Like everyone this morning, I am still trying to fully understand the truth when it comes to the role Joe Paterno played in the allegations of a "cover up" of child abuse at Penn State university. At no way am I defending the actions of Sandusky or disrespecting the victims here but for us trying to seek the truth of actually what happened, yesterday was just one more road block with the release of Louis Freeh's report.
I've read the Freeh report twice and the narrative and allegations laid out by Mr. Freeh in his report are questionable at best. In fact, the report raises more questions than provides answers.
Probably the most abvious or glaring flaw in the report is the fact that Freeh did not interview any of the primary witnesses in the case. Not Paterno. Not Tim Curley. Not Mike McQueary. Not Jerry Sandusky. How can any investigation possibly be considered remotely complete or come to any legitimate conclusions without even speaking to any of the most important witnesses?
How can we possibly fully evaluate Paterno’s actions if we don’t know exactly what Mike McQueary (who, it must be pointed out, misremembered the year he witnessed the episode in the shower, an incident for which there is still no actual victim) told him? How can we possibly understand fairly vague emails without even hearing from the guy who wrote them?
I was also surprised with how the extent to which Freeh and his investigators relied heavily on vague evidence and questionable assumptions that can be interpreted several different ways when you actually read the report. For example Curley's emails that were leaked just a week a go can be interrepted as refering to "Coach" Sandusky instead of Paterno.
Probably the most frustrating aspect of the report was Freeh's highlighting of the lack of action of Penn State Janitors who never reported possible incidents of abuse by Sandusky because they were affraid that they "all would be fired". Are you kidding me Freeh? These are the heroes in your report.
At times the report actually lacks coherency and commonsense. The report accuses Spanier, Curley, Shultz, and Joe Paterno of participating in a "cover up", but then reports that Schultz met twice with the President of the Second Mile Foundation regarding the 2001 incident witnessed by McQueary. Why would these four powerful individuals at Penn State share this information with another agency if they were trying to cover this up or protect themselves from bad publicity. This doesn't add up. The Second Mile could have moved forward or informed Child Welfare services. Instead the President of the foundation concluded there was no evidence that abuse occurred just as in the 1998 case.
There is no doubt that any reasonable person who actually reads the report and separate the evidence from the "reasonable conclusions" in it, can understand that the report lacks severe credibility. The fact is that Freeh's investigation shed no new light on what we already knew about the chain of events at Penn State and may have caused more harm considering the media's furry over the report to us independent minded few that is seeking the truth in this manner.
Also must reads:
Louis Freeh's Report
Red flags and personal fouls: the dishonest hatchet job of the Freeh Report.
Contrary to What You Have Heard, the Freeh Report Has Big Problems - John Ziegler
Things Most People Still Don't "Get" About the Jerry Sandusky Scandal - John Ziegler