Thursday, August 23

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. 

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.
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 


  1. Who is less informed?

    A.) Someone who claims that a woman's body can prevent pregnancies in cases of "legitimate rape"


    B.) Someone who claims that the Freeh report gives proof that Penn State covered up Sandusky in order to protect its football program

  2. IMO, the point of view that permeates this entire discussion is "in hindsight". This is a biased context in which to judge actions and conduct an investigation/findings like Freeh has. Of course, if they knew then what we know now, they would have taken preventative actions. But they (and that seems to be everyone including the DA, DPW, TSM, adoption agencies, and other trained individuals) were working under the assumption that Sandusky was clean. We now know he was not.

    This has made their (PSU) intent seem malicious, when in fact they acted like everybody else with Sandusky. Yet only PSU is culpable for their perceived inaction?

  3. While I think that many of the points you make are very good, I think you should probably be a little careful to not consistently claim that there is "no evidence" and "Not a single shred of evidence" that Joe was informed of the 1998 investigation. By doing so, you lose a little credibility.

    I know that you believe that the 1998 e-mails are forged or not in reference to Joe, however the fact remains that the e-mails are evidence that Joe was informed. Now some of the evidence you've provided shed some doubt as to the veracity and credibility of that evidence (in addition to simple legal fact that if this were a court of law, the e-mails would be inadmissible hearsay that could never be used to prove that Tim Curley told Joe Paterno anything, and that as a logical step we don't know what, if any detail, Curley told Paterno).

    I think to maintain your credibility, when you write you should acknowledge that there is some evidence that Joe was told something about 1998 (certainly there is nothing of course to indicate he followed it closely), but then explain why you feel that evidence is faulty and does not prove what it purports to. By simply ignoring that it is "a shred of evidence," it hurts what is otherwise a very good argument about why the conclusions of the Freeh Report is very flawed.

    1. Sorry long number but Tim Curley referring to "coach" no matter which "coach" or if the email was tampered with - still is not a shred of evidence that Joe was told anything. The only thing it is evidence of is exactly what it says.

    2. I'm sorry but it is evidence. It is not necessarily persuasive evidence and certainly I don't think legally sufficient evidence. But if this were a court room, the jury would hear that evidence (the e-mails stating that Curley touched base with Coach) and they would get a chance to hear your evidence that Joe was never told (and your argument that the e-mails do not refer to Joe would be heard by the jury). But the fact is, those e-mails do constitute evidence.

      I just want to give a little advice because I believe in what you are trying to do. But you lose me when you claim that there is NO evidence (when there clearly is at least a little evidence) supporting that Joe knew something in 1998. And I would presume that when those who do not already agree with your argument and think the worst of Paterno and PSU hear you claim that there is NO evidence when they know that there is some evidence, you lose them to and they are less likely to think critically about the rest of your valid points.

      Thus, I just want to give the advise that you have to acknowledge the evidence that he knew in 1998, and just instead explain why that evidence does not mean what Freeh and the media purport it to mean.

    3. No it is not evidence of anything but Curley saying he touched base with coach - whoever that is and whatever he touched base about.
      and Evidence that Curley said "coach" was anxious to know whoever that was and whatever they were anxious about

      IT is not a single shred of evidence that Curley ever said anything about 1998 to Joe Paterno. IT JUST ISN'T by any stretch or definition of the word evidence.

    4. I am perfectly fine with losing anyone who thinks those statements are any evidence that Joe knew of 1998. If that is how they think then they can think that way. I reject that thought as completely bias and illogical because it is. Not one thing about it shows anything Curley might have told Joe about 1998. Joe said he didn't know and there is no reason to doubt him.
      And most importantly had he known he would have said "HELL YES I KNEW JERRY WAS INVESTIGATED AND CLEARED BY CYS DPW 2 POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND 2 DAs" because that is exactly what happened and it would make things better for PSU and JOE had he said that.
      It baffles me that anyone wants to harp on these meaningless emails as some kind of evidence Joe knew something useful that he failed to use. It's TOTALLY NUTS.

    5. According to the federal rules of evidence, evidence is anything that that has ANY TENDENCY to make a fact more or less probable. It does not have to directly prove the case, and can be circumstantial. The fact that at around the time of the 1998 incident, Tim Curley stated that he had "touched base with coach" has the slightest tendency to show that Curley told Joe something. It is strengthened that the touching base had something to do with the Sandusky investigation because Shultz's reply states that DPW will soon interview the individual. That is evidence. It is circumstantial, and we do not know the extent to what "touching base" means, but the e-mail chain is simply evidence that Joe was told something. You can't get around that.

