Item 5 requests:
All records of network traffic emanating from the workstation of DAO employee Frank Fina between July 1, 2013 and September 31, 2013, including, but not limited to, website browsing history.
The timeframe coincides with the early stages of Moulton's review of the Sandusky investigation.
-----
Moulton report:
http://filesource.abacast.com/commo...EPORT_to_AG_ON_THE_SANDUSKY_INVESTIGATION.pdf
Appendix A of the Moulton report, starting at PDF page 171, includes back and forth letters between Moulton and Scott Ford, chief counsel for the Pennsylvania State Police.
The first letter is dated 7/19/2013 from Ford to Moulton, referencing an earlier discussion. Ford outlines significant concern over Moulton interviewing any police investigator involved with the Sandusky investigation. Ford included a list of questions to Moulton. Some highlights:
1.b. Could information provided in these interviews later be used in criminal prosecutions of the interviewees?
3.b. Will the interviewees be Mirandized?
8. Will the interviewees and PSP receive a complete copy of their interviews?
9. Will the interviewees and PSP receive a complete copy of your entire investigative record? [note - he's asking about the complete record, not just the final report]
Moulton replied to that in a letter dated 8/6/2011. In response to the above questions, Moulton stated the interviewees would not be Mirandized, the interviews would be memorialized in summary form as prepared by SAC Peifer, and because these would be summaries and not statements of witnesses, Moulton did not plan to share them. Moulton did state his review wasn't a criminal investigation and he did not have any reason to believe any PSP member engaged in criminal conduct, but he acknowledged if he discovered anything that he would share it with the appropriate authorities.
In this same letter he provided an initial witness list of those PSP members he planned to interview. [Of the thirteen names on that list, all refused to be interviewed except Frank Noonan. The list insisted of Rossman, Cavanugh, Akers, Lear, Ellis, Dombrosky, Reeves, R. Yakicic, M. Yakicic, Kofluk, Noonan, Leiter, and Watson.]
The next letter was 8/9/2013 from Ford to Moulton identifying that Ford met with the PSP members on Moulton's initial list. He said none (except Noonan) had an interest in being interviewed. Concerns about the ongoing investigation of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were cited.
Moulton replied to Ford on 8/28/2013. Moulton stated: "As I told you at our meeting, PSP's decision not to cooperate at this point will seriously undermine my ability to give a complete account of the Sandusky investigation. The documentary records, as well as the interviews with other participants, have raised important questions that only PSP members can effectively answer." ***
Moulton went on to state: "Your letter explains that 'PSP wants to support your review out of a respect to the OAG and the long history of coordination between the two agencies,' but goes on to say that 'it will not do so at risk of jeopardizing on-going prosecutions.' As you and I have discussed, OAG - the institution directly responsible for those ongoing prosecutions - disagrees with PSP's assessment that interviews of PSP members would 'jeopardize' those prosecutions. The issues that I have been tasked to address, and the questions I would like to ask PSP members, are quite distinct from the guilt or innocence of Messrs. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier."
*** At page 108-109, Moulton states:
"An extensive review of the available documentary record, including contemporaneous OAG emails, together with interviews of OAG personnel involved in the investigation while Corbett was Attorney General, has revealed no direct evidence that electoral politics influenced any important decision made in the Sandusky investigation."
Moulton did NOT clear the investigation of political influence. He simply found no direct evidence for it.
Moulton explains he reviewed the available documentary record. The footnote on page 122 states: "This review did not seek or examine email or other documents from Corbett's campaign for Governor."
Moulton also states the lack of direct evidence is also based on interviews of involved OAG personnel. The footnote on page 125 mentions that he was unable to interview everyone involved in the investigation, in particular the police investigators. "When I asked Colonel Noonan during his interview whether he knew when the first inquiry of the Penn State or State College police took place he said he did not know, and when I asked him whether he would expect such an inquiry to be reflected in either OAG or PSP reports he said yes. Unfortunately, there was no such reference in the relevant reports, and because I was unable to interview the relevant investigators, I did not learn of the November 26 inquiry until receiving Col. Noonan's response to this report."
That particular footnote was in the section detailing the "inexplicable delays" in the investigation.
-----
What are the odds Fina received notice of Moulton's intent to interview these police investigators and sent emails to them advising them to refuse to participate?
-----
Ryan, Sheetz, Feathers, FINA, and McGettigan provided a combined response to the Moulton report before it was made public. See PDF pages 316-320. Similar to PSP counsel Ford, they bring up the charges against CS&S.
At page 318 they state: "The second gross mispresentation in the Report, worthy of immediate response, involves the alleged 'unfathomable' failure by investigators to uncover the Penn State University police report from the 1998 allegations against Sandusky. Indeed, the Report engages in an 'unfathomable' factual sleight-of-hand in this regard." They argue the university hid the police report. They also state: "While we are hesitant to detail all of the facts in this regard, due to the pending nature of the charges against Spanier, Schultz and Curley, it is clear from the allegations in that case the significant challenges that investigators faced in discovering the 1998 incident."
However, Moulton's criticism regarding inexplicable delays had to do with not asking either univeristy police or state college police for any police reports about Sandusky until more than 2 years into the investigation. When PSP finally did contact university police and state college police, they found the 1998 report immediately.
At page 65:
"On January 3, 2011, Cpl. Joseph A. Leiter and Tpr. Rossman went to the office of the Deputy Director of the Penn State Police Department, and asked for copies of all criminal reports relating to Sandusky. They did so independent of the grand jury subpoena issued the week before, even though their request was at least partially covered by the subpoena. The Deputy Director gave them a report that, like the information provided by McQueary, lent considerable support to the belief that Sandusky had victimized others besides A.F. On or about the same day, Tpr. Rossman and Cpl. Leiter went to the State College Police Department, which has jurisdiction over College Township where Sandusky lived, and asked for all incident reports referencing Sandusky. In addition to reports in which Sandusky was a witness or possible victim, they received a report relating to the 1998 investigation, in which the State College police had provided assistance to the Penn State police."
