Your Jan. 7 article, “Judge: Portions of Paterno lawsuit against NCAA can move forward,” did not mention a key implication of the ruling — the Freeh report on the Sandusky scandal finally will come under judicial review.
Concerns over the report’s accuracy are widespread and growing. Bob Costas has noted in several venues the absence of evidence that Penn State officials covered up Sandusky’s crimes to protect the football program. Although Freeh asserted that Joe Paterno and others “concealed Sandusky’s activities,” the lead prosecutor on the Sandusky case stated that he found no evidence that Paterno participated in a cover-up. Even Penn State board of trustees Chairman Keith Masser characterized Freeh’s conclusions as “speculation.”
Louis Freeh has repeatedly declined opportunities to defend his work, including refusing to be interviewed by Costas. In the wake of the court’s ruling, however, Freeh will be required to produce supporting documents and testify under oath.
Three other Freeh reports already have been debunked. A court overturned conclusions that Freeh provided to a global soccer organization (FIFA) