I was excited to hear that broadcaster and sports writer Bob Costas is taking another look at the Freeh Report, which he will broadcast in a few months. Costas already won an emmy for his impromptu interview with Jerry Sandusky in November 2011.
When the Freeh Report was originally released Costas publicly supported it’s findings. But he has since joined a small but growing group of journalists who recognize the flaws of the report.
The Freeh Report is dense and filled with superfluous language meant to distract from the fact that they found little damning information about Penn State’s knowledge of Jerry Sandusky’s abuse of children.
To get Costas started on his investigation into THE investigation, here’s a list of the top three questions that need to be asked about about the Freeh Report.
Who’s Looking at The Second Mile and other groups?
According to the engagement letter between the Board of Trustees and Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, the scope of the investigation was solely focused on Penn State University. Since Penn State is not in a position to investigate other entities, this was reasonable and appropriate.
But in Sandusky’s history, very little that we know of occurred on campus. Even one crime is too much, but Penn State’s role as an unwitting accomplice to Sandusky is minor, at best.
The real issue is how highly-trained professionals from The Second Mile and both state and local children’s services agencies failed to recognize the pedophile in their midst.
How was Sandusky repeatedly approved to take in foster children, some of whom he later adopted? How was he allowed to establish a successful children’s charity that, while providing valuable services to hundreds of children, acted as a victim factory? How did the psychologists and social workers who knew him from The Second Mile not recognize him as a pedophile?
How can the Report be complete without the key interviews?
By their own account, Freeh and associates conducted more than 430 interviews and analyzed more than 3.5 million pieces of electronic and paper documents. That’s a lot of material. But they didn’t, and in some cases couldn’t, interview the key individuals.
Sandusky, Schultz, and Curley all declined interviews based on the advice of their legal counsel. Mike McQueary, the only eyewitness to the 2001 shower incident, and Tom Harmon, former director of public safety at Penn State and the officer involved in the 1998 investigation, were not interviewed at the request of the Pennsylvania Attorney General.
Joe Paterno wanted to participate in the report, but he died before Freeh and his colleagues contacted him. Of the Penn State employees whom Freeh accuses of assisting Sandusky in a coverup, only one was interviewed — Graham Spanier. This interview only occurred after Spanier requested it. How can this report be considered complete without these critical interviews?
Where is the conspiracy?
Although the Freeh Report never uses the word “conspiracy,” it states that “in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity,” Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the university’s board of trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large.”
That would be terribly shocking if it were true. To accept the report, you must believe that the four individuals named above worked together to not only cover up Sandusky’s crimes, but that they knowingly allowed the ongoing abuse of children as a public relations move.
Let’s imagine that Sandusky’s abuse came to light in 2001 … what would have happened? Since Sandusky was already retired and was known more for his charity work than for his relationship with the football team, it wouldn’t have led to a disaster for the University.
There is no reason to believe that the leadership of Penn State willingly chose to allow the continued molestation of children to avoid publicity. If the leaders did, this is an example of the worst cover-up in the history of cover-ups.
It is easier to believe that these men were involved in a cover-up because it is easier to understand evil intent than it is to understand ignorance. We want to think this could only have happened with help; that Sandusky could not have gotten away with decades of abuse on his own.
But he did. Constructing an unwarranted network of blame does nothing to prevent further abuse. It does nothing to increase our understanding of how and why this happened, which is what the Freeh Report should have done.
