very convenient that Baldwin didn’t want him to review notes from 10 years earlier before he testified. Add that to conveniently getting hired on a temporary basis a month before he was charged adds a bit of intrigue.

    I retired a bit over 10 years ago on very short notice as I was trying to get included in a package that was being offered at that time. I’ve often thought back to that day as a reference. I remember the VP calling me in to tell me I got the deal and going to a meeting later that morning that covered details of the package, but beyond that I can’t recall much of anything, including where we had that meeting. 10 years is a long time to remember exact details of anything and I was still relatively young. I can’t imagine Paterno in his 80s remembered much of that weekend unless someone “refreshed” his memory, perhaps Mike himself.

    • Anonymous

      At the same time, what Spanier, Schultz, and Curley said before the Grand Jury compared to what they discussed in the “Secret File” in emails, handwritten notes, and other evidence???
      Horse Play was not discussed in the notes, emails, and other evidence but they all said it at the Grand Jury??? But McQueary and Patreno said otherwise, it was of a sexual nature not Horse Play????
      Gee, looks like the words do not match anyone thinking otherwise with IFS, BUTS, and HYPOS????

      • Anonymous

        Where are the notes regarding Curley and Shulz’s meeting with
        McLiar? I can’t believe there wasn’t one sentence written during that meeting. Shulz takes a bunch of notes in 1998 but none in 2001? Really. Given Freeh has left out a number of items I wouldn’t be surprised to find there were notes where they say it appears to be “Horseplay”.

        • Anonymous

          Well, the 2001 emails are more damaging and you saying, “I wouldn’t be surprised to find there were notes where they say it appears to be “Horseplay”.” is up to the Defense to find before the Trials and so far not in evidence.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry agmines not one e-mail says anything about a sexual assault. There has been no motive to cover this up that makes any sense because protecting the football program does not hold water. But here is one that does make perfect sense. But forget what you know now and go back to 2001 when Sandusky was a Saint and the 2nd Mile was the next best thing to sliced bread. Had it got out that Jerry Sandusky was horsing around in a shower with a boy after 9:00PM it would have been made a big deal by the media even then. If anything they believed a crime had not been committed and informed 2nd Mile to help 2nd Mile not PSU. They wanted to inform them so THEY could take action before something happened with their breadwinner that would be taken out of context WITH WHAT THEY KNEW THEN. That is the only motive that makes any sense in this IMO. You may think not so please tell me a motive that makes any sense other than this one because every crime has a motive and the football angle is BS.

          • Anonymous

            Guess, “Vulnerable Down The Road” is absent in your memory. In totality, there is more than emails, so nice try, or are of the belief all 31 children are lying?

          • Doug Robb

            31 children are lying? 1st of all. NONE of them are children, they are all adults now in their late 20’s30’s. And, their attorneys have advised them about the millions of dollars to be had in “The Big Penn State Lawsuit Lay-down Lotto” being played by the incompodenses on the BoT that says, “PAY THEM ALL OFF!” BEFORE the Schultz, Curley and Spanier trials can reveal exactly WHAT knowledge, liability and negligence PSU had due to their “actions” regarding Sandusky. Only morons settle BEFORE trials assessing those legal issues are held, but that’s our BoT! Paterno knew? Knew what? Agmines, get a clue. Fina and McGettigan BOTH just got done saying that, after ALL the evidence they went through in the Sandusky trial about ALL those victims, NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE came out implicating Joe Paterno in ANY cover-up regarding Sandusky. Exactly what part of that statement by Fina and McGettigan DON’T YOU get?

          • Edward Hassick

            ‘They all aid the same thing”said one juror, because that’s what they were told to say

      • Nony

        You need to get a life.

        • Anonymous

          Nony, if you call that an intelligent response, perhaps you need to acquire an education?

  • Anonymous

    “…what else did Freeh and prosecutors get wrong?” Pretty much all of it, would be my guess.

    • Anonymous

      This can be said much of Blehar too!

      • Anonymous

        Do tell. Show us where.

        • Anonymous

          Easy, Blehar can prove it all, by just filing Complaint with the District Attorney in the county he lives in Pennsylvania?
          Therefore, Blehar can use his Blog to show all of us and where, by filing a Formal Complaint, but he has not, has he???

          • Anonymous

            You’re trying to argue the Blehar’s analyses are full of errors by being critical that he’s not taken some action. That just doesn’t follow. You need to point out some specific points in his analyses that are erroneous, and supply your own supporting arguments with supporting, credible evidence, just as he has done.

