Sunday, November 11, 2018

What's PSU President Barron Hiding? Big Trial Knows!

By Ralph Cipriano

The plane that flew over Beaver Stadium towed a banner that said -- "PRES BARRON: WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? RELEASE THE REPORT!"

Former Penn State Trustee Anthony Lubrano took to the skies last month in his campaign to get Penn State President Eric Barron to release the findings of an investigation into the so called "source materials" for the Louis Freeh Report on the Penn State sex scandal. The investigation into the Freeh Report, done by a minority group of trustees, was buried by the majority on the PSU board as part of an ongoing coverup of epic proportions, aided by an astounding lack of curiosity on the part of the mainstream media.

As to what PSU is hiding, Big Trial's readers already know because this past summer, we printed many of the big secrets contained in those confidential source materials. What are they hiding? That the Freeh Report was filled with faulty opinions dressed up as facts; that Freeh had a conflict of interest; and that Freeh's investigators colluded with former deputy attorney general Frank Fina to repeatedly violate state grand jury secrecy laws, contaminating both probes. And that's just for starters.

Fraudulent Freeh
In June, Big Trial printed the highlights of a seven-page "executive summary of findings of that internal review of the Freeh Report, dated Jan. 8, 2017, as well as highlights from a 25-page synopsis of evidence gleaned from those confidential source materials.

The findings of the minority trustees: Freeh "disregarded the preponderance of the evidence" in concluding there was a cover-up of Jerry Sandusky's crimes at Penn State.

And: "Louis Freeh and his team knowingly provided a false conclusion in stating that the alleged coverup was motivated by a desire to protect the football program and a false culture that overvalued football and athletics."

The Freeh Report, the executive summary found, relied on "deeply-flawed" procedures for interviewing witnesses, and faulty investigative methods that resulted in "biased reporting of interview data" and "inaccurate summaries" of witness testimony.

In their synopsis of evidence, the trustees charged Freeh with a conflict of interest. The minority trustees offered as proof confidential internal Freeh Group emails that showed that while Freeh was finishing up his investigation of Penn State, he was angling for his group to become the "go to investigators" for the NCAA.

On July 7, 2012, a week before the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State, Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for Freeh, wrote to Freeh and a partner of Freeh's. "This has opened up an opportunity to have the dialogue with [NCAA President Mark] Emmert about possibly being the go to internal investigator for the NCAA," McNeill wrote. "It appears we have Emmert's attention now."

In response, Freeh wrote back, "Let's try to meet with him and make a deal -- a very good cost contract to be the NCAA's 'go to investigators' -- we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting -- if he does not ask for one first."

A spokesperson for Freeh, the former judge and FBI director, never responded to a Big Trial request for comment.

In July, Big Trial ran more top secret stuff from the source materials -- a series of internal emails at the Freeh Group that showed that former deputy attorney General Frank Fina was routinely and repeatedly leaking grand jury secrets to Freeh's investigators.

The emails showed that Fina was routinely swapping inside dope with Freeh's guys and playing good cop-bad cop with witnesses such as former Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin, even though the grand jury's investigation of Penn State was supposed to be secret. And Freeh's investigators, who were acting as private citizens, had no right to access grand jury secrets. 
Leaky Frank Fina

When asked about this breach of grand jury secrecy, and whether Freeh's team was authorized to share grand jury secrets with Fina, the former FBI director declined comment.

Another big secret contained in those source materials -- Penn State's board of trustees utterly failed in their fiduciary duties to investigate claims of abuse before they paid out $118 million to 36 alleged victims. 

Confidential documents showed that Penn State's trustees, presently engaged in that ongoing coverup, didn't subject the now-wealthy young lads to criminal background checks, depositions by lawyers, or examinations by forensic psychiatrists before they handed out the big checks. The so-called "victims" didn't even have to divulge their real names while they were cashing in.

No wonder Penn State wants to keep that report on the source materials sealed. Because it makes them looked like easy marks squandering millions of dollars on suspect "victims" with ever-changing and highly implausible stories that were often the product of therapy sessions featuring scientifically discredited memory recovery therapy. This subject has been investigated by author Mark Pendergrast in his book, The Most Hated Man In America, Jerry Sandusky And The Rush To Judgment.

In ordinary times, the shocking degree of incompetence and malfeasance that took place at Penn State during that big sex scandal might have aroused the curiosity of the mainstream media, and maybe even prompted them to reconsider their hysterical rush to judgment in the Sandusky case. 

