Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 5 (8 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   28 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Each 'Key Finding" of the Freeh Report is A Misleading Deception

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 46   Valuable 37   Supported 35  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 9/2/12

4) On June 9, 1998, Schultz emails Spanier and Curley "I think the matter has been  appropriately investigated and I hope it is now behind  us [emphasis added]."  Detective recalled interviewing Sandusky in the Lasch Building so as not to put him "on  the defensive." The detective advised Sandusky not to shower with any child and  Sandusky said he "wouldn't." 

Well that's interesting I guess but what if anything does it have to do with Joe Paterno or PSU administrators. They were not informed of Detective Schreffler's advice to Sandusky and advice was all it could be. He had no power to force Sandusky to do anything. How does this prove your conclusion?

5) At the conclusion of the investigation, no charges were  filed against Sandusky.  Spanier, Schultz,  Paterno  and Curley  did not even speak to Sandusky about his conduct  on May3, 1998  in the Lasch Building.  Despite their knowledge of the criminal investigation  of Sandusky, Spanier, Schultz,  Paterno  and Curley took no action to limit Sandusky's access to Penn State facilities or  took any measures Ito protect children on their campuses,.

More complete deception in this Freeh Statement

1) Since Paterno was never informed of the 1998 inquiry he had no reason to say anything to Sandusky  *Despite what knowledge Freeh? Where's the evidence?

2) Even if Joe had known the inquiry concluded no criminal or sexually inappropriate behavior occurred so there was nothing to be said.

3) Criminal Investigation? No this was a complaint and inquiry to see if a criminal investigation was warranted and DPW concluded it was not.

6) Spanier and Schultz failed to report the 1998 investigation to the Board of Trustees.  Sandusky was convicted of several assaults that occurred after the 1998 incident. Some of these sexual assaults against young boys might have been prevented had Sandusky been  prohibited from bringing minors to University facilities and University football bowl  games.

There was nothing to report to the Board of Trustees. Curley and Schultz were not supposed to know of the inquiry and in fact knew very little. The inquiry was closed by DPW and the DA with the conclusion that nothing criminal or sexually inappropriate had occurred. This page of "KEY FINDINGS" is quite indicative of the entire Freeh Fiction. 

Freeh summarizes these findings in his searing indictment of Joe Paterno and PSU over a 1998 DPW inquiry that had nothing to do with them. Anything Schultz knew was reported to him on the QT by PSU Police Chief Harmon unofficially and what little he said to Tim Curley was mainly misleading and insubstantial. But Freeh makes the incredible statement:

"The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky,  followed it closely,  but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno's."


1) The evidence shows no such thing Mr. Freeh and we challenge anyone to show us any evidence that Joe knew about any criminal investigation in 1998

2) The DPW inquiry was not a "criminal investigation" it was an inquiry by Jerry Lauro of DPW to determine if there was any criminal or sexually inappropriate behavior in this incident. It was concluded that there was none. 

3) NO evidence shows Mr. Paterno was informed and saying "he  followed it closely"  is such an obvious distortion it is impossible to believe a professional report would include it. Even if one were to assume that the coach in Curley's email was Joe Paterno despite no evidence out of 3.5 million documents showing it - Paterno was told something by Curley - it would still be completely misleading to say "followed it closely". Freeh has nothing to show Joe was ever told anything and very little to show Curley knew anything to tell him. 

The statement goes on to make the following incredible assertions: 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

Editor and owner of The Second Mile Sandusky Scandal Weblog The most complete collection of information on what has been unfairly labeled The Penn State Sex Scandal. Graduate of the Univ of TN in Public Administration, (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

PSU and Paterno Not Guilty - McQueary Testimony Proves It.

1998: So Close to an End for Sandusky - Who Interfered and Why?

Did Freeh Frame Joe Paterno?

Each 'Key Finding" of the Freeh Report is A Misleading Deception

Penn State Paterno/ Sandusky Story; One Year Anniversary - We Now Know the Truth

So You Think Joe Paterno is a Liar?


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
10 people are discussing this page, with 28 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Is/Was Mr. Freeh and his organization simply incom... by Keith Ward on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 at 3:37:31 PM
He is known to be a long time acquaintance of the ... by Barry Bozeman on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:37:52 PM
Judge Lewis - Attorney for Graham Spanier took the... by Barry Bozeman on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 at 5:05:28 PM
It was always clear that the Freeh report is full ... by Chris Zacko on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 at 5:25:29 PM
It is becoming clear to many of us that the Freeh ... by Barry Bozeman on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 at 5:29:37 PM
Also note that Freeh subcontracted a lot of this w... by Wendy Silverwood on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:04:28 PM
is also beyond all bounds of impropriety. Fre... by Barry Bozeman on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:29:04 AM
...and it's Louis Freeh and his shoddy investigati... by Lisa Taylor on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:19:03 AM
steaming in the August sun. The inability to ... by Barry Bozeman on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:34:11 AM
And thank YOU for doing your "due diligence" - a c... by Lisa Taylor on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:14:48 PM
No question the Freeh Reoprt was a poorly construc... by Mike Simons on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:04:05 AM
The problem with this assessment, Mike, is that yo... by Cathy Sheffler on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:42:23 AM
...that the 2001 so-called "shower incident" is on... by Lisa Taylor on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:21:05 PM
Sandusky faced five charges from the 2001 "shower ... by Cathy Sheffler on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:11:05 PM
get a clue, 1998,it was the District Attorne... by Sandy Witt on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:23:08 PM
To SandyYou are right on with your comments re eve... by Mike Simons on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:23:14 PM
Why don't you check pgs 93 to 98 of the 12/... by Bill Porter on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:30:12 PM
Thanks for your impute Bill!The physicality descri... by Mike Simons on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:35:04 PM
" Mike McQueary gave three very explicit and very ... by Cathy Sheffler on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:34:40 PM
To Sandra Thank you for your response to my respon... by Mike Simons on Saturday, Sep 8, 2012 at 12:06:58 PM
Obviously you can't be 'intelligent' and oppose Si... by Barry Bozeman on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:02:39 AM
Your pointing out these key points is absolutely c... by sandra c. lane on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:04:19 PM
To SandraSandra, you and I are in complete agreeme... by Mike Simons on Monday, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:42:37 PM
Wonder if Simons is fooling himself? He certa... by Barry Bozeman on Saturday, Sep 8, 2012 at 5:54:47 PM
BB Yerrrrrrr baaaaack! Sweetheart, my man, I ... by Mike Simons on Saturday, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:00:21 PM
The Freehdom Fighters and The Second Mile Sandusk... by Barry Bozeman on Thursday, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:16:23 AM
BBThank you for the thank you! I appreciate your ... by Mike Simons on Friday, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:55:18 PM
NOTICE ! NOTICE ! NOTICE ! This comments section... by Mike Simons on Monday, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:37:04 PM