Shari Copenhaver: Theft by deception

Did Louis Freeh's investigation cross the line into a criminal act?

by

Shari Copenhaver

Louis Freeh (Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan) charged the Pennsylvania State University $6.5 Million to perform “an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegations of sexual abuse ...”  FSS was engaged to serve as independent, external legal counsel “to the Task Force” to perform this investigation.

Others have already stated with specificity the many, erroneous statements, conclusions and “findings” contained in FSS’s report.  In fact, those who have disclosed those facts have done so with far more clarity and truthfulness than anything Freeh produced.  Additional untruthful tidbits from Freeh’s fiction are revealed regularly.

The bottom line is that we now know that the report submitted by Louis Freeh was speculative, at best.  The question is whether or not the errors contained in Freeh’s report were put there with a direct intent to deceive.

Pursuant to the terms of the Engagement Letter, FSS’s findings were to include “i) failures that occurred in the reporting process.”  Why, then, did Freeh omit from his investigation those processes used in 1998 by Dept of Public Welfare, Children & Youth Svcs, University Police, District Attorney’s offices, State College Police and all other agencies involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky?  The Scope of Engagement contains no language limiting the investigation of the failures that occurred in the reporting process to failures by Penn State. 

18 Pa.C.S. §3922 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines Theft By Deception as follows:

Notably, FSS’s results were to be provided in a written report to the Task Force “and other parties as so directed by the Task Force.”  However, that didn't happen.

When Freeh held his press conference covered by media outlets from all over the world, it appears that he was “directed” to do so by the Task Force.  And it appears the Freeh was also directed by the Task Force to share information with the NCAA.  

Was that very loud disclosure by Freeh intentional?

We know that Freeh obtained property to the tune of at least $6.5 million from Penn State.  Did Freeh “create or reinforce a false impression” by withholding some email communications and releasing select others?  

Did Freeh prevent anyone from “acquiring information which would affect his judgment” when he refused to interview any of the key persons he specifically named as being at fault? 

Did he “fail to correct a false impression which he previously created or reinforced” by failing to put out additional errata sheets when additional information was uncovered by others which clearly contradicts the allegations contained in the initial report?

Freeh’s report has been refuted by additional evidence which was omitted from his report.  Numerous professionals, including experts in the field of child sexual victimization, have also opposed the findings contained in Freeh’s report specifically because those findings are unsupported by the evidence. 

The nagging question is whether or not the falsehoods contained in the report prepared by Louis Freeh of Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan were merely “unintentional error” or “deception by design”.  If it was deceit, then does that deception rise to the level of a crime?  

Certainly, The Pennsylvania State University did not receive a report valued at anywhere near $6.5 million!

Ordering information:  http://www.paternoplaques.com/purchase.html