I studied the Freeh Report over the weekend; below is a somewhat random collection of facts – some of them actually astonishing – reported by Freeh, but given little or no mention by the press.
1. “On May 14, 2010, [then-AD Tim] Curley wrote a letter of recommendation for Sandusky for the American Football Coaches Association Outstanding Achievement Award. (p. 106)
2. “Until Sandusky’s arrest …Curley continued to invite him to numerous high-profile athletic events at University functions…” (p. 81)
3. “On October 29, 2011, Sandusky attended a PSU home football game, and sat in the Nittany Lion Club in Beaver Stadium…” (p. 28)
4. “Senior Penn State officials referred to Curley as Paterno’s ‘errand boy.’” (p. 75)
5. “Sandusky’s office was the one closest to Paterno’s..” (p. 41)
6. Former Vice President Schultz maintained a secret, confidential, and hidden file, concerning the Sandusky matter, including, apparently, documents and notes from the 1998 andd 2001 reports to him and others. Those documents, Freeh says, “had been concealed from the Special Investigative Counsel.”
7. University emails: Freeh says that the most important emails were “discovered” by his team. These were the emails from 1998 and 2001 which make it clear that the Big Four had virtually complete knowledge of the charges against Sandusky.
8. There was a Psychologist named Seasock employed as a part of the 1998 investigation, as a part of the followup to a report from a mother that she was distressed to find that her son admitted to having showered with Sandusky at the PSU athletic facilities, It is neither hard-hearted nor cavalier to state that, based on what’s quoted in the Freeh Report, this psychologist has more than a few reasons to wonder if he ought still be doing the kind of work he did back then. His conclusions are appalling, and probably a major reasons that Sandusky was allowed to continue preying on young boys for the following thirteen years.
9. Freeh’s Big Four: Joe Paterno, VP Schultz, AD Curley, and President Spanier get kicked around by Freeh, hard, as they should have been. But he avoids making any many conclusions about others. And his findings concerning the Big Four are — though crushing – remarkably vague, as regards letting the public know precisely which action violated which norm or law.
I’ll have more comments in the next few posts about the Schultz “squirreled-away files”, and what they mean, the “discovery” of ’98 and ’01 emails by Freeh, and the broader shortcomings in the Freeh approach and conclusions.