A New Test

  THE FREEH REPORT – A TEST

Bob Ford

The Freeh Report begins with a summary entitled: “Timeline of Significant Events”

From your personal knowledge of the Freeh Report, and the Sandusky case, would you consider the following statement to be true or false?

May 3, 1998 – Sandusky shoots and stabs Victim 6 in Lasch Building shower.

The correct answer to this question is “False.” Sandusky did not shoot or stab Victim 6 in the Lasch Building shower.

The answer is totally false because it simply never happened. If it were listed in the timeline of “significant” events, it would be a complete distortion of the facts regarding the Sandusky case.

And if it were listed as a “significant” event, how could such a distortion be made in an $8 million dollar report by mistake? 

The answer of course, is that it could not have been a mistake. If something so important to this case were so stated as a “significant” event, it would have to have been deliberate.

The actual entry on Page 19 of the Freeh Report is as follows:

“May 3, 1998 – Sandusky assaults Victim 6 in Lasch Building shower.”

This statement is also totally false. The answer is totally false because it also simply never happened!

How could something so important to the Sandusky case be deliberately falsified, and why? This is why you must read The Freeh “Distort” to learn how and why the Freeh Report was completely fabricated. 

You will not find anything in The Freeh “Distort” that is not supported by fact and logic. You will not find anything in the Freeh Report that is!

ONE SIMPLE KEY TO THE ENTIRE CASE INVOLVING SANDUSKY AND PENN STATE

What did Mike McQueary actually see in 2001...and what did he actually say at the time?  

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Why did both the Grand Jury public presentment in 2011, and the Freeh Report in 2012, deliberately omit any reference to the fact that sworn testimony of Dr. Dranov not only clearly refuted the testimony of McQueary, but also directly supported the Grand Jury testimony of Tim Curley!

                     COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC

Dr. Jonathon Dranov is the one witness that had absolutely no stake in the outcome of the Grand Jury proceedings regarding the 2001 incident involving Jerry Sandusky, and the resultant statements by Mike McQueary as to what he had seen. Dranov was a close friend of McQueary's father, and had known Mike McQueary since he was a little boy. That is why he was called to the McQueary house for advice on the night in question. His testimony could be considered almost the same as a member of the family. In addition, Dr. Dranov was a Mandatory Reporter of suspected child abuse. Common sense and logic would dictate that of all the witnesses before the Grand Jury, the testimony of Dr. Dranov should  be given the highest credibility. 

Dr. Dranov testified in no uncertain terms, that on the night of the incident, Mcqueary repeatedly stated that he had not actually seen anything. He had heard things. 

When Tim Curley was called before the Grand Jury, he may not have even known who Dr.Dranov was, but he certainly could not have known anything about Dr. Dranov's testimony. From the Freeh Report itself (Page 72): “Curley testified to the Grand Jury that McQueary told him he had heard people in the shower who were 'horsing around,' that they were playful, and that it just did not feel appropriate.” (Schultz testified that he did not recall specifically what McQueary reported)

Therefore, the first citizens to publicly hear and evaluate the testimony of Dr. Dranov, were the members of the Sandusky trial jury, and they had no problem deciding the issue. During deliberations, they asked to review the testimony of both, and they acquitted Sandusky of the most serious charge involving “Victim 2.”

(Oddly, even though “Victim 2” was never identified, or called to testify, the jury did convict on the lesser charges brought by the prosecutor.)

And in all the news media sensation over the Sandusky trial, no one seems to have recognized the significance of the fact that not only did Dr. Dranov contradict McQueary, but why was this information withheld until then, and never disclosed by the Grand Jury presentment? 

The subsequent Freeh Report certainly recognized the significance, as the Freeh Report not only completely withheld Dr. Dranov's testimony regarding “Victim 2”, it also falsified the jury verdict regarding “Victim 6,” and instead used this falsehood to create the equally false charges involving a conspiracy by Penn State officials to cover-up something they had no reason to cover-up.

And there in a “nutshell,” is how the Freeh Report completely distorted the facts, and publicly ignited the unchallenged media firestorm against Penn State by publicly announcing: “However, it is more reasonable to conclude...”

No one, except the Penn State faithful, ever questioned the Freeh Report.

CONFUSION AND SURRENDER BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

And to add to the frustration of loyal Penn State alumni, who continue the fight for “Due Process” in this matter that will cost over $100,000,000, despite media obsession to chastise them to give up, here are actual quotes from the new BOT chairman Karen Peetz, in an interview with Tina Hay of the “Penn Stater,” Nov/Dec 2012 (Page 41-42.

Peetz: “I think the confusion is Do we believe all he information that's in the report? We are not lawyers; we have no more ability to say whether that's

all true than anyone else. At the end of the day, people need to read it and they need to believe what they will believe.”

