Paterno family: Freeh report 'factually wrong'

[happyslug]

32. You should read the Actual report, it addresses your objections

The most significant failures of the Freeh Report are as follows:

 The Freeh Report claims that Mr. Paterno knew about the 1998 incident involving
Mr. Sandusky at or about the time that it occurred. However, there is no credible
support provided in the Freeh Report for what, if anything, Mr. Paterno was aware
of concerning the 1998 incident prior to 2011. Indeed, the Freeh Report ignored
contrary evidence that Mr. Paterno did not have such knowledge. Instead, the
Report relies upon a vague 1998 e-mail chain that does not directly reference Mr.
Paterno. The Report also claims that, since unnamed “[w]itnesses consistently told the [SIC] that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew ‘everything that was going on,’” he must have known about the 1998 incident. Mr. Paterno testified to the grand jury that he did not recall the incident. In press interviews, he also stated that he did not recall learning about the allegation. I am aware of no witness who has challenged the veracity of Mr. Paterno’s statements.

 The Freeh Report concludes that Mr. Paterno must have conspired with Messrs.
Curley and Schultz and Dr. Spanier to conceal the 2001 incident because: (1) Mr.
Paterno wielded “excessive influence” at the University; (2) two documents, neither of which was sent or received by Mr. Paterno, refer to a meeting between Mr. Curley and Mr. Paterno concerning the incident; and (3) Mr. Curley, whom “several” unidentified people interviewed during the SIC’s investigation described as Mr. Paterno’s “errand boy,” decided not to report the incident to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. This does not provide proper or sufficient evidence for such a bold claim.

 Numerous sworn witness statements and other accounts, some of which were
referenced in the Freeh Report, describe the extent to which persons beyond
Messrs. Curley, Schultz and Paterno and Dr. Spanier were aware of the 1998 and
2001 incidents. This is strong evidence that there was no cover-up.

 Mr. Freeh’s mischaracterization of an e-mail critical to his Report at his July 12,
2012 press conference announcing his findings is emblematic of the SIC’s
unjustified inferences and the flaws in the Report. Mr. Freeh stated that an e-mail
showed that it was Mr. Paterno who decided not to report to authorities the 2001
shower incident involving Mr. Sandusky and a young boy. However, this is not what the e-mail states. The e-mail suggests that it was Mr. Curley’s decision not to report the 2001 incident to authorities and does not state that Mr. Paterno was involved in such a decision or that he was even aware of it. Mr. Freeh did not supply any other evidence at the press conference to support the proposition that Mr. Paterno was involved in or aware of the decision. Indeed, the Report acknowledges that it was Mr. Curley’s decision and not Mr. Paterno’s in its “key findings” about the 2001 incident.

 The Freeh Report claims that it conducted a “complete” investigation. This is not accurate because, despite the fact that it supposedly conducted 430 interviews, the SIC did not speak to virtually any of the persons who had the most important and relevant information. Three of the most crucial individuals—Messrs. Paterno, Schultz and Curley—were never interviewed. Michael McQueary, the sole witness to the 2001 incident, was also not interviewed. Another important individual, Dr. Spanier, was interviewed, but just days before the Freeh Report was issued. The usefulness of the Report is also restricted because many of the interviewees cited are not identified, limiting the reader’s ability to weigh the witnesses’ credibility and reliability.

 The failure to conduct key interviews is all the more consequential because of the
lack of relevant documents. Although the SIC purported to review over 3.5 million documents, the Freeh Report references and relies upon only approximately 30 documents, including 17 e-mails. Significantly, the Freeh Report cites only four documents that purportedly reference Mr. Paterno, none of which were sent to him, and only three documents containing notes authored by him. Although not mentioned in the Report, Penn State reportedly did not retain most e-mails dated prior to 2004 because of a technology changeover, making it impossible to search and review the vast majority of e-mails that must have existed during the critical time periods of 1998 and 2001. Indeed, the only emails apparently available to the SIC prior to 2004 were those that were saved personally by Mr. Schultz. Particularly in matters in which the relevant events took place more than ten years ago, contemporaneous e-mails are important sources of information. Mr. Freeh should have disclosed this serious shortcoming in his analysis.

http://paterno.com/Resources/Docs/THORNBURGH_FINAL_REPORT_2-7-2013.pdf