Especially in the light of another Big Trial bombshell, that the headline allegation of the 2011 grand jury presentment --- that Jerry Sandusky raped a 10-year-old boy in the showers -- probably never happened, according to a previously unknown federal investigation conducted back in 2012 on the Penn State campus by former NCIS special agent John Snedden.

Contrary to what Freeh found, Snedden concluded that there was no cover up at Penn State because there was no credible evidence or a credible witness to show that a sex crime had ever occurred in the PSU showers.

But the mainstream media remains silent on the Snedden investigation and his subsequent 110-page report, as well as the accumulating evidence that Penn State, Louie Freeh, and the attorney general, along with lying cops and suspect therapists, completely botched the Sandusky investigation.

Because members of the media have their own credibility to protect, or what's left of it.

Memo to the minority trustees: President Barron reports to the board of trustees and not the other way around. He's never going to willingly release that report, and neither will the majority board members.

The only solution: do what Frank Fina did, leak the damn thing. Hopefully, the report is available as a PDF or word document. Email that file to and I'll take care of the rest.

Related: What is President Barron hiding? It's called fraud -- blogger Ray Blehar.


  1. Thanks Ralph for your persistence on this story. IMHO, your reporting on the Penn State/Sandusky fiasco has been second to none. No blogger or member of the media has made as compelling of a case as you have of how much the OAG and members of the media have missed the mark in the stories of what they had told. I look forward to reading the BOT minority report of their review of the Freeh Report source materials as there is no way it will remain burried forever. The truth of the scandal will one day become evident thanks to your work as well as the work of Mark Pendergrast, John Snedden, and others. I hope that that happens sooner rather than later and before Jerry Sandusky dies in prison.

    1. You need to read John Zeigler's work at of you think this.

  2. Thanks, Steve. Mark Pendergrast's book was another bombshell, nailing down the scientifically-discredited memory recovery therapy used on the "victims" in the case. Mark's work was excerpted on Big Trial.

    Maybe if Jerry was a black transexual the social justice warriors at The Philadelphia Inquirer would take up his cause. Until then, he's just the fall guy in a complete legal travesty.

    1. Thank you for keeping this in the public eye. I can send you the transcripts of the two depositions (Frazier and Masser) that prove that the entire Board lied to and on behalf of Penn State about the circumstances of Coach Paterno's dismissal.

  3. The entire Board, as constituted in March 2012, lied to and on behalf of Penn State about the circumstances of Coach Paterno's dismissal.

    “While Coach Paterno did his legal duty by reporting that information the next day, Sunday, March 3, to his immediate superior, the then Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the Board reasonably inferred that he did not call police. We determined that his decision to do his minimum legal duty and not to do more to follow up constituted a failure of leadership by Coach Paterno.... On Wednesday evening, Nov. 9, we met in person in State College. At about 9 pm, we unanimously made the difficult decision that Coach Paterno’s failure of leadership required his removal as football coach.”

    Kenneth Frazier and Keith Masser later testified under oath (Corman vs. NCAA) that the Board fired Paterno solely for public relations reasons. Masser testified, "“The decision to remove Coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn't done. It was based upon the distraction of having him on the sidelines would have caused the University and the harm to the current football team. It had nothing to do with what Coach Paterno had done or hadn't done.”

    Frazier testified, "So I didn't change my mind on the question of whether we had established all the key facts that related to Coach Paterno's involvement and/or responsibility. But I had reached the conclusion that, from the standpoint of what the University's values would be interpreted to be by the broader public, that what was known was sufficiently serious as it relates to child sexual abuse that it would send the wrong message about our values as a University if Coach Paterno were allowed to coach as though none of this had ever happened.”

    This puts both Frazier and Masser on record, along with former Board Chair Karen Peetz and several holdovers who are still on the Board, as committing what would probably be an expellable violation under the USMA's Honor Code: lying or, by remaining silent parties to a falsehood as told in March 2012 rather than distancing oneself from it, tolerating those who do. Penn State is not the USMA but it has the right to expect similar standards of conduct from the Trustees it expects to serve as role models for students, faculty, and staff. It's sort of hard to take credible disciplinary action against a faculty member for falsifying research (a form of lying) when the Board of Trustees make it clear that lying is perfectly acceptable at Penn State.