          • Anonymous

            On the Contrary, it is Blehar that not only as argued but states in his own blogs, that Baldwin, Freeh, and others have committed crimes germane to their testimony, findings, and in the reports.
            It is Blehar that pointed out specific points in his own Analysis, and therefore, it is up to Blehar to submit his evidence in a Private Complaint to any District Attorney, not me!
            Blehar and now you argue he has “Credible Evidence”, so go to a District Attorney, File a Private Complaint, and prove to all of us, he can support his Credible Evidence? Or you sue Blehar Evidence and do it for him, you are allow to do the same.
            I mean, it is the Sandusky case all over again, Blehar is covering up crimes he claims he has Credible Evidence on, and now so are you?
            Now go and do your duty and do not make the Mistakes, Paterno, Spanier, Schuktz, and Curley did, or are you afraid as Blehar looks to stand up for what the right thing to do, better yet, send it to AG Independent Special Investigator Moulton!
            Do it now, quit asking for anyone to prove Blehar wrong, when Blehar himself, like you too, claim to think you have Credible Evidence?

          • Vickie Fleisher-Gann


            You have certainly typed a lot of words above but failed to make any sense out of those words…If you want anyone to believe what you are writing is gospel, please make sure you have the facts behind those words otherwise, dont make ourself look dumb…

          • Anonymous

            Vickie Fleisher-Gann, Three questions you need to answer?

            1. Did you go to the link that allows anyone to file a Private Complaint with any District Attorneys Office in the Commonwealth?

            2. Since Blehar has more facts that crimes have been committed as posted in his blogs have you asked yourself why he has not filed a Private Complaint to ask for such investigations?

            3. Why do you make yourself look so dumb for not asking about questions 1 & 2 above, if Blehar has the facts then does not file one Private Complaint?

            So far, Blehar is long on words and short on actions and that says it all, doesn’t it!

          • Anonymous

            AGMINES, how do you know that Ray Blehar has not already been in contact with the Attorney General and other law enforcement?

          • Anonymous

            I can only by Ray Blehar’s blogs and he has said he does send all his Reports to the AG, and that is good but if he files a Private Complaint, that has to be investigated, if the Assistant District Attorney approves it.
            I have no problem in what Ray is doing, great job, but it amounts to a blog, until someone in Law Enforcement actually does something with his information and conclusions others have broken serious laws.

          • Ray Blehar

            I don’t need to file a private complaint. I have turned evidence over to law enforcement and I’ll let them do their jobs. They have the authority to get search warrants and obtain information that builds on the information I have provided.

            Also, I don’t have endless amount of time on my hands like you do. I have a full-time job that takes up 14 hours of my day.

          • Anonymous

            A Private Complaint will do the same and would make them investigate, especially since you claim in your reports you have evidence that others committed crimes?
            You are doing it for Children Abuse Protection are you not? This is what you claim but work on frames instead as you website is titled?
            As for your fleckless excuses of why you lack time. Maybe if you were smart enough you would know how to earn enough money so you would not be a servant to a job. A servant takes money because he cannot earn it on his own. The word salary comes from “Salt” that roman Solders were paid with for being in service to The Republic and Emperors!
            And by the way, you claiming you do not have enough time because you have a Full-Time Job is an excuse not an answer to why some of your Reports and information have been refuted.
            I am happy you are trying to get to the entire truth, that is to be admired and recognized, but filing a Private Complaint with evidence you report in blogs, would be a better way to make sure it is investigated instead of waiting on any investigation.
            After all, if Freeh and Baldwin or Trustees or AG or State Police violated the Laws of the Commonwealth as you claim, and McQueary has committed Perjury more than one, why afraid of a Public Private Complaint.
            I say so, in salute of your work, and not opposing it!

  • Larry Schultz

    Ryan, I have been and continue to be both impressed and grateful for your work. The AG and Freeh say that Schultz conspired with others to hide the file. Schultz says he told Cynthia Baldwin. I am pretty sure she will say (if she is asked) that he told her no such thing. Everyone can agree that important evidence of the state of mind of some of the players here, not available elsewhere, was in that file, so this is important for others besides Gary Schultz. I am thankful we have a competing narrative to the simple (minded) conclusions of the Freeh Report, but isn’t that all this is?
    We are depending in one instance on Freeh’s and the AG’s word, and in the other on Schultz’s and Belcher’s word, right? I do not see this as conclusive either way, since clearly Schultz and Belcher could have reason to misrepresent this. However briefly, she worked for him, and both agree that she took the file to him, off PSU premises, at a time when it was long overdue to be provided to the AG in response to the subpoena. I suspect Belcher’s grant of immunity was related to her possession of the subpoenaed records months after they were turned over.
    Do you also think that this evidence, rather than being conclusive, simply frames the debate for trial?

