The Freeh Report regarding Penn State University and Joe Paterno related to the Child Sexual Abuse of Jerry Sandusky has arrived. It concluded an independent investigation into Penn State and included over 430 interviews, and analyzed over 3.5 million emails and other documents. The most important evidence were independent discoveries of critical 1998 and 2001 emails many of which were leaked in recent weeks. The full Freeh report can be found here, and eight key findings in the Freeh Report are reprinted below taken from Louis Freeh’s associated prepared remarks.
1) “Total disregard for… child victims”
“Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The mostpowerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky’s arrest.”
2) Change of plans to report Sandusky to authorities after consultation with Paterno:
“In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20th of this year, we see evidence of their proposed plan of action in February 2001 that included reporting allegations about Sandusky to the authorities. After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno, however, they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities.”
3) Penn State alerts Sandusky of child’s identity:
“They exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child’s identity, about what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001.”
4) Penn Stated Reasons for not Reporting Sandusky — “not humane thing to do”
“(1) Through counsel, Messrs. Curley and Schultz have stated that the “humane” thing to do in 2001 was to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations.(2) Mr. Paterno said that “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”(3) Mr. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that he was never told by anyone that the February 2001 incident in the shower involved the sexual abuse of a child but only “horsing around.” He further stated that he never asked what “horsing around” by Sandusky entailed.”
5) Penn State repeatedly concealed critical facts to avoid bad publicity:
“It is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky’s victims.”
6) Paterno aware of 1998 investigation and “followed it closely”:
“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.”
7) Paterno to McQueary in 2001: “It is my job to figure out what we want to do”:
“We never had the opportunity to talk with Mr. Paterno, but he did say what he told McQueary on February 10, 2011 when McQueary reported what he saw Sandusky doing in the shower the night before: “You did what you had to do. It is my job now to figure out what we want to do.” Why would anyone have to figure out what had to be done in these circumstances? We also know that he delayed reporting Sandusky’s sexual conduct because Mr. Paterno did not “want to interfere” with people’s weekend.”
8. “Callous and shocking disregard for child victims”
“Their callous and shocking disregard for child victims was underscored by the Grand Jury, which noted in its November 4, 2011 presentment that there was no “attempt to investigate, to identify Victim 2 or to protect that child or others from similar conduct, except as related to preventing its reoccurrence on University property.” …. Even though they all knew about the 1998 incident, the best they could muster to protect Sandusky’s victims was to ask Sandusky not to bring his “guests” into the PennState facilities.”
POPSspot Related:
TELL GOODELL: NO MORE RACISM
THE LAST CLOSET