  4. Great stuff Bill. So getting rid of Paterno was all about public relations, and not about what he was required to do under the law when it came to allegations of sex abuse.

    And so was paying off the alleged "victims" as fast as possible, without doing the messy work of diving into the truth of falsity of the allegations. No wonder there's an ongoing cover-up.

    The only wonder is that the minority trustees continue to play a game they can't win, and the media continues to let them get away with it because they've got their own embarrassments to hide, namely that they blew the entire story.

  5. I am so appreciative of your tenacity in following this, and completely concur with you, Ralph: one of the minority board really needs to release the report regardless of the consequences. What is the worst that could happen anyway? Dismissal from the board? I'm no lawyer, but I can't conceive that it would constitute a criminal act... ? Perhaps civil action, which means the entire board would have to bring a lawsuit, which they probably wouldn't want, as that would compel them to expose everything, right? I don't really know, just a Monday morning ramble here in snowy Denver...

  6. Big Trial has printed three previous blog posts that reported on the confidential contents of the source materials and NOTHING happened.

    You are right, it's a civil action, not a criminal case the judge put his confidential seal on. We live in a country where the Pentagon Papers were published and the republic survived.

    I would argue that there is nothing in those source materials that should not be made pubic, as they all address matters of public controversy that virtually all officialdom, including the AG's office and PSU BOT, have been lying about.

    Time to shout it from the hilltops!

    1. It's easy to see why the PSU trustees haven't complained to the judge about the leak. It would bring much more publicity to the leak. That is the last thing they want.

      What I can't understand is why the mainstream media has not written about the leaked documents. I don't think the fact that the media "blew the entire story" is a good reason why they are silent on the leak. It wasn't all their fault that Freeh, the AG's office and PSU trustees lied to them.

      The media has gotten lots of major stories wrong but usually corrects their mistakes. The media was fooled by the VA frat gang rape case and the Duke lacrosse team rape case but corrected those stories with great fanfare.

    2. Well, Tim, I'm glad you're so confident in the mainstream media. I don't share your confidence. I'll just cite one example. In the Billy Doe case, both the Inquirer and Rolling Stone completely blew the story, passed off a total fraud who put four innocent men in jail as a righteous victim of sex abuse.

      Since then, the former lead detective has come forward in the case to say that he caught Billy in one lie after another until Billy finally admitted he "made stuff up."

      I've also written about two sets of documents that were purposely withheld from the defense by the prosecution, in blatant violation of Brady v. Maryland. And neither publication has lifted a finger to say they totally blew it, nor done anything to correct the record. Even after the DA let one of the falsely convicted child rapists out of jail 12 years early. How often does that happen?

      With Rolling Stone, there's another angle. The same reporter who fell for the UVA rape case did a major and completely erroneous Billy Doe story for that sorry mag, and she failed to disclose a conflict of interest -- her husband was an assistant DA in Philly at the time she wrote her completely one-sided Billy Doe story.

  7. I agree with you Ralph, once a mainstream media journalist writes an article about one of their favorite subjects such as say, politicians, they are blinded by their overzealous quest to "expose corruption" they never go back, they possess a desire to eradicate all things political.

    Actually, journalist, for the most part, remind me a band of gossipers, repeating the same tales over and over, regardless of the truth.

    In the United States if a prosecutor proclaims someone is guilty of a crime they just need the mainstream media to declare it as factual by running the prosecutions "facts", whereby a defendant is doomed.

    Once the damage is done, a journalist just walks away with no sense of regret, whatsoever, much like the prosecution. No need to fear, nothing to worry about. The government told them the all the facts they needed to condemn, its not their problem anymore. To hell with innocents, a Pulitzer is more important.

    A career boost for prosecutors and journalist is more important than getting it right, who would believe a defendant could be telling the truth, certainly not the mainstream media. They are not interested in a defendants truth.

    Journalist should be banned from condemning a defendant, it makes a fair trial impossible, justice is denied. Its mind boggling that a one-sided fiction would be allowed to be printed. If readers are that starved for gossip there are tabloids that have plenty to entertain.

    No wonder defendants feel they are treated unfairly by the media, they never get it right.

  8. What really makes me sick is the hypocrisy exhibited by journalists who assume they know the truth, without any research, without talking to anyone, how is it perfectly acceptable to just condemn another citizen without any regard for the truth. Where do you get a license to condemn and not be held responsible for the damage done?

