Louis Freeh's statements
after the dismissal of Spanier's defamation lawsuit are unsupported by the facts established by independent reviews
conducted by Pennsylvania government officials and by the court rulings
pertaining to the cases of Spanier, Curley, and Schultz
By
Ray Blehar
September 27, 2017, 9:31 EDT
Immediately after the
ruling, Freeh issued a statement with an addendum that made a number of
factually challenged assertions regarding his investigation and report on the
Sandusky scandal at PSU.
|
...it's difficult to decide where to start in order to debunk Freeh’s nonsense. |
Given the number of
falsehoods, half-truths, opinions, and innuendo in these documents, it's difficult to decide where to start in order to debunk Freeh’s nonsense. As such, the following analysis focuses on Freeh’s
statements that are demonstrably false and those that stand in the way of improvements for the safety and welfare of children.
FALSE:
Freeh Investigation Was Limited to PSU
In the addendum to the
September 20, 2017 statement, Freeh falsely claimed that the scope of his
investigation was limited to PSU and therefore he did not address failures at The Second
Mile (TSM) or the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Public Welfare (DPW).
“the scope of his review
was not to review issues at either institution or recommend changes for these
institutions.”
The fact of the matter
is that the engagement
letter for the Freeh investigation required the former FBI director to:
“perform an independent, full, and complete
investigation of the recently publicized allegations of sexual abuse at the
facilities and the alleged failure of The Pennsylvania State University
personnel to report sexual abuse…”
In other words, this
letter required a full and complete investigate of the crimes that occurred on
campus from 1996 through 2002 – as reported in the Sandusky
grand jury presentment.
Freeh’s investigation
failed to do so.
A full and independent
investigation would have determined how and why Sandusky was able to commit crimes
against children on campus prior to 1998.
As such the investigation ultimately would have involved understanding
the roles and responsibilities of DPW and TSM as they pertained to protecting
foster children and adoptive children, and the charity’s participants,
respectively.
As the evidence shows,
not only did they not investigate the crimes on campus from 1996 to 1998,
but they also failed to conduct independent reviews of facts and evidence related
to the crimes from 1998 up to Sandusky’s arrest in 2011.
FALSE: Not a “Single Fact that the Report Got
Wrong”
In a desperate attempt
to defend The Freeh Report, the former FBI director attacked his critics,
stating:
“Critics have raised a
number of issues with the report, none of which identified a single fact that
the report got wrong.”
Freeh cited just one
example of his critics being wrong, but even that example was dubious at
best.
Critics complained that
Freeh did not have adequate evidence to draw the conclusion that a reference to
“coach” in an email was Paterno. This issue
remained in doubt until Spanier’s trial in 2017 when Tim Curley testified that
the email's reference to “coach” indeed was Paterno.
However, there were many, many more criticisms of the quality and accuracy of The Freeh Report than just the
debate over whether or not “coach” was Paterno.
Among many other things, The Freeh Report did not properly reflect the
proceedings at the Sandusky trial.
The best example of this
is The Freeh Report’s version of the 2000 incident involving the janitors that contained a dozen errors in a little over one page.
First, the report incorrectly stated (at 62) the
location of the crime was the East Area Locker Room. Later, in detailing the incident (at 65), it incorrectly stated that the
location was the Assistant Coaches Locker Room in the Lasch Building. So not only were both locations wrong but they weren't even consistent.
As established by the
trial testimony, the incident occurred in the Staff Locker Room of the Lasch
Building.
Next, The Freeh Report
(at 65) stated that multiple witnesses testified about the 2000 incident at the
Sandusky trial. The fact is that only
one witness (i.e., janitor) testified about the incident. The report goes on to provide ten statements purported to be the trial testimony of the witnesses, none of which was part of the testimony of the single witness, Ronald "Buck" Petrosky (see below).
|
Freeh's version of the janitor incident was riddled with errors. |
In addition to the error filled version of the janitor incident, The Freeh Report’s
timeline (at 19) also incorrectly reported that Victim 6 was assaulted in the
Lasch Building shower in May 1998. Of
course, this is incorrect for several reasons including the Lasch Building
didn’t exist in 1998 and that Sandusky was found not guilty of indecently
assaulting the victim.
