Thursday, February 14

Freeh: No Evidence of Protecting "JP or the Football Program"

The alumni-elected trustees report confirmed that Freeh and his team knew their findings were on shaky ground -- but they chose to align with the prevailing narrative instead of following the evidence 

Ray Blehar
February 14, 2019, 11:40 AM EST

After WJAC's report on leaked alumni-elected trustees critique of the Freeh Report, the true "deniers" quickly appeared on the scene to denounce and criticize the report. 

Mark Dambly and Eric Barron stated the report merely reflects the opinions of its authors, while Louis Freeh's statement accused the authors of "blindly disregarding the incontrovertible facts."

Given the speed of the response from key "denier" Freeh, it was obvious he responded without reading the alumni report.  In fact, his rebuttal states he hadn't obtained a copy of it.

As it turns out, Freeh will be surprised to learn he is the alumni report's star witness.

No Evidence of Protecting "JP or the Football Program"

Page 29 of the alumni report refers to a late June 2012 discussion of the draft Freeh Report, where Freeh commented:

"I understand -- there is a stronger case to be made for "protecting the university" than JP or the 'Football Program' -- which is never really articulated in any of the evidence I've seen."

As history shows, the (unsupported) finding of a "culture of reverence to the football program" smashed the University's reputation, resulted in sanctioning by the NCAA, and cost PSU hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, legal fees, and settlement claims.

How did that happen?

The alumni-elected trustee report shows that former trustee, Ken Frazier, who was overseeing the Freeh investigation as co-chair of the PSU Board of Trustees Special Investigations Task Force, sent a July 23, 2012  ESPN column to the Freeh team that may have had undue influence on shifting the focus to football.   The column, written by Howard Bryant, speculated that PSU and others didn't report Sandusky to protect Paterno and the football program.

Freeh and his team discussed the ESPN column and how it fit with public expectations to put the focus on Paterno and the football program for enabling Sandusky crimes. 

However, there was push back from within the ranks about assigning motivations to the actions of PSU officials "since only the principals truly know" (and they hadn't been interviewed).  Another team member added, "I still maintain we should not say anything that we can't support."

Focus on Scant Evidence, Not Fact Checking

Apparently, the time frame from the end of the trial (when Bryant's column was published) and the release of the Freeh Report was used to put emphasis on highlighting the scant information to indict Paterno and the football program instead of verifying that the information in the draft report was accurate.

You know, things like making sure the report accurately reflected what just transpired at the trial.

At Freeh's press conference in July 2012, he commented that the football culture existed from the top to bottom, citing the janitors "were afraid of being fired for reporting a powerful football coach." And amazingly, Freeh doubled down on the janitor incident in his rebuttal to the alumni report, stating that it demonstrated the culture problem.

The alumni elected trustees' report simply blows the janitor incident out of the water.

It reveals that 8 janitors were interviewed by Freeh's team including the three that were present during the incident.  All three who were present that night were consistent in that they encouraged Janitor A (Calhoun) to report the incident. 

As it turns out, the Freeh Report's theme "of fear of being fired" relied on a single statement from a janitor -- who was not even present that evening. 

As demonstrated, the Freeh Report's version of the janitor incident was not consistent with facts provided during the Sandusky trial.

Nor were his inflammatory press conference statements regarding it.

“The janitors, that’s the tone on the bottom. Ok. These are the employees of Penn State who clean the locker rooms in the Lasch building where young boys are being raped. They witness, what is probably, in the report, the most horrific rape, that’s described.”

The testimony and verdicts from the Sandusky trial were clear that no one was anally raped in the Lasch Building.  Moreover, there was no evidence presented at the trial that any victim alleged being subjected to an anal rape on the PSU campus, let alone the football facilities.

The evidence surrounding the janitor incident exemplifies that it was Freeh who was, and still is, "blindly ignoring" the facts.

Next: Fact-Checking Freeh's Rebuttal


  1. So glad this brazen misrepresentation of what actually did NOT occur is still receiving some public attention. I hope someone is applying your doggedness, Ray, to the Jeffrey Epstein criminal debacle.

    1. Thanks, Becky.

      The Epstein case makes some of us wonder how pervasive child sex trafficking is among the rich and powerful. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in the U.S. think its an isolated thing.

      If it wasn't a profitable criminal venture, then the cartels wouldn't be smuggling women and children into the country to be sold as sex slaves. And I also wouldn't have had to take annual training about sex trafficking when I was formerly employed by the government.