  9. The media's ineptitude was apparent from the get-go. Fina's Janitor Hoax had more gaping holes than the surface of Yucca Flats. A child of 12 could have picked it apart, yet it became the prime reason to punish PSU football. The janitors (represented by the Teamsters) were terrified of the wrath of Paterno if they said anything. Of course, in the real world, a sighting such as this would have spread through State College faster than a California wildfire!

    The performances of Peetz and Frazier at Freeh's presser looked scripted and rehearsed. At that time, Frazier was negotiating Merke's liability for Vioxx with the OAG, so he was a puppet on a string. Peetz, along with other trustees, had business interests which could have been severely impacted by a vengeful Tom Corbett.

    I give Rodney a pass. He had a gun to his head. He did not have the skill set to manage the situation. From an ethical standpoint, he should have resigned and avoid becoming a party to fraud and extortion.

  10. Could it be that we do not speak the same language, the one the prosecution uses on the public, the same one mainstream media seem to understand? Facts and reasoning do not work, exposing lies on the part of the prosecution of FBI have had little effect.

    We might have to use more words that the prosecution favors, such as scheme, a plan to enrich themselves, funding a lavish lifestyle or taking a lavish trip on the government's dime. Or all-time winners such as making friends and family rich, making work for themselves, padding their salaries, blatant disrespect for the laws, betraying their oaths, and the often quoted "misuse of office" or betraying the public trust, when referring to an elected official. The use of nicknames is always popular.

    We just need to speak their language. So here is what may work, feel free to join in, how is this;

    Frank" The Rat" Fina, made work for himself and his co-conspirators to devise a scheme to defraud and defame Penn State. The mastermind of this crime spree, at the university's expense, was no other than ringleader Tommy" The Hammer" Corbett, together with their syndicate, profited handsomely from legal fees and career advancements. Honest services fraud, mail and wire fraud are alleged. The pair along with indicted and unindicted fraudsters could face decades in prison, the sophisticated scheme seems to have involved many and lasted years. Lawyers for the defendants have declined comment.

    There is no place for facts, timelines, exculpatory evidence, none are needed in trials, once the public clamors for the blood of defendants there is no turning back, what can a prosecutor do but deliver the goods.

  11. Ralph, can you explain how Kathleen Kane is convicted, sentenced and soon to be incarcerated for leaking grand jury testimony and Frank Fina, who committed the same infraction is not prosecuted nor the Press, who conspired in this crime is not prosecuted for violating similar charges?

  12. No, I can't Jason. Frank "Leaky" Fina has led a charmed life so far; the media has ignored his transgressions while they were hammering Kane.

    1. Franky boy is a ranking member of the Filthydelphia cabal. They all have each other's back. Judges, prosecutors, politicians...The media does what it is told, especially with Fast Eddie calling the shots at the Inky. Fina's problemo...boys will be boys. A little T and A gets judges in your pocket.

      Kathy the Klewless was totally inept to fall into Fina's booby trap. I have no sympathy for her. Her promised "no stone un-turned" investigation of the Sandusky fiasco ignored an entire field of boulders. Prison is a just reward for her ineptitude. She turned on the people who voted for her expecting a proper investigation of the Sandusky affair and all of the prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that occured.

  13. Kane should have protected herself by claiming sexual harassment.
    Weren't there innuendoes of a personal nature involving members of the AG Office?
    She clearly knew that the Inquirer set her up when her favored journalists testified against her to the grand jury.

    She had substantiated proof that Fina and his crew were sexual deviants. Why was she intimidated by this opposition not to make this part of the case.

    1. I've never gotten a straight answer on this. Are you saying that Inky reporters testified against Kane in the grand jury, outing her as a source? That would be pretty unbelievable.

    2. Lanny Davis, who represented AG Kathleen Kane, may have been the source who corroborated that his client leaked Grand Jury Testimony. She may have been duped by her Counsel as well as the venerable Bill Marimow that led to her perjury trap.

      This Attorney has muddied the ethical standards so highly protected and revered many times in his career as had Marimow, who has gone unscathed in his illustrious career.

      I was privy to the practice of protecting sources when Tony Lame was City Hall Bureau Chief and who Marimow served under and know of the many issues that questioned the propriety of Marimow's reported claims. The efforts by the Proclaimed Defender of Press Freedom Eugene Roberts to destroy the career and name of Mayor Frank Rizzo, was the foundation for Marimow's ascendancy and unfortunately have never been examined fully.

