Altered E-mail Found in Freeh Report Contains Damaging Info about 1998 DPW Investigation
Insider(s) leave trail of evidence suggesting Freeh, PSU, and PA covering for DPW’s failure
Part I: The Insider
Louis Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel’s (SIC) diverse “membership included men and women withextensive legal, law enforcement and child protection backgrounds who were experienced in conductingindependent, complex, and unbiased investigations.”Apparentlyone of these individuals chose to be more unbiased than the rest of the group.
This individual took advantage of Freeh’s lack of knowledge and experience with e-mail and PSU’sagreement not to review the document before publication, to alter e-mails, insert evidence Exhibits andtext at or near the last editorial review of the report that points the finger at DPW for dropping the ball in1998 and how PSU officials (beyond the four identified) were complicit in covering for DPW. The mostdamaging evidence includes:
A DPW e-mail on 13 May 1998, just 10 days into the investigation, informing PSU that they wantedto “resolve the matter quickly.” (Exhibit 2B)
Exhibits 2H and 2I, indicating 14 signs of suspected child abuse that were uncovered on the first twodays of the investigation and turned over to DPW on May 5
. This exhibit also contained the firstname of the other child and the name of the apartments in which he lived.
Tom Harmon providing an update to Gary Schultz in which he expresses concern over DPW’s role inthe investigation due to a conflict of interest with Second Mile. (Page 49)
Exhibit 6A, an affidavit from former PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, who does not identify DPW ashaving a role in the 1998 investigation, yet reviewed the 1998 University Park Police Report thatclearly identified DPW and Lauro.Baldwin may have violated the law.The clues left behind by the insiders included: the odd numbering scheme of Appendix A that wasordered 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10; footnotes referencing the exhibits were out of sequence, the turning the pagesin Exhibit 2H and 2I on their sides; and including exhibits that served no useful purpose. All but the lastcould be attributed to sloppy work – but you don’t pay $6.5M for sloppiness. This is sabotage fromwithin Freeh’s SIC.
Part II: Computers don’t lie, people do.
On page 11 of the Freeh Report it states: The University Staff provided a large volume of raw data fromcomputer systems, individual computers and communication devices. The Special Investigative Counsel performed forensic analysis of this
independent of the University Staff.Sounds great in theory, but didn’t work so well in practice.Below is a screen shot of Exhibit 2B from the Freeh Report. I have added two arrows, each labeled “A” pointing out the date stamps that are out of order. Chronology of e-mail either flows up the page or down