From: DuBois, Wyatt wed112@psu.

edu
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Penn State search warrants
Date: July 22, 2022 at 11:24 AM
To: Wyatt Massey wmassey@spotlightpa.org
Cc: Powers, Lisa Marie lmr8@psu.edu

Wyatt,
 
We have nothing to share beyond the statement that Lisa sent to you on Wednesday.
 
Thanks,
Wyatt
 
From: Wyatt Massey <wmassey@spotlightpa.org>
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:23 PM
To: Powers, Lisa Marie <lmr8@psu.edu>
Cc: DuBois, Wyatt <wed112@psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Penn State search warrants

Thank you for getting back to me. I am seeking more information, some of which is
related to my earlier questions and some new. My deadline is tomorrow, July 22, at 5
p.m. ET. 

It would be most helpful if you all could provide responses to each individual question.
This will ensure we do not misconstrue meaning or assign a response to a question that
Penn State was not referring to in its statement.

Here are my questions: 

Is the “open investigation” cited in the university’s July 15 and July 20 statements a Penn
State-led investigation or is the university referring to the federal investigation? 

In its July 15 statement, the university said police have been working since September
2021 “in an attempt to identify both victims and suspects.” The warrants detail that Penn
State Police were in possession of at least 26 videos of “multiple males engaged in
sexual intercourse with an unknown female” and videos inside the football locker room
“depicting athletes in various stages of undress.” Has the university identified and notified
all people shown in the videos that such videos were taken and shared? If so, how and
when was this task completed?

Will the Penn State Police be looking into potential crimes contained in videos or images
obtained by Penn State Police during this investigation?

Can the Penn State Police say with certainty that no minors were involved in the videos
or photographs that were shared?

In its July 15 statement, the university said, “There was never any intent to permanently
seal the warrants, only to redact the names of victims.” However, in requesting the ex
parte motion, Penn State’s lawyers asked to seal “the search warrants, affidavits of
probable cause, and any and all records related to the underlying investigation” because
the interest of privacy “vastly outweighs” any other interests in making the case records
public. The following morning, the university requested its request not to unseal also be
public. The following morning, the university requested its request not to unseal also be
sealed, along with “any future filings” related to the case. Why did the university not ask
explicitly in that original motion, or the motion the following day, to have the records
redacted instead of sealing the entire case?

In its July 20 statement, the university said it has “found no evidence to indicate that the
sexual acts depicted in the videos are not consensual.” Have all individuals shown in the
videos been contacted by the university? And, if so, did all individuals shown in the video
say the sex was consensual? Did all individuals shown in the videos say they consented
to being recorded? 

In its July 20 statement, the university said, “Any student could be victimized in this way,
and the University offers various support in response, as it has in this case.” Please
provide specifics to what types of “various support” was provided in this situation.

In its July 20 statement, the university said that “proper entities within the University were
appropriately notified in a timely manner, including the Title IX Office and the Athletics
Integrity Office, among others.” Please provide specific details of which entities were
notified and when.

In June 2022, the university asked the court to seal the case involving the search
warrants. Did any of the victims ask Penn State to seal the case on their behalf? If so,
what were their specific requests? When were those requests made?

How does Penn State decide when it initiates legal intervention on behalf of students?

In requesting Penn State’s emergency preliminary injunctions to be dissolved, Centre

County DA Bernie Cantorna argued that the university lacks standing to request the
sealing of the case, and that potential embarrassment of victims doesn’t trump the need
for public access to judicial documents. The court granted his motion based on those
arguments. Does Penn State agree with both arguments?

___________
Wyatt Massey
Investigative Reporter, Spotlight PA 
Cell/Signal: 445-236-0562 

On Jul 21, 2022, at 4:14 PM, Powers, Lisa Marie <lmr8@psu.edu> wrote:
 
Wyatt
The response you received was on behalf of the university— which includes
University Police and Public Safety. 
 
 
Lisa M. Powers
Penn State
Strategic Communications
Senior Director
News & Media Relations
News & Media Relations
814-865-7517 (office)
 
Get your news from Penn State's official source -- News.psu.edu
 
 
 
 

On Jul 21, 2022, at 12:06 PM, Wyatt Massey

<wmassey@spotlightpa.org> wrote:

Thank you. So I am clear, will Penn State Police be responding

to my questions or is the statement below all the university will be
offering in response to the 13 questions submitted on July 19? 
 
Wyatt 
___________
Wyatt Massey
Investigative Reporter, Spotlight PA 
Cell/Signal: 445-236-0562 

On Jul 20, 2022, at 5:41 PM, Powers, Lisa Marie

<lmr8@psu.edu> wrote:
 
Wyatt
 
As indicated, the University’s concern was focused
on potential student victims and their right to privacy
in this case, and the possible irreparable and
irreversible damage that the immediate unsealing of
the records could impose. In addition, the University
encourages a culture of reporting and identifying
victims could have a chilling effect on that process. 
 
