KC Johnson, owner of the blog, Durham In Wonderland, is critical of Penn Staters who refuse to accept the Freeh Report and move forward.
While I respect his work on the Duke case, KC doesn't have his facts straight when it comes to the Penn State scandal. I left a comment (more like a challenge having to do with him eating a certain bird) on his blog in the hopes he would reach out to me and that we could have a discussion about the similarities between Penn State and Duke -- which I pointed out on this blog.
I'll let KC's own words explain his misunderstanding:
"An example comes in this blog post, which compares the Duke students—falsely accused of a crime that never occurred, victims of massive prosecutorial misconduct—to Penn State senior administrators and ex-coaches who decided, for their own reasons, not to report a graduate assistant’s report that he had witnessed a boy being sexually assaulted in the football showers."
Where KC's analysis goes off the rails is his failure to understand that the "crimes" at Penn State that never occurred were the failure to report the incident and the alleged cover-up. These are yet to be proven charges and the evidence is practically non-existent to make these charges hold up. However, KC is willing to rush to judgment in the Penn State case, without the legal process running its due course.
I find the irony to be overwhelming.
It appears that KC believes that Durham, North Carolina, is the only town in these United States where a prosecutor would withhold exculpatory evidence. It also appears that KC believes that unlike Crystal Mangum (the accuser in the Duke case), Mike McQueary was telling the truth about what he told PSU officials. Yesterday's blog seems to point to the opposite and exposes that the testimony of John and Mike McQueary is beyond preposterous.
Up Is Down, Down Is UpI have documented the many fallacies, if not impossibilities, in this case and have done so using laws and evidence. Perhaps if KC would have spend some time reading this blog, he would have learned these facts about the Sandusky Scandal:
1. Child abuse investigators had sufficient evidence to pursue a full investigation in 1998 and failed to do so.
2. DPW decided to "resolve" the 1998 case nine days after the incident was reported.
3. Under the law, PSU officials, less Schultz, were prohibited from knowing the details of the 1998 case.
4. The e-mail evidence disproves that PSU officials were kept informed of the 1998 investigation.
5. The 2000 incident of abuse observed by a janitor is not supported by the evidence.
6. Louis Freeh did not conclude PSU violated the child abuse reporting statute in 2001.
7. PSU officials did not enable, and in fact, temporarily halted Sandusky's crime spree.
8. The police and OAG detectives did not identify as single victim during their three year investigation.
and finally, and perhaps most importantly,
9. Freeh's investigation was biased by the Attorney General's mandate not to interfere with the ongoing prosecution of Sandusky and the conspiracy investigation of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.
Clearly, KC Johnson, at the moment, is no better than those who rushed to judgment, without the facts, in the Duke case. It is interesting to note, however, that he realizes the hype and media sensation around the Steubenville case, yet does not consider that the same hype surrounds the Penn State case.
KC Johnson's "Challenge"After PS4RS and others released rebuttals of the Freeh Report, KC weighed in with this:
"Over the past several weeks, high-profile criticisms of the Freeh Report, which examined the Penn State administration's failed response to a report of inappropriate sexual behavior by former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, generated more heat than light. Nearly identical missives from a handful of renegade PSU trustees, the family of ex-coach Joe Paterno, and a handful of former Penn State football players all slammed the Freeh Report as biased and filled with factual errors--but were unable to identify even one specific way in which the report was biased, or point out even one factual error that made the critics' case."
First, I disagree that the analyses, and specifically the PS4RS report, did not show the Freeh Report was biased. The PS4RS report clearly showed the conflicts of interest in the Freeh investigation and that the report was biased because the individuals closest to the case, who could provide exculpatory evidence, were not interviewed.
But, I digress.
I'll answer KC's challenge that there are no factual errors in the Freeh Report. I easily found 20 errors and omissons in the Freeh Report that negate almost every meaningful finding not only in the report, but in Freeh's press conference remarks.
I will make the complete list public on Friday, at Franco's Town Hall in King of Prussia, PA. But for now, here are four obvious errors in the Freeh Report that are indisputable and documented in the trial verdicts and transcripts.
1. Incorrectly recounted the trial testimony regarding the Fall 2000/Victim 8 incident. The Freeh Report stated the incident occurred in the Assistant Coaches Locker Room, that there was an obstruction blocking the janitors view, and that multiple janitors testified at trial. The transcript states the crime occurred in the Staff Locker Room, there were no obstructions blocking the view, and that only one janitor testified.
2. Incorrectly stated that Victim 6 was assaulted. Sandusky was acquitted of indecent assault.
3. Incorrectly stated that Victim 7 was assaulted. Sandusky was not charged with assault in that case.
4. Incorrectly stated that Victim 5 was assaulted. Sandusky was acquitted of indecent assault.