    • Ray Blehar

      This blogpost proves that the OAG had the Schultz file in March 2012. Therefore, Baldwin had to have removed it, copied it, provided copies to the OAG, and put the original back in the drawer.

      • Larry Schultz

        Ray you say this in your linked blog post: “It was at this meeting that Schultz informed Baldwin of the existence of his file on Sandusky.” I would say it was at this meeting that Schultz and his lawyers SAY he informed Baldwin. Where is the independent evidence this is true?

        • Anonymous

          One question, does the evidence show Schultz, Spanier, and Curley are discussing Horse Play as all 3 said before the Grand Jury? If no, what Hypos will Blehar make up again?

          • Larry Schultz

            No saying Ray made up anything. The only way I know to find out the truth is to ask those with superior knowledge to mine, and that is all I am doing.

          • Anonymous

            Ray Blehar, can file a Complaint with any District Attorney’s Office at anytime, if he has evidence the Police will not investigate, and the District Attorney has to investigate it if it meets the procedures and standards. Blehar has never done it to date, one wonders why????

          • NAL

            Man Agmines- you sure have an agenda for the Allegheny da link – what gives? Makes me wonder who you are and why you’re commenting – a LOT – here.

          • Anonymous

            NAL, sure looks like you have an agenda? See, easy to say?

            Blehar has said he has an agenda and good for him, I respect it, but so far, much words no actions.

            If Blehar’s work is so stellar then it can stand up under an Official District Attorney Private Complaint, so your assessment that it is stellar has not been confirmed.

            I also agree with you, why the Paterno’s paid for a Public Relations Report on the Freeh Report that did admit Joe could have done more and accepted that criticism was foolish.

            Especially since Joe never knowing has been debunked, that contradicts Blehar’s earlier Reports that some how he fears to file a Private Complaint on, and I call that an agenda like you do.

      • Anonymous

        Well, Mr. Blehar, if you are correct, you are allow to go to any County District Attorney Office and file a Citizen’s Complaint since you have that Evidence, even if the police will not investigate your evidence. So, about time you do it, instead of writing about it.
        If you have evidence that Baldwin took the file, copied it, and put it back, go and file a District Attorney Complaint and prove it to the world????

        Oh wait, it is a crime if you file a False Complaint without evidence though, so be careful!

        • Anonymous

          Agmines The wheels of justice and investigations take time. When its all said and done you will be the first one to put your tail between your leg as and run for cover. And by the way being “Vulnerable” down the road could mean if it got out JS was horsing around with a boy after 9:00PM in a shower it would make you vulnerable to questioning even if it was just horsing around but not a crime.

          Every crime has to have a motive and “protecting the football program” does not hold water. JUST ONCE I would like people like you to forget what you know now and put yourself in 2001 when JS was a Saint and the 2nd Mile was the best thing since sliced bread. If it got out, even back then, JS was horsing around in a shower with boy after 9:00PM it would be damn embarrassing for him and 2nd Mile. They informed 2nd Mile to help 2nd Mile so that they could correct the problem before their breadwinner created an embarrassing situation IMO. That is the only motive that makes an sense in this. You will deny it so please explain what the motive was in your world.

          • Anonymous

            Billyboy172, Unfortunately, the only tail between anybody legs is Nittany Lion Fans right now, and what is downright embarrassing is that it is all Penn State University Scandal, from victims to participants, to charges, convictions, witnesses, and places. Federal Investigations, AG Convictions, NCAA Sanctions, Department of Education violations of the laws, and crimes from players not reported, along with Sandusky, Curley, McQueary all products of Success with Honor???
            The buts, ifs, could haves, would haves, and should haves, do not erase what has happen and nothing can change that either. Why argue motive when jobs, careers, scandal, and panic set in once the Grand Jury came a calling, it is up to the Prosecution to prove it and Defense defend it.
            No matter what and I can wait for the Trials unlike you pretending you already know. Yet, the damage to a great Institution of Higher Learning happen under the leadership of Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno.
            The Reforms show that and there is nothing we can do now, but make our University better, and I have hopes Blehars evidence if it can get before a District Attorney, can at least get the truth we all need to move on too.

