One Glaring Error in the Freeh Report? Are there others

The Freeh Report claims there were assaults in the PSU showers after the Feb 2001 incident where Sandusky was found guilty by the jury

It claims these assaults were on Victim 3 and Victim 5 

Well the charges and verdicts say that is not correct 

In the case of victim 3 the assaults were in the Summer of 2000

VICTIM #3

Count 12 – guilty Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)

Count 13 – guilty Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 3)

Count 14 – guilty Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)

Count 15 – guilty  Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

Victim Three: in 2000, a boy in the showers

A now-24-year-old man met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 2000. Sandusky took several showers with him that included bear hugs and rubbing, according to the indictment. Sandusky would also tickle the victim and blow on his stomach.

-------------------------

 In the case of victim 5 the victim claimed he was forced to touch Sandusky's erect penis in Aug of 2001 in the showers but the Jury found Sandusky NOT GUILTY of the indecent assault charge described by the victim in the 2001 incident. It is interesting that the charges allege the activity took place between 1996 and 1998 

VICTIM #5

Count 24 - not guilty Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 1)

Count 25 – guilty Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 3)

Count 26 – guilty Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)

Count 27 – guilty Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

Victim Five: between 1996 and 1998, a Second Mile boy who attended games with Sandusky

Now 22, this victim was a Second Mile child who Sandusky invited to attend a Penn State football game, and eventually, he would attend more than 15 games as Sandusky’s guest and travel to watch other games.

Sandusky is alleged to have touched the victim during a shower between 1996 and 1998, and the victim pulled away. He no longer was invited to football games.


Fellow coach Dick Anderson testified at Sandusky's trial. Those of you who think simply being in the shower with a boy is reason for a  red flag should take heed of Anderson's testimony. Men the age of Tim, Gary and older like Joe would not be alerted to any suspicion simply due to shared showers. 

Dick Anderson, a longtime Penn State assistant and Sandusky friend who retired in January, testified that he and other members of the football staff were present when Sandusky brought young boys into the team's showers. He said he never witnessed anything inappropriate."If Jerry would bring someone in with The Second Mile, they had been working out, for whatever reason they came in, it was not uncommon ... with the other coaches in the shower as well, adults and children often shower together at gyms. He noted, for example, that it's not unusual for him to be in the showers with boys at the YMCA. 

Those who subscribe to the monster and meat head theories seem to believe that the showering and 1998 investigations should have alerted Tim, Gary and Joe to be suspicious of Jerry. As one who thinks misled is the proper category I point to this evidence: First the chief investigator for CYS in the 1998 investigation

In 1998, though, Lauro said his judgment was that the allegation fell under the category of what he termed "boundary issues," not sexual assault. "It was definitely boundary issues, and I worked with boundary issues a lot," Lauro said. "But if I believed it was more than boundary issues, I would’ve gone to the mat." ."Was he a high-profile person?" Lauro asked. "I’d have to be stupid to tell you no. Everybody knew him." At the time of his investigation, Lauro said, all the child said was that Sandusky showered with him, and it made him uncomfortable. Lauro said he didn’t feel that was enough to substantiate a sexual-abuse complaint.