    6. you can continue to argue this til you're blue in the face. The evidence shows that nothing Freeh says or offers can be trusted and everything Joe says can be trusted.
      Joe said he didn't know and if he had known it would be good not bad.
      That's it. That's all there is. End of discussion. My post my website. My opinion. Don't like it well write your own but I will not stand down or alter what I believe based on your opinion that Joe is a LIAR.

    7. "My post my website" is rather childish. I know your heart is in the right place, but I believe that you are not understanding what he is saying. He isn't claiming that "touching base with coach" could be used as hard evidence and that it's end of story. I believe he is saying a prosecutor could try and use it as evidence, in which, what you have been saying would counter, as stronger evidence, that it is more likely referring to Sandusky rather than Paterno.

    8. "That's it. That's all there is. End of discussion. My post my website. My opinion. Don't like it well write your own but I will not stand down or alter what I believe based on your opinion that Joe is a LIAR."

      This is why I love this website.

    9. Two points about this discussion. First, evidence would need to be produced that Curley ever referred to Joe as "coach". I don't know the anser to that, but other emails the Curley wrote always referred to Paterno as "Joe". If it was Curley's habit to always refer to Paterno as "Joe", it would indicate that Curley was not referring to Paterno in this instance.

      Second and more importantly, Curley knew very little about the investigation. He kept emailing Schultz about an update on the case and kept being told that someone was going to conduct an interview later in the week or next week.

      His last email was to Schultz while Schultz was on vacation. Shultz responds on June 8th that there was supposed to be a meeting between Sandusky, DPW and University Police on June 1st and he's check for a status.

      On June 9th he sends an email to Harmon requesting a status meeting on the case. Then he apparently continued through his emails and found one from Harmon that covered the June 1st meeting. Basically Jerry's story and the boys were identical and Jerry was informed that there was no criminal activity and the case was closed.

      Schultz then emailed Curley that there was no criminal activity and that the case was closed. If Joe knew anything, which is still speculation, it had no detail and the authorities found no evidence of illegal activity.

    10. Well Michael it may be rather childish to you. But like many comment sections I get a number of "editors" who tell me what I wrote should have been "xxxxxx".
      They are welcome to that opinion. This website happens to be mine - opinions that is - and since I invited him to join - Ray's.
      We are not going to write long numbers opinions or rewrite ours to suit his or unknowns or anyone elses. It gets old fast answering the same critique more than once. We allow comments and sometimes we read them and reply. But once is enough. Long number seems to thing repeating the same complaint again and again somehow strengthens his position. I don't really care. I wrote what I believe and how I see it and it's fine if long number or you or anyone else sees it different. Just quit with the "you need to retract or rewrite" stuff. Just disagree and move on. Please.

    11. And by the way Michael I put a lot more stock in your opinion since you write as Ray and I do - as who we are. We have the strength of will to post as who we are. That's worth 100 unknowns or long numbers.
      I appreciate your writing as yourself and I hope everyone knows the difference in the anonymous and the real.

    12. Nobody called Joe Paterno 'coach,' even his players. He was always just 'Joe.' Sandusky, on the other hand, was almost always referred to as 'coach' and in fact requested that people call him that. It is completely illogical to assume Curley meant Paterno when he wrote that. Curley called Paterno 'Joe,' not coach. Why is it that some people cannot get this through their thick heads? Coach is Sandusky and Joe is Paterno. That's just the way it is.

    13. @rothenbj
      Unfortunately, the following is circumstantial and offers as much proof that the "coach" in question is not Joe as Freeh offers that the "coach" is, in fact, Joe. It is a well-known fact inside PSU circles that Joe Paterno hated to be referred to as "Coach" or "Coach Paterno," insisted that everyone call him "Joe," and there are some pretty funny stories wherein Joe actually mocked those who failed to get the message. One of my favorties is that one of his players, I recall it being one of his more famous linebackers from the 70s-80s era but I forget exactly whom, so I'll just pick Lance Mehl (sorry if it's not you, Lance). It seems Lance fell into the habit of always referring to Joe as "Coach Paterno" and when Joe realized he couldn't get Lance to shake the habit he thereafter always referred to Lance as "Player Mehl." The point is; no one who knew him ever referred to Joe as "coach," Joe wouldn't permit it, so the liklihood that Curley was referrfing to Paterno in those E-mails as "coach" is pretty close to nil. It would be entirely out of chartacter for him. If Freeh was as serious an investigator as he is a slanderer he might have noted this fact.