  • Anonymous

    One big problem, the file has evidence showing Sandusky was under investigation of a sexual nature for all 3 Defendants discussing what to do, not “Horse Play” as testified under oath???? But keep trying to use Hypo’s on why McQueary & Paterno told the truth under Oath before a Grand Jury, and Schultz, Curley, and Spanier called it “Horse Play.” Funny, the file was found after the Grand Jury, so no matter what Schultz says, before the File it was Horse Play, now it is the file says otherwise???? Children were abused that has been proven and it was not Horse Play!

    Penn Staters keep using HYPOS, IF, or BUT For, try following the evidence, and understand, your last lines, have too many “IFS” to be taken seriously, and as the song goes, “IF” Is an Illusion not Evidence!

    • Guest

      “The truth of the matter is – if half the time and energy being exerted to exonerate Joe Paterno’s legacy was put into preventing child sexual abuse, we could potentially save millions of future children from a lifetime of pain.”

      And I’m assuming you’re doing your part in this? Let’s hear it: What have you done to “potentially save millions of future children from a lifetime of pain?”

      • Anonymous

        I am pointing out how much wasted effort is being used by Blehar that keeps saying he is doing it for Child Protection Reforms, but to date will not, has not, and is for some reason cannot file a complaint with any District Attorney???

        Therefore, when Blehar does it, since I had to teach him and you on how to file a Complaint, “IF” he has the evidence, can help stop children from a lifetime of pain, instead of worrying about the Framing of Paterno?

        Go ahead, you too can use “??Blehar Evidence??”” and file one yourself, to prove Blehar has the evidence to protect future children as he claims or PAOAG, Freeh, Baldwin, Trustees, or anyone is responsible in committing a crime based on Blehar’s Blog Evidence???

        Here is just one LINK:

        5) Private Complaint Filed

        If the police decline to file a complaint, a private person is permitted to file a private complaint. However, an Assistant District Attorney must first approve the private complaint, before it can proceed. Once approved, the process is the same as if the complaint had been filed by a police officer.

    • Anonymous

      Your last sentence… that pesky “if” again. Just sayin’

      • Anonymous

        “When we stood at childhood’s gate,
        Shapeless in the hands of fate,
        Thou didst mold us, dear old State,
        Dear old State, dear old State. ”

        No you won’t believe in If anymore,
        If’s an illusion, If’s an illusion,
        No you won’t believe in If anymore,
        If is for children, If is for children,
        Building daydreams1

        “May no act of ours bring shame
        To one heart that loves thy name,
        May our lives but swell thy fame,
        Dear old State, dear old State”

        If only Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Paterno, and all of Penn State had lived up to our Alma Mater, and we could avoid all the IFS, BUTS, and HYPOS in failing attempts to prove every one else wrong. and look so foolish in doing it, especially pretending it is for the children, like Blehar purports!
        Note 1. I Don’t Believe In Ifs Anymore, Lyrics!

        • Anonymous

          So again, you still haven’t pointed out any of Blehar’s analyses or conclusions that are in error, and I’m quite certain that you simply are not able. You’re long on words and short on thought. I’m done with you.

          • Anonymous

            MEK-93, Again, you have not explained my responses and you are unable to grasp what Blehar is doing, and you still will not answer my question???

            Blehar admits he sends his research on the evidence he reviews and finds errors and then sends them to the AG as well as others he knows in the FBI and DOJ, and it is right on his website. I respect that very much!

            Yet, Blehar refuses as his right to file his own Private Complaint that I linked and do it himself under the cause of “Child Abuse Protection” that he advocates as well as proving others that conducted an investigation such as Freeh, or was part of an investigation such as Baldwin, actually broke laws and should be in jail, as his report concludes, but does nothing?

            I applaud Blehar for all his work, but when he claims he has discovered crimes by others at Penn State and by Freeh, why not file a Private Complaint as permissible under the color of law, if the Police refuse to investigate what he found?

            Now his website is full of long words but no short actions, and one has to wonder why?

    • Michael Evans

      Answer to last question: He was referred to as “coach” in an email in 1998, not 2001. The “coach” email was in reference to the 1998 incident, not 2001. In 1998 he was still coaching. Also: the emails in the Schultz file don’t say what Sandusky is being investigated for. They don’t use the term “horseplay”, “molestation”, “rape” or “sexual”. They just make it clear that he did something wrong and is being investigated. They are consistent with someone being investigated for naked horseplay in a shower, which is obviously completely inappropriate and needed to be stopped. I believe that at the time of those emails, the administrators had talked to McQueary, and talked to Sandusky, and were not sure who to believe.