The proper entities within the University were
appropriately notified in a timely manner, including
the Title IX Office and the Athletics Integrity Office,
among others. We are not aware of any Clery-
reportable crimes associated with this investigation,
and a timely warning is not required. While the
details of the investigation are confidential to protect
the privacy of all involved police, however, have
found no evidence to indicate that the sexual acts
depicted in the videos are not consensual. This
remains an open investigation as previously stated.
 
Any student could be victimized in this way, and the
Any student could be victimized in this way, and the
University offers various support in response, as it
has in this case.  Police again ask that media and
others refrain from speculating about individuals who
were targeted in these crimes.  
 
Lisa
 
Lisa M. Powers
Senior Director
Strategic Communications
Penn State University
(814) 865-7517
 
 
From: Wyatt Massey
<wmassey@spotlightpa.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9:47 AM
To: "Powers, Lisa Marie" <lmr8@psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Penn State
search warrants
 
Questions for Penn State 
 
In the statement issued on July 15, Penn State said it
would not offer further comment because of an
“ongoing investigation.” Is this referring to an
internal/university investigation or a reference to the
federal investigation?
 
The warrants make note of 5 males who were
reported to have been extorted. Were they all
student athletes?
 
Was Victim 2 a football player or did he just have
access to the Penn State Football locker room?
 
In the July 15 statement, Penn State said “There was
never any intent to permanently seal the warrants,
only to redact the names of victims.” However, in
requesting the ex parte motion, Penn State’s lawyers
asked to seal “the search warrants, affidavits of
probable cause, and any and all records related to
the underlying investigation” because the interest of
privacy “vastly outweighs” any other interests in
making the case records public. Why did the
university not ask explicitly in that motion to have the
records redacted instead of sealing the entire case?
 
In the July 15 statement, the university said police
In the July 15 statement, the university said police
have been working since September 2021 “in an
attempt to identify both victims and suspects.” The
warrants detail that Penn State Police were in
possession of at least 26 videos of “multiple males
engaged in sexual intercourse with an unknown
female” and videos inside the football locker room
“depicting athletes in various stages of undress.” Has
the university identified and notified all people shown
in the videos that such videos were taken and
shared? If so, how and when was this task
completed? 
Which university official or office was responsible for
investigating and notifying potential victims? Was this
undertaken by Title IX officials, Penn State Police or
other groups?
 
Under Penn State’s Title IX policy, coaches and
assistant coaches are mandatory reporters. Penn
State’s policy against sexual exploitation defines the
term: “Sexual exploitation includes, but is not limited
to: prostituting another person; non-consensual
visual or audio recording of sexual activity; non-
consensual display or distribution of photos, images
or information of an individual’s sexual activity or
intimate body parts; non-consensual voyeurism…”
Was a Title IX complaint filed in relation to the
alleged extortion? Was a Title IX complaint filed in
relation to the content contained in the videos shared
with the outside party?
 
Was a Timely Warning sent to students regarding
this situation? Or, was there messaging sent to
student athletes? If so, please provide a copy of the
information (including when it was sent) that was
shared with students or student athletes?  

Questions for Penn State Police

When, exactly, was Penn State Police notified of the

alleged extortion?  
 
Who notified Penn State Police about the situation? 
 
The search warrants that were made public note that
Penn State Police were provided information from
Dropbox, Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter. What
types of information were received and did it allow
the extortionist to be identified?
 
What did Penn State Police do to investigate the
What did Penn State Police do to investigate the
situation between the report made in September
2021 and when the case was closed in June 2022? 
 
Will the Penn State Police be looking into potential
crimes contained in videos or images obtained by
Penn State Police during this investigation?
Under Pennsylvania law on obscene or sexual
materials, it is a first degree misdemeanor to “sell,
lend, distribute, transmit, exhibit, give away or show
any obscene materials to any person 18 years of age
or older.” Also, under Pennsylvania law for invasion
of privacy, it is a third degree misdemeanor for an
individual to photograph or film someone without
their consent while that person is fully or partially
nude and in a place where the person would expect
privacy. It is also a second degree misdemeanor to
transfer or transmit such content. 
 
Can the Penn State Police say with certainty that no
minors were involved in the videos or photographs
that were shared? 
___________
Wyatt Massey
Investigative Reporter, Spotlight PA 
Cell/Signal: 445-236-0562 

On Jul 19, 2022, at 9:40 AM, Powers,

Lisa Marie <lmr8@psu.edu> wrote:
 
Wyatt
Please send your questions to this email
address so that we can determine the
appropriate person to respond (based on
question) or if someone is even able to
respond, as this is still an open
investigation.
 
Thanks
Lisa
 
 
Lisa M. Powers
Senior Director
Strategic Communications
Penn State University
(814) 865-7517
(814) 865-7517
 
 
From: Wyatt Massey
<wmassey@spotlightpa.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9:35
AM
To: Mediarelations
<mediarelations@psu.edu>
Subject: Questions regarding Penn
State search warrants
 
Good morning,
 
I have questions for the university, as
well as Penn State Police, regarding the
case involving Penn State student
athletes, sexual extortion and the four
search warrants. Whom should I get in
touch with?
 
Wyatt 
___________
Wyatt Massey
Investigative Reporter, Spotlight PA 
Cell/Signal: 445-236-0562