      When Marimow and Neumann ran their Police Corruption Expose they protected many corrupt sources in the PPD who were dedicated to smearing and bringing down Rizzo, and were pawns of Gene Roberts and his vendetta against the Big Bambino.

      Davis is at the center of the Trump/Mueller Investigation and has persuaded his client Michael Cohen to bear witness to egregious wrongdoing implicating his co-conspirator and client the President.

      The New Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has an obligation and sworn duty to impanel a Grand Jury to determine if Davis and others are part of an effort to wrongfully influence the testimony of his client at the behest of others to bring down Trump, just as he was inclined to do with Kathleen Kane.

      An example so glaringly obvious is the pipeline established with the Creepy Porn Lawyer, Michael Avenatti and private communications with Cohen, in a concerted effort to incriminate Trump in a multitude of wrongdoings. Davis has his fingerprints all over those matters.

      I would hope that there is a muckraker with your credentials examining this unscrupulous Attorney with as much vigor as the partisans assembled by Mueller who are encircling the President.

      What is unbelievable is the thought that there are reporters so evil and unscrupulous to allow an overmatched and surely incapable Attorney, get elected by a fawning Press,them fall from Pa. Attorney General and standby and watch her serve time when they could have come forward and honestly reported the truth.

  14. innocenceproject#BREAKINGNEWS: Illinois just passed the nation's strongest bill to prevent wrongful convictions based on false jailhouse informant testimony. This is all because you voiced your support - thank you for being a part of this great change!
    Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto of Senate Bill 1830
    Jailhouse informants are a leading cause of wrongful convictions nationally, playing a role in 16 percent of DNA-based exonerations of innocent Americans. In Illinois, unreliable jailhouse informants were involved in 17 wrongful convictions that have cost taxpayers $88.4 million in civil lawsuit payments and state compensation.
    Illinois will be the first state in the country to require judges to hold pre-trial reliability hearings before jailhouse informant witness testimony is admissible in murder, sexual assault and arson cases.
    @illinoisinnocenceproject exoneree Marvin Reeves was sentenced to life in prison in 1990 due in part to an imprisoned informant whose false testimony to Chicago police led to the wrongful convictions of Reeves and his friend, Ronald Kitchen. “This new law could prevent what happened to Ronnie and me from happening to other innocent Illinoisans,” said Reeves. “It was just way too easy for the state to use the guy who lied against me and Ronnie and then they just let him out. That guy put us away for years for a crime that everyone knows we did not commit.” __
    James Kluppelberg spent 25 years in prison for a murder he did not commit in Chicago because a jailhouse informant lied about seeing him at the crime scene in order to obtain a reduced sentence. “I missed out on raising my son and by the time I was exonerated my son had a family of his own. No one can give me back the years I lost behind bars for a crime I didn’t commit, but I was proud to advocate for this new law so that other innocent people don’t have to suffer the same fate.” —
    Great news, now if we can just get the prosecution to stop using the media as informants.

  15. Ralph, your columns and postings are sorely missed by the faithful. Hope you are enjoying the Holiday Season and you and your family are in good health.

    I watched Spotlight for the 1st time the other night, and I don't remember your review and observations of that film.

    Just wondering whether you believe there was journalistic integrity to the Truth and the Story and how it was depicted in the Film. The Lawyers and the Church colluding and using the Boston Globe to bury evidence provided by whistleblowers was very troubling.

    Do you believe that the Inquirer and the convicted criminal DA Williams plotted against the Philadelphia Archdiocese by using a game plan inspired by Boston?

    Where was the outrage when the Globe was exposed for its clear wrongdoing. Just as the deafening silence when those falsely accused are left to rot and die by malicious accusations and false prosecution.

    As we now have come to be apprised, Justice is served when prosecution is conducted to discover the crime and not make the crime fit the accused.

    It left the impression that Marty Baron, the Globe Editor, when he came on board wanted to make a full assault on the Institution of the Church and advance his career to the next level where today he is in place at the Washington Post and partnering with the NY Times to bring down Trump and his Administration.

    When an anarchist assumes leadership and can orchestrate the fall of any hallowed party or person is that when Investigative Journalism partnering with Law Enforcement has fulfilled its greater mission and purpose?


Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.