      • Anonymous

        Thank you for your explanation, but the emails still quite damaging on being vulnerable down the road, and the personal handwriting of Schultz. The Coach aspect is silly in my opinion, and will not pass the smell test by the Jury. I can accept others opinions that differ too.

        • Michael Evans

          I can definitely accept other peoples opinion on this whole thing. Before we get testimony from Curley, Schultz and Spanier at trial, we are all just guessing at what might have happened, and I suppose your guess is as good as mine. As far as the email about “being vulnerable down the road”, to me that sounds like a perfectly logical thing to say if you are an administrator trying to figure out what to do about a report of inappropriate, naked horseplay. It would be a crazy thing to say if you were communicating with someone about covering up a rape. Would it really be necessary to remind someone that “we might be vulnerable” if we are covering up a rape? Anyway, hopefully we all get answers that we can live with at some point.

          • Anonymous

            God lets hope the Jury buys what you are selling? It is my belief, in 1998, it is perfectly reasonable to believe there was confusion on what to do, since Official Investigations were ended in no findings at all by the District Attorney, Sure, Paterno wanted that investigation to be watch closely by Curley who asked Schultz to keep him informed, that is perfectly sound a practical.
            In 2001, it gets hotter and now 1998 can come into play that maybe that confusion now looks like District Attorney blew it, but even then, I can go along with more confusion since McQueary is all over the place on Testimony that even Jurors did not believe on 3 of those counts against Sandusky.
            I believe the big problem is going to be between 2008 and 2011 when they knew they would go before the Grand Jury, and then panic set in, on what they did, or could remember, or planned to say, together, along with much mismanagement of Baldwin, and that is hard to change now.
            In any event, nothing these questions, mistakes, or reports ever denied that children were abused by a coach, associated with Penn State and Second Mile that was associated with Penn State.
            Moreover, this scandal led to evidence showing Penn State was out of compliance with Big Ten Athletic Integrity Agreement, No Code Of Conduct For Athletes, Lack of Clery & Title IX Reporting, Trustees Conflicts of Interests being business with Paterno and Penn State, and of course no oversight of football that was an lack of Institutional Control and Players treated differently from Students on investigations and allowed to play even when under suspension by the university.
            We shall see?

      • DeliverMeMyRoseColoredGlasses

        There is much more to 1998 than most want to admit. There is proof of an even more conspired cover up in summer and fall of 98.

    • RevealTheFacts

      On that note of preventing child sexual abuse, what have you done to stop it? Have you called for legislative changes? Have you called out DPW? Have you questioned CYS? Have you done anything at all … other than spew hateful uneducated conclusions based purely on speculation? Put your money where your mouth is, big boy!

  • Anonymous

    Guys everyone at PSU made an evaluation of risk and reward. The reward was keeping quiet, keeping their high paying jobs, and collecting millions generated by a Hall of Fame coach versus a bunch of at risk kids and they made the conscious decision to roll the dice. They lost, Penn state has bigger money losses, and we all lost, and if we continue with the Ifs, Buts, and Hypos, that will not change one thing, we will keep on losing! Like Joe said, “Old Main Screwed It All Up!”

    WE ARE still a great school with a great coach and bunch of loyal brave players staying and coming here to play for Dear Old State to acquire an education, not just for Football.

    WE ARE in full compliance with the NCAA, Cleary Act, Title IX, Big Ten, and now have an Athletic Integrity Agreement, Athletic Code of Conduct for all Athletes, Director of Ethics & Compliance with an Athletic Integrity Officer, all proving not all was right under The Paterno Football Program nor with the University under Spanier, Schultz, and Curley!

    Let us live proud in Penn State’s today and tomorrow and not wallow in tears of yesterday that shame Dear Old State?

    WE ARE a better University today and no one can doubt that or prove otherwise.

    • Man of Reason

      AGMINES. Freeh could have only obtained the files through either the Attorney General’s Office or directly from Cynthia Baldwin. If from the OAG, then the OAG was able to circumvent the law by using the Freeh Report as another grand standing one sided Grand Jury Presentment press conference without having to go through all the legalities. And if he got them from Baldwin, how did SHE know about them unless Schultz TOLD her about them??? And forget about all your “Private Complaint” crap. It’s better this info is simply supplied to the proper parties right now. They’ll know what to do with it.