The report’s timeline
(at 25) reports Victim 5 was assaulted even though the jury acquitted Sandusky
of indecent assault.
If this $8.5 million
investigation couldn’t correctly report the trial proceedings, which are a
matter of public record, one has to wonder how many other imaginary things Freeh concocted from investigative information that was not in the public domain. Note that in the BP case, an attorney gave a sworn statement that Freeh's team constructed a completely inaccurate version of what she told them and used it to recommend charges against someone who had done nothing wrong. Freeh was sued for defamation in that case.
Even a cursory review of
this report should have raised questions about its accuracy and quality. The report’s appendix begins at Exhibit 2
and ends with Exhibit 10. In between,
Exhibits 4, 7, 8, and 9 are absent. Why
were these Exhibits absent and why didn’t the Freeh team properly renumber the
Exhibits?
Moreover, the report went public with an accompanying errata sheet identifying errors in the report. In this day of electronic publishing, why not simply make the changes to the report?
The evidence strongly
supports the theory The Freeh Report was completed prior to the Sandusky trial
then hastily reviewed and edited afterwards to meet a deadline established by
the PSUBOT’s Special Investigations Task Force. Some errors were purposely left in the report to deceive the readers about the facts (knowing that few people would read the errata sheet).
Those who have read and
evaluated The Freeh Report know it is incomplete, inaccurate, and of poor
quality.
Anyone who stands by the
completeness, quality, and accuracy of the report, including Louis Freeh,
undoubtedly has not bothered to actually read it.
FALSE: “Provided
‘smoking gun’ evidence to prosecutors”
Freeh’s contention that
his investigation provided the smoking gun evidence (see below) to prosecutors
is simply false. Moreover, Freeh’s
contention may be an admission to a conspiracy to obstruct justice by the OAG
and the Freeh Group.
Freeh relied on the
media’s lazy reporting and, subsequently, the public’s lack of knowledge of the
July 2013 preliminary hearing of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to continue
perpetuating this falsehood.
First, no one from Freeh’s
investigative team ever testified to their role in the recovery of the email
evidence and/or the Schultz file.
Next, neither the PSU nor
the OAG information technology professional who testified at that proceeding
mentioned that Freeh’s team had any role whatsoever in discovering and/or
providing the critical email evidence.
OAG IT professional
Braden Cook, who joined the investigation in fall 2011, testified that he
received the emails from OAG’s computer services and provided no details on their
chain of custody beyond that. Cook’s
testimony did not establish the exact date of original receipt of the email
evidence by law enforcement.
PSU’s IT professional,
John Corro, testified that he recovered the emails and provided 3 thumb drives
containing them to former PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin in March or April
of 2011.
At Spanier’s grand jury
colloquy, Baldwin promised to turn them over to the OAG and grand jury judge by
Friday, April 15, 2011 – at least six months before Freeh was hired.
The May 30, 2014 Report
to the Attorney General on the Investigation of Gerald A. Sandusky (aka, the
Moulton Report) revealed (at 158) that Pennsylvania State Police trooper Scott
Rossman received a “thumb drive containing Penn State emails” on July 7, 2011 –
again, before Freeh’s team was hired.
The evidence clearly
established that the email evidence was obtained well before the Freeh group
was hired to conduct the investigation.
Freeh also claimed to
have a role in the discovery of Schultz’s notes. That’s at least partially true, as former PSU
administrative assistant Kimberly Belcher testified that she refused to
provide Schultz’s notes or any other evidence to Freeh’s investigators.
The July 2013
preliminary hearing testimony confirmed that Belcher provided the notes under
force of subpoena to OAG officials in April 2012.