Tina: “Can you believe that some people are incredulous that you'd focus on the recommendations, without wanting to evaluate the findings that led to those recommendations?”

Peetz: “Again, our sense was that, in order to put this behind us, we needed a definitive statement, an investigation of what happened. That was our primary objective. And we did not dictate the outcome. And now there will be trials: there will be a lot of further legal developments, and in some of those, it will be our place to intervene.” 

  BUT WAIT...IT GETS EVEN BETTER (OR WORSE!)

Tina: But what if the investigation was flawed? What if the conclusions were inaccurate? Especially given the fact that the Freeh group didn't have subpoena power and couldn't talk to some of the key people”

Peetz: “I would say: 439 people interviewed and 3 million or more emails reviewed, by a party who shouldn't have any axe to grind. Again, that's why

it's important that people read it and believe what PART of it they think fits.”

  THIS WAS THE LEADERSHIP AT PENN STATE!

This is why we have to continue the fight for justice. This is why you must read The Freeh “Distort.”

* * * 

The Facts

The Freeh "Distort"

From the new book The Freeh Distort: A Disgrace to American Justice available at Amazon.com.

How the rush to judgment over unsubstantiated, biased, and deliberately slanted assumptions, has unfairly tarnished one of the nation’s finest universities, and Joe Paterno, the greatest coach in college football history.

If the “Freeh Report” had instead been submitted as a Law School term paper, it is hard to imagine how it could have risen to the level of D Minus under the most lenient of grading systems. Its “conclusions” were based upon nothing more than arbitrarily crafted assumptions, that have no basis in fact regarding evidence to support them.

Many people immediately realized there was something wrong with the “Freeh Report,” that things just didn’t add up. Many of them have written op-ed pieces to their newspapers, and even more have written letters to the editors, all in one way or another protesting some aspect of this report that has caused so much damage and heartbreak to Penn State University, its faculty, students, alumni and fans, and of course to the four individuals unmercifully crucified; Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz, and their family and friends.

After two of my op-ed column submissions were not accepted by the Harrisburg Patriot-News, I realized there was only one way to prove the “Freeh Report” was in fact totally false, and that was to dissect all of the obvious flaws, and try to explain in precise and plain detail to the public, and to the vitally important news media, how these points had been misconstrued and purposely distorted, to create out of whole cloth, something that just wasn’t there.

I hope I have been able to do that, and I hope the public and the news media will now join in an effort to compel the NCAA to reverse the sanctions so hastily imposed upon Penn State as a result of the “Freeh Report.”

• Order The Freeh Distort: A Disgrace to American Justice today as a Kindle e-book at Amazon.com

Excerpt:
 

WHAT IS THE BAR FOR BLIND AND UNQUESTIONED ACCEPTANCE OF THE                                                         FREEH REPORT CONCLUSIONS?

The Freeh Report begins with an indisputable falsehood that an assault occurred in 1998, a point so critical it could not have been a mistake. It was deliberately designed to support so-called “conclusions” that are nothing more than pure unsupported speculations, with an obvious agenda to exclude any and all exculpatory evidence, or explanation to the contrary.

If known facts of record are clearly and indisputably misstated in the Freeh Report, why is the single, most damaging speculation of the entire report accepted as fact?

All of the subsequent results of the Freeh Report, which could eventually cost Penn State, and Pennsylvania taxpayers, a hundred million dollars, and the additional costs of destroying the reputation of one of the finest universities in the nation, and prominent individuals, including Joe Paterno, with over sixty years of completely unblemished service, ironically based upon education above sports, were all the result of a single sentence of pure speculation:

“HOWEVER, IT IS MORE REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE…”

 

The Freeh Report, while deliberately presenting falsehoods as fact, then states that it is more reasonable to “conclude” that four well respected persons are all liars and conspirators, who went to great lengths to protect a serial child-molester for the single purpose of protecting the reputation of the Penn State football program.

 

These charges were made in an afternoon press conference and within hours were accepted as unchallenged fact throughout the nation.

No one at the time, including the Penn State Board of Trustees, could have even read the Freeh Report upon which these “conclusions” were based.

Now that it is known that the Freeh Report contains several critical falsehoods, no matter whether they were deliberate or by mistake, what then is the basis for accepting as fact, anything in this document?

This question must be answered by the national news media. In the interest of justice, it can no longer be ignored.

EDITORS, REPORTERS, JOURNALISTS AND COMMENTATORS NOW HAVE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE. THERE IS A LOT OF CROW ON THAT PLATE…BUT IT COULD TASTE PRETTY GOOD IF THE RIGHT THING IS DONE. YES, WE ARE PENN STATE…AND WE DESERVE JUSTICE!

Read more in The Freeh Distort: A Disgrace to American Justice available at Amazon.com in Kindle format for $4.99