Pages

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Each Freeh Key Finding is a Misleading Deception K.I.S.S


by Barry Bozeman   
Another Keep It Simple exposure of the Fantastic Freeh Fiction - Short and easy to recall. This work serves as a work of FACT to discredit a work of FICTION so defamatory and libelous it should cost Freeh every penny of the 6.5 million he received for producing it. 
THIS SHOULD MAKE YOUR BLUE & WHITE BLOOD BOIL 


From Page 39 of The Freeh Report
CHAPTER 2 
RESPONSE OF UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO THE
ALLEGATION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST
SANDUSKY - 1998  


Each Statement in the KEY FINDINGS  is a misleading deception  
1) Before May 1998, several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys in the Lasch Building (now the East Area Locker Building or "Old Lasch"). None of the individuals interviewed notified their superiors of this behavior.
What an absurd statement: Of course they didn’t notify anyone – Sandusky brought Second Mile boys to PSU locker rooms from the very beginning before most of the staff were at PSU. They thought nothing of it. In fact they believed it to be a positive experience for the fatherless boys who needed male role models. Males of all ages have shared showers forever. What were they supposed to report Mr.Freeh?  That Jerry and his 2nd Mile kids were working out and taking showers? That is not criminal or inappropriate.  
2) University Police and the Department of Public Welfare responded promptly to the report by a young boys mother of a possible sexual assault by Sandusky in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998.
Yes they responded and concluded there was no criminal or sexual behavior. The mother did not report a “possible sexual assault” She reported exactly what had happened: Her son came home with wet hair and told her he had showered with Sandusky and received a bear hug. If that is a sexual assault why didn't DPW conclude that in their inquiry? 
3) While no information indicates University leaders interfered with the investigation, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley were kept informed of the investigation, On May 5, 1998, Schultz's notes about the incident state: -Is this opening of pandora's box? Other children? "
Yet another totally misleading statement. Not a single shred of evidence exists that Joe Paterno was informed of DPW's inquiry  – much less “kept informed”. This kind of gross overstatement without a shred of proof permeates the Freeh Report. How can that be? 
Freeh has a single email on May 6th from Curley to Schultz that says only “I touched base with coach” This does not say Joe and it does not say what he touched base about. 
The second email on May 13 from Curley to Schultz Subject Re:Jerry states: “Anything new in this department, coach is anxious to know”. Once again no clue to which coach is the object of subject Re Jerry and no indication of the relevance of "anxious". Freeh has no evidence this referred to Joe Paterno and no evidence Joe Paterno was told anything.  
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.
WHAT EVIDENCE MR. FREEH? WHAT EVIDENCE SHOWS JOE WAS TOLD ANYTHING?
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: 
.At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Patemo and Curley also failed to alert the Board of Tmstees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr.  Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity
1) Alerted the staff to what Mr. Freeh?  
  • a) Paterno was never informed of the inquiry or it's outcome
  • b) But even if he were informed the DPW and DA concluded no criminal or sexually improper behavior 
  • c) So not knowing or knowing it was not considered inappropriate what was Joe supposed to do? 
2) Paterno failed to alert the Board of Trustees?
  • a) Of the results of an inquiry of which he had no knowledge?
  • b) and IF he knew to alert them that DPW and the DA & police found nothing wrong?
  • c) So knowing or not knowing what was concluded to be not criminal or inappropriate what did the Board need to know? 
3) None of them even spoke to Sandusky?
  • a) They did not know or in Schultz's case they were not supposed to know
  • b) Even if they knew he was cleared of any inappropriate behavior so they were supposed to tell him what exactly? 
Louis Freeh is supposed to have been a Judge yet he condemns Joe Paterno on no evidence of knowing something he has no proof Joe knew. There was a DPW inquiry that ruled Jerry Sandusky's showers with two boys were benign - not criminal and not sexual. But Judge Freeh seems to think Sandusky should have been upbraided and restricted for this benign behavior? Where in reality is that proper or legal? 

 If you fail to understand the amazing absurdity of the Freeh Fiction and False Findings after going over this post you need help. Freeh's Fiction has cost PSU millions more than the 6.5 million he was paid to produce this. A document of such outright libel and a statement of such incredible slander it should see him on the losing end of a civil suit by Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier along with the Estate of Joe Paterno that relieves him of every penny along with millions more. 

 Read more about the Freeh Fiction 
Posted by at