The Freeh Report affixes
a May 2012 date to Schultz’s notes – confirming that they were in the
possession of the OAG before they were obtained by his team.
Court records, as well
as an official investigation into the Sandusky investigation, confirmed that the
Freeh investigation did not uncover any of the critical (“smoking gun”) evidence
used in the prosecution of PSU officials.
Freeh’s continued
assertion that his team discovered or assisted in the recovery of this evidence
is not only false, but could be considered an admission that he entered into a conspiracy with OAG (and PSU) officials to
frame Curley, Schultz, and Spanier for
obstructing the Sandusky investigation.
FALSE: “Report’s Findings Repeatedly Sustained”
The facts in the
previous passage confirm that the Freeh investigation did not uncover the
emails and notes used in the prosecution of the PSU 3 and that his claims have
been refuted by the court records.
Regardless, Freeh continued
to promote the veracity of his investigative report on PSU:
"There have been numerous opportunities for
various courts and agencies to review the report since 2012. At each opportunity, the report’s findings
have been confirmed.”
According to The Freeh
Report’s key findings Curley and Schultz, along with Spanier and Joe Paterno, actively
concealed information about Jerry Sandusky's serial sexual abuse of children
and had a total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child
victims.
The Freeh Report's
language was mimicked by the OAG on November 1, 2012 when it issued its press release
in conjunction with the Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment.
“This is not a mistake,
an oversight or a misjudgment. This was a conspiracy of silence by top
officials at Penn State, working to actively conceal the
truth, with total disregard to the suffering of children…”
And:
“They essentially turned
a blind eye to the serial predatory acts of Jerry Sandusky committed on
campus...”
The number of charges in
the case against PSU officials ballooned from 4 to 24.
Previously, Curley and
Schultz were charged with 1 count each of perjury and failure to report child
abuse.
The new charges against
the three PSU officials – now including Spanier -- were 2 counts each for
endangering the welfare of a child, 2 counts each conspiracy to endanger, and 1
count each for obstruction of justice and related conspiracy in addition to the
prior charges. Spanier was also charged
with perjury and failure to report.
By the time of Spanier’s
trial in March 2017, all but three of the charges against him were dismissed. The charges related to obstruction of justice
and conspiracy that emanated from the Freeh investigation was dismissed.
Curley and Schultz pleaded
to one count each of endangering the welfare of a child. All other charges were
dismissed.
As such, Freeh's claim
that the findings of his report were not challenged or disproved in the courts
is not connected to reality.
FALSE:
PSU Was Accountable for Sandusky’s Crimes
Freeh’s statements, as
well as many in the media and public, ludicrously contend that it is blame
shifting and “misguided” when individuals bring up the roles and responsibilities
of the PA Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and The Second Mile (TSM) for
protecting children from Sandusky.
Freeh’s addendum
contended:
“More critically, the
concept that others may also have had some responsibility for Sandusky’s acts
in no way absolves Penn State from its own accountability.”
The Freeh Report’s
Chapter 8 cited excerpts of the 2001 and 2012 versions of the PA child abuse
reporting law but did not provide any conclusion whatsoever regarding
whether or not Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and/or Spanier violated the law.
The reason for this was
because Freeh, as a former judge and prosecutor, obviously knew that none of
the officials at PSU who received the report of the 2001 incident had a legal
requirement or mandate to make a report of it.
As such, he skirted
the issue in The Freeh Report by omitting his “reasonable conclusion.”
In the more recent
addendum, Freeh also skirted the legal issue using the non-legal term of
“accountability” rather than using terms such as “legally responsible” or “criminally
negligent.”
The failure to report
charge against PSU officials was eventually dismissed by the court in 2016.
FALSE: Blaming DPW Is Misguided
In what could be
considered the most delusional, irresponsible, and dangerous statement made by the former FBI director, he
offers that those who have pointed out that the child protection system (i.e.,
DPW and Centre County CYS) failed in the Sandusky case are “misguided.”