  2. It would have been the responsibility of the janitor's supervisor to report the incident to campus police if it actually occurred. That did not happen. I also doubt that the Teamsters Union would have allowed any averse action to be taken against the janitors for anything, much less reporting child abuse. In real life, word of a sighting such as this would be all over State College like a lightning bolt. I've also wondered how Frank (The Rat) Fina got a janitor to commit perjury at JS's trial, why the other two who testified to the Grand Jury never showed up at trial, and why Cleland allowed highly prejudicial unsupported hearsay testimony. Was Cleland in on the hoax?

    1. Gregory,
      Thanks for your comments.

      First, I agree that the janitors supervisor was responsible for making the report. The A7 report reveals that he (Janitor C) didn't believe put much stock in the allegations because Calhoun had a drinking problem. Other individuals with knowledge of Calhoun said he was batty -- which makes sense considering that he was eventually diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

      Next, I agree that union employees would have little fear of being fired for making a report of child abuse. That whole idea, based on one janitor, never made sense, not only because of the union thing, but because McQueary reported Sandusky about 3 months later and didn't lose his job. I believe that's one of the reasons why the grand jury presentment put the janitor incident last. If that report was in chronological order, the onus for Sandusky's crimes would have fallen first on the PSU police, then CYS, then Ray Gricar, then the janitors, then McQueary & PSU...and outrage would have been reduced exponentially.

      How did Fina get the janitor to lie? Just like any other prosecutor gets a witness to lie -- he/she threatens to arrest them and lock them up.

      From my investigation, I learned that the second janitor was not the sharpest pencil in the box and Fina probably didn't trust him to keep their lies straight, especially about the change of the crime scene.

      Was Cleland in on the janitor hoax? On one hand, I'd say yes because he instructed the jurors that the football media guide that Amendola produced and testimony from Dick Anderson that PSU's football season was over at the time Petrosky (and the AG) alleged an away game occurred was subject to their own interpretation. Legally speaking, Amendola did not ask the court judicial notice, therefore the printing schedule for PSU football was not authoritative as to whether or not they played a game that Saturday. I would agree with Cleland if the schedule alone was admitted as evidence because schedules can change and a game can be tacked on at the end of the year -- but Anderson was a coach and said there was no away game. Next, Cleland's appeal ruling continued to make the false argument that two janitors testified, therefore the excited utterance hearsay admission was sufficiently bolstered. It didn't matter if one janitor testified or 100 janitors testified to hearsay, the bottom line is that there has to be independent evidence of a crime (Commonwealth v. Barnes). No such evidence existed because the Commonwealth failed to produce a victim.

      The only reason I can think of that Cleland was not in on the hoax is that he sentenced Sandusky concurrently in that case because he had some doubts about the correctness of his hearsay ruling.

      Weighing all of the evidence -- he was in on the hoax.

  3. Thanks for this article. The alumni trustee report is full of new details about flaws in the Freeh Report. You could probably write a couple dozen articles about it.

    It's too bad no newspapers outside PA have reported on it yet.

    What do you think about the Sandusky resentencing?

    1. Tim,
      Thanks for your comments and the kind words.

      The national media isn't going to attack the Freeh Report because (based on what's above) they helped write it. If they did, it would be another story in a long line of stories where they believed unsubstantiated allegations and then had to issue retractions.

      The judge who wrote the opinion on the Sandusky appeal is one of the judges who agreed with the affirming decision to DENY Spanier's appeal based on, among other things, ex post facto application of the law. Now this judge has ruled Sandusky should be resentenced because of the ex post facto use of sentencing laws. Talk about inconsistent.

      Regardless, the resentencing issue is relatively meaningless. Sandusky is going to die in prison.

  4. Which raises the question- is it unreasonable to think that Sandusky was the only person involved in abusing children at the a Second Mile? I know there are no cases of this that we know of that have been reported. But is this because there are truly none, or has the state quashed them to keep the “blame” on Penn State? In light of what has happened in the Catholic Church to so many priests since the Sandusky scandal, one has to wonder. Sure, the Catholic Church is much bigger than Second Mile was, but my point is was this ever considered by any investigating body. I am not aware of a full investigation by anyone. Are you?

    1. DMP,
      I have alluded to this frequently.

      According to FBI expert Ken Lanning, adult pedophiles associate with other adult pedophiles. It is not unreasonable at all to think that other child molesters were part of The Second Mile.

      Quite frankly, that would explain why the OAG avoided going to the charity for two years and why it didn't charge anyone other than Sandusky.

      Please review this blog I wrote showing circumstantial evidence that indicates the charity was being used for child sex trafficking and that the proposed Center of Excellence was going to go-to location for the well-to-do child molesters to fly in and pick up the kids.