An open reply to someone defending the Freeh Report.

Almost all the mail I've received regarding my condemnation of the Freeh Report and its blatant falsehoods and dishonesty has agreed with everything I've written and have seen much the same dishonesty, manipulation and intentional distortion themselves. The only email I've received to the contrary was from someone who supported the Freeh Report and seemed to have more than a passing knowledge in the area of child abuse, not from a personal standpoint but professionally.

My overall reaction to the email which was intelligent, rational and knowledgable was sheer surprise at how someone with what sounded like professional credentials could be so willing to ignore the truth and ignore simple facts when the truth did not fit their preconcieved ideas of what the truth should be, and how little the truth, or finding out the truth as it pertains to a specific person and circumstance, mattered. It showed that the analogy to a torch carrying mob was apt, and that wanting to believe, or feeling compelled to believe and being part of a mob matters a lot more than pursuing the truth.

The subject head of their email was " Your defense of Paterno" . The basis for this person's defense of the report was the premise stated in their opening paragraph. They wrote: " I can only assume that you know little or nothing about the almost universal tendency of otherwise responsible,even moral adults, to disbelieve, downplay and ignore allegations that people they know and trust personally have molested...children".

 Yet in defending the Freeh Report and accusing Paterno, the writer undermines their own premise on which they base their belief in the findings of Freeh's report even from their own perspective.

Freeh hardly alleges that Paterno "downplayed" or "disbelieved" anything, but in fact according to Freeh, recognized the seriousness of it and according to his preposterous and clearly dishonest and unproved premise, lied about it to shield Penn State from "bad publicity".

In addition, according to this writer's behavioral model used to defend the Freeh Report, this sense of disbelief which the writer says is "almost universal" is a reaction to evidence that "people they know and trust personally have molested children.."

Paterno had no personal relationship with Sandusky outside of football in all the years Sandusky coached. They didn't socialize, and as far as the record shows, they weren't friends, their relationship wasn't personal and so there would be nothing about Paterno's relationship with Sandusky that would cause him to deny allegations against him as a pedophile because Sanduksy "was someone Paterno knew and trusted". Though that characterization might certainly at some point be applied to a lot of people at Second Mile. Yet completely discarding the facts, this writer applies their analysis to Paterno.

One further point regarding Freeh's preposterous and unproven (for those who care about little things proof) allegation that Paterno lied to the grand jury in 2010 to protect Penn State from bad publicity. Not only did the results of the 1998 investigation clear Sandusky of any wrong doing,(rightly or wrongly) but consider these facts: even if you want to say Paterno knew the results ( for which there is not a single shred of proof - something Freeh admits and hoped you would ignore), when Paterno testified to the grand jury he was 85, had a retirement package sealed, and knew this would probably be his last year coaching at Penn State. So he lies and commits perjury in front of the grand jury putting all that at risk including his legacy not to mention covering for a pedophile, a man with whom he had no personal relationship, to shield Penn State from the "bad publicity" of a report in which Sandusky was cleared and exonerated? Yet this is what the mindless mob has accepted as true. And accepted as proof to light the pyre to complete the witch burning.

Aside from all this I sent a reply back to this person who had defended the report based on their knowledge of "almost universal" behavior which the writer used to defend the report, and I thought the reply was worth reprinting here:

"Dear_______

What you have completely missed is that you seem to know little or nothing about so called moral or responsible adults throwing away or ignoring the truth or not even caring when they are running with a mindless mob willing to believe anything a discredited dishonest authority figure tells them as long as they think it's going to make them look moral.

My defense isn't of Paterno but of truth and justice and there is not one shred of proof to substantiate one single allegation that Freeh tries to claim as fact against Paterno - none. Freeh saying it doesn't make it true and he presented no evidence to back up anything he said. Nothing.

There is nothing that Freeh alleged that would last a minute in a court room because it violates every tenet of the rules of evidence. Freeh says it and you believe it and you demand no proof and you talk about otherwise responsible and moral adults?

And I'll remind you this isn't the first time Freeh, a well known political hack during his time in Washington , a man you seem to put blind faith in, has smeared an innocent man with no proof and it seems, without conscience. Since today is the start of the Olympics in London it's a good time to remember that in 1996 as FBI director he authorized the leaking of Richard Jewell's name as the Olympic bomber without a shred of proof to substantiate it and stood back and allowed Jewell's life to be a living hell for 3 months before admitting he had no proof and dropping the investigation of Jewell and cleared him. Years later we learned Eric Rudolph was the bomber.


That is the Mr. Freeh whose easily proved dishonest report you swallow without question and assume guilt based on your view of generalities and suppositions.


It's the "otherwise responsible moral adults" that have believed this garbage without question and without scrutiny that ,like all mobs before them are the immoral ones committing one immoral act after another based on their certainty of their own morality and use Sandusky's victims, all of whom were available to Sandusky through Second Mile,not Penn State to do it. And again I will remind you that it has been adjudicated by a jury and a police investigation that no abuse took place at Penn State at any time. All of it took place outside Penn State. Sandusky brought the under privileged boys from Second Mile to use the facilities at Penn State and perhaps as is the pedophile's modus operandi, to groom. But according to all available information committed no acts of sexual abuse there and was exonerated, rightly or wrongly in the 1998 investigation.


So there is a police investigation, a grand jury investigation and a trial that contradicts every allegation against Paterno alleged in the Freeh report with no proof offered to the contrary. No proof of lying or perjury on Paterno's part, just Freeh's allegation. He is so flagrantly dishonest he states in his report "it is not known how the conclusion of the investigation was conveyed to Paterno" without a shred of proof that it ever was. He wants you to assume it was and says they couldn't figure out how they did it. In court that would be called assuming a fact not in evidence and a jury would be told to disregard it. But this isn't a court room, Freeh knew he could get away with it and he did.


One further point. I have been contacted by a former deputy inspector general who agreed with every point I made. He also told me something I hadn't thought of before:


With regards to Freeh's assertion that Paterno was given "constant updates" of the 1998 investigation and followed it closely even though Freeh could not provide a shred of proof to substantiate it, I was reminded by this deputy inspector general that it is standard policy in law enforcement, that details of an investigation into a sexual assault, especially when it involves a juvenile, is never divulged to people who are not authorized to have this information. While it's not a 100%, certainty, it is highly unlikely,that Paterno or anyone else would've been given any updates at all by Schultz no matter how much they asked and again, there is no evidence that Paterno did.


Had Schultz been providing Paterno with "constant updates", while I'm not familiar with Pennsylvania law, he would have either been breaking the law or violating law enforcement guidelines. This isn't 100% conclusive, but it is a far cry from Freeh's assertion for which he has no proof. And it is based on the quality of this kind of assertion that the mob in and out of the media have lit their torches and taken to the streets.


Your email was long and thoughtful and I felt you deserved the same, though I disagree with all your assertions as it pertains to this specific circumstance.


Regarding credibility and honesty, if you knew nothing else, and if you had to make a choice who would you believe? A man who had a platinum reputation for 60 years for honesty and integrity, a man who, in 1968, refused to play the university of Texas for the national championship because Texas didn't allow African Americans on the team, or the man who, without conscience and without proof, smeared an innocent man in Richard Jewel, in one of the most high profile cases the FBI ever had? Pedophiles have patterns. So do mobs. And so do people like Louis Freeh.


Regards