“This effort to redirect
attention away from Penn State’s role in Sandusky’s offenses is misguided.”
Moreover, DePasquale’s State of the Child report (at 6) confirms a key point repeatedly made by those who Freeh criticizes as
“misguided:”
The Freeh Report and media reports echoing the OAG's allegations that a reporting failure at PSU enabled Sandusky's crimes surely influenced the changes made by the PA general assembly. Those changes focused almost exclusively on expanding the
definitions of child abuse, increasing the span of mandated reporters, and providing
harsh penalties for not reporting.
The general assembly’s decision
to change the law without providing additional staffing and/or resources to
handle the increased call volume resulted in 42,000 missed calls in 2015. The report revealed that 42% of calls were either
unanswered or dropped.
DePasquale
offered that the numbers were disturbing because it remains unknown how many
children in need of services and protection fell through the cracks.
As I wrote here
and here,
The Freeh Report missed a golden opportunity to inform and educate the public about the
failures of PA’s child protection system that contributed to Sandusky's crimes and instead swept them under the rug.
DePasquale’s 2017 State
of the Child Report has finally brought to light the problems that the “misguided” have
been discussing for years, especially that children remain unsafe after
the call has been made to ChildLine and after that child is receiving protective
services from county agencies. From the
State of the Child report (at 2):
|
The State of the Child report confirmed that DPW is broken. |
Some of the uninformed citizenry may attempt to make
the argument that the system has only recently become dysfunctional, however
DePasquale’s report confirmed that DPW officials cited a need to revamp the
training program for caseworkers in 2001.
In short,
caseworkers were not equipped for field work from the training they were
receiving at the time they were called into investigate Sandusky in 1998. The evidence related to that investigation
confirms that was the case, as nearly one dozen signs of potential sexual abuse
were seemingly discounted by caseworkers and Sandusky was determined NOT to be a danger to children.
FALSE:
Dissenters Disservice Victims and Penn State
Last but not least,
Freeh asserts that those who have taken issues with the conclusions in his report
are doing a disservice to the victims and are at odds with those who want to
improve the institution.
“…a small group denies
the facts that have been proven over and over and seeks to fight yesterday’s
battles. This is a disservice to the many
victims of Sandusky’s crimes, as well as the thousands of decent Penn State
students, athletes, faculty, administrators, trustees, alumni, and supporters
who wish to improve their institution...”
The truth of the situation
is that the “small group” understands that The Freeh Report
dishonored the Sandusky victims by promoting a false narrative that resulted in more victims and a more dire situation for PA's children.
There is no doubt among well-informed individuals that a call and/or report to
ChildLine regarding the 2001 shower incident would not have resulted in an investigation.
The fact of the matter was that because the victim in the 2001 incident was unknown, the intake workers
could not have even started to investigate. From
the State of the Child report (at 12):
Moreover, the intake workers would have never even gotten a chance to investigate the report because it would have been screened out before it reached them. From the
State of the Child report (page 12).
DePasquale’s State of
the Child Report finally made public what that "small group that denies the facts" has known since 2013.
The Sandusky scandal was
never a Penn State problem. It was a
state of Pennsylvania problem.
The system could not have stopped Sandusky because of the way it operated and the recommendations from the Freeh Report and the public statements of Louis Freeh did little to nothing to prevent the future victimization of children.
|
The Freeh Report helped keep PA's children in harm's way |
Conclusion
There is an imaginary world of
a child protection system in which every call is answered and a well-trained caseworker
is promptly dispatched to properly investigate every incident.
Then there is the real world where 42% of calls are missed, almost half of the calls received are screened out, and there not enough caseworkers to properly investigate the cases.
Unfortunately, the imaginary world is the one in which most of the media and the public lives and who still contend that a single phone call in 2001 to ChildLine would have stopped Jerry Sandusky.
It is painfully obvious that Louis Freeh still lives in that imaginary world.