Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 5 (9 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   28 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

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

By       Message Barry Bozeman     Permalink
      (Page 2 of 4 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.
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

- Advertisement -

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?

- Advertisement -

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.

- Advertisement -

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


- Advertisement -

Must Read 46   Valuable 37   Supported 35  
View Ratings | Rate It
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 Petition Site */
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 AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

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?