      • Anonymous

        Well, I say the same things about all about Blehar and your own Baldwin Crap, claiming she broke the law on a blog, and speculating hypos, ifs, and buts, is a waste of time without any results backing up conclusion not in evidence.

        A District Attorney’s Private Complaint is at least an Official Document under the Color of Law, and it can prove Blehar’s information, facts, and conclusion are authenticated and not just fodder for mere blogs of hope, thoughts, and imaginations.

        So, if you think as a man of reason that some how all of Blehar’s blogs and reports are going to the proper parties, so be it, but that is crap, compared to putting it all on the record, and then saying to an Assistant District Attorney, “I Have Found Real Facts On Real Crimes, So Now You Must Investigate?

        Blehar’ report are just blogs until they turn into true investigations, and none of his credentials can back up his claims until he puts that on the line with an Official Private Complaint!

        • RevealTheFacts

          Filing an official private complaint is not in any way a guarantee that there will be charges filed or even that there will be an investigation. That’s up the DA with whom the private complaint is filed. We already know that local law enforcement has failed repeatedly at least dating back to 1998, so that would likely be a total waste of time. Blehar is doing this the right way. He’s turning his information over to those officials who ARE investigating. It’s obviously peaked your curiousity AG and you seem to want the evidence to be revealed. You, like the rest of us, will just have to wait. :)

    • Edward Hassick

      Joe said “old main screwed up” you mean, you for some reason, would like to think that he said that. Also funny how you information sources like FOX and ESPN didn’t tell you that Joe had to go ask Mike what they said with each other so he can repeat it.
      Don’t worry lost sheep can be herded. Do you hear the dog?

  • Anonymous

    Some of the Blehar earlier Reports along with the Paterno Report are being disproved by TimeLine Newspapers Reports before the 2007 and 2008 AG Corbett Investigations began.

    For example, here is just one link:
    Ex-assistant Sandusky pleased with path Nits are taking
    WOGENRICH, March 24, 2005|By Mark Wogenrich Of The Morning Call

    Although the Morning Call article is about how Penn State Football is back from 4 of 5 losing seasons, it adversely reveals and contradicts how Paterno still saw Sandusky on Campus near his office and working out in the gym and said “I” Thought We Got Rid Of You!”.

    It also talks about how much Sandusky loves working with Second Mile. Yet, The Paterno Report & Blehar reported, how no one knew or suspected Sandusky was a Pedophile.

    One more thing, this Article is in 2005 and two years before the Investigation began and 5 years before a Grand Jury was started, clearly Paterno knew something when he said to Sandusky, “I Thought We Got Rid of You?”

    Quotes from the Article:

    “Jerry Sandusky, who still occasionally works out with the Penn State football team, passed his former boss in the hall a few weeks ago. “Thought we got rid of you,” Joe Paterno said.”

    “Well they did, but Sandusky, who retired as Penn State’s defensive coordinator in 1999, can’t let go of everything. So in between Second Mile functions, Sandusky does a few miles on the treadmill and keeps an ear to the ground of Penn State’s program.”

    We also know, it is well documented that Joe & Sue Paterno went on many High Priced Vacations provided by Second Mile Executives and Second Mile handed out Penn State Football Cards on Players to Second Mile children, an NCAA violation I might add.

    Now those comments made by Joe in 2005 in an Independent interview with Sandusky, by the Morning Call before anyone knew anything, is very damaging, and unravels Bleghar’s earlier so-called “Reports” that Joe never knew, especially when combined with the Preliminary Hearing Transcripts and Secret Files information.

    Read the article link and then read the old Blehar “Reports” and it looks like why Blehar is afraid to file Independent Private District Attorney Complaints allowed by Law when evidence of crimes by others are not or refused to be investigated by the police????

    • Janet

      What exactly do you think Joe saying “I thought we got rid of you” implies? You’re really reaching, and frankly, I’ve said that same thing to someone who visited my place of employment after they had left……does that mean they’re a pedophile and I knew about it??? you’ve gotta be kidding me!

    • RevealTheFacts

      “I thought we got rid of you” says to me that Joe hadn’t seen him since 1999. Did you say that happened in 2005? Okay, so they ran into each other in State College. Wow! How exactly does that prove Joe knew anything? Also, since when have newspaper reports become evidence?

  • tratoor

    AG Mines appears to be the goofball Cruising Route66 with yet another of his usernames.