      On the other hand, Jerry Sandusky embraced being called "coach." Fairly everyone who knew him referred to him as "coach" and that is born out in other discussions pertaining to his scandal whether it be in his autobiography or in Bucceroni's interviews or elsewhere. Jerry Sandusky was called "coach" by nearly everyone who knew him and was even referred to as "the coach" in the Second Mile cirlces. It is almost a certainty that the "coach" being referred to in those E-mails is Sandusky and it would stand to reason that he'd be extremely anxious to know if the inquiry into his behavior was going to lead to a criminal investigation or not.

    14. @ Barry: I'm thinking Long Number tried to sign in with his AOL account like I did. Don't know why it provides the long number.

      @ Long Number: Thank you for your support in this matter. I understand the point you are making about evidence, but ultimately Barry can write however he likes. He is presenting the info as he sees it. As for your concern that he will not be taken seriously by some people, well, that may be. However, please know that there are multiple legal teams working on a formal presentation of the myriad fallacies in the Freeh report (you may have seen Spanier's lawyer's press conference this past Wednesday). They need time to go through everything and present their case in a more legally-oriented way. In the meantime, we have people like Barry helping to expose the truth.

      @ Barry, I'm signing this just for you :-)
      Lauren Hoffman

  4. "Is this opening of pandora's box? Other children? "

    And this note is after a discussion with Tom Harmon. Was this Harmon's comment or Schultz's? All other notes seem to be what Harmon told Schultz.

    1. That is an email from Schultz to Curley and Spanier on May 4th, at the very beginning of the investigation (p.19 of Freeh's timeline). This is also where he contends that "coach" is in fact Paterno. On p.39, Freeh has this quote listed as a key finding . Also on p.48 he has the same comment line in his personal notes.

      The interesting point here is that Freeh talks about that May 4th email, uses that reference as a "key point" to be considered, but fails to use that email as an exhibit. His first exhibit about '98 is the May 6th email that has re:Paterno that needs some for forensic work done on it.

    2. @rothenbj - The Pandora's box comment is from Schultz's personal notes, not an email. It is in the exhibits.

    3. @Lauren (much easier than numbers)

      Thanks, I had to go back and re-read the sections and, I believe part of truth-Freeh's methodology.

      p.20 He starts the paragraph with "Schultz is immediately informed of the investigation and notifies Curley and Spanier", followed by Schultz's "confidential notes"

      It reads as if 1.He has immediately informed Curley and Spanier and shared his thoughts with them, neither of which are in evidence.

    4. The notes - exhibits 2H and 2I were from a phone call to Schultz from Harmon late in the evening after the first day of the inquiry by Det Schreffler and John Miller of CYS who interviewed the 2 boys. These notes are directly from the police report and are the first thing in the chronological order of the "evidence" exhibits in Freeh. Why are they place so out of sequence?
      Schultz likely knew that Jerry had been bringing dozens of Second Mile kids around the football program since 1977. The question in his mind would have been "IF" something was off with Sandusky's actions it could lead to more inquiries, but as it turned out in 1998 the DPW concluded there was no criminal or sexually inappropriate behavior involved so he need not have been concerned. That's all that can be read into his note - unlike Freeh's far fetched assumption that he somehow knew JS was a pedophile.

  5. Freeh's condemnation of PSU for failing to take action after the 1998 incident could only make sense in a parallel universe ,with one universe being PSU and the other being the rest of the world; Freeh's condemnation makes no sense in a one universe world. Freeh wanted PSU to label and deal with JS as a chilld sex offender(or a potential one) and to protect the 2M children when on PSU property. Presmably,if PSU were to label JS as a sex offender, all of its dealings with him(including continuing as a coach) would be governed accordingly. However, while PSU was protecting the children on its campus and traeting JS as a sex offender, to the the rest of the universe JS was still looked upon as an upstanding citizen , doing great things for the children and the community, a man about town. In the rest of the universe, including at 2M, JS was free to interact with children, without restrictionand without concern. He is still allowed to be involved with 2M. This is beacusae the gov't agencies that looked into the 1998 incident didn't think it was necessary to warn the rest of the universe that JS was a child sex offender and should be treated as such. In Freeh's version, this was only to occur in the PSU universe. Maybe PSU's "inaction" was based on the reality that there is onlyo ne universe. HK

  6. I was just wondering about Wendell Courtney. Considering he was the attorney counsel for both PSU and 2nd Mile in 1998 and was still an acting counsel in 2001, I would have expected him to be in the news a bit more. Also, according to the following article:

    University officials met with attorneys in 2001 to discuss "a report of suspected child abuse". The majority of the article is just pre-leaked Freeh innuendo (July 1 article), so I find it suspect. But if Curley and Schultz decided not to act on the advice of counsel, does that not change things considerably. Maybe all this will come out in the perjury trials.