Paterno family releases counter to Freeh report

Friday afternoon, it was reported that the Paterno family, alongside a legal team, would release a counter to the Freeh report roughly 180 pages long.

Sunday morning, the family did just that.

“We conclude that the observations as to Joe Paterno in the Freeh report are unfounded, and have done a disservice not only to Joe Paterno and to the Penn State University community, but also to the victims of Jerry Sandusky and the critical mission of educating the public on the dangers of child sexual victimization,” the report reads.

You can read the entire report HERE, but here are some highlights of the critique (which are being updated as we go through it):

• The critique comes right out swinging: "[The]
  Freeh report is deeply flawed in its investigative processes and methodology, in its

  access to information, and in its reasoning based on the record, and that ultimately it draws

  unreliable, unfair and incorrect conclusions as to Joe Paterno.”

• Specifically, the counter states the Freeh did not properly support its findings concerning Paterno’s knowledge the 1998 and 2001 incidents involving Sandusky. Even more specifically, it attacks the Freeh’s documentation of a 1998 email thread and the ambiguity of the word “coach”, presumably Paterno, as a microcosm for poor fact-finding and confirmation.
• The report claims that the entire Penn State community, including Joe Paterno, was “fooled” by Jerry Sandusky and his pedophilia. It goes so far as to say that Paterno “fell victim to effective ‘grooming’” from Sandusky.
• The cirtique brings up a fair criticism: the Freeh group did not interview athletic director Tim Curley or VP Gary Schultz. Only former president Graham Spanier.

• Regarding the 2001 incident between Sandusky and Victim 2, the money quote has been and continues to be the email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier on Feb. 27, 2001:

  “After giving it some more thought and talking it

  over with Joe yesterday — I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” The critique states that the Freeh report made the assumption that Paterno altered the path of what was to be done about the incident.

• Regarding the 2000 incident where a janitor saw Sandusky molesting a victim, the critique says there is no link that the witness would have lost his job over reporting what he saw because of Paterno’s power within Penn State.
• The portion of the review written by Dick Thornburgh actually does a persuasive job of poking holes in the Freeh group’s technique. As our good friend Kevin McGuire of the Examiner pointed out earlier today, if you were to present the Freeh report and the Paterno report in a court of law, where proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is the goal, the Paterno report would probably have an edge.
• Thorburgh counters that Paterno put football above the safety of others. “The assertion that Mr. Paterno lacked empathy for children and/or victims of child abuse is contradicted by his long history of charitable work and dedication to the development of young men,” Thornburgh states.
• The report throws the blame of how the 2001 incident was handled on Mike McQueary. “In my opinion, based on investigating, consulting on, and studying thousands of similar cases, it is more reasonable to conclude that these five men did not understand the true nature of Sandusky’s actions because McQueary did not convey what he thought he had conveyed to them.”
• The critique says the Freeh report “mischaracterized” the 2001 emails sent among Curley, Schultz and Spanier where a more “humane and upfront” approach was discussed in handling the accusations against Sandusky. “Hence, there was no change in plans,” the report states. "[Paterno] was not an intervening cause in any change of plans... with regard to conditionally notifying the DPW. Therefore, there was no conspiracy or any agreement to conceal.”
• The tone, from start to finish, was that there is no evidence to support claims that Paterno knew of Sandusky’s pedophilia, or that he made a concerted effort to cover it up if he did know. There is also a direct implication in the critique that the Freeh report deliberately chose what to include and what not to include in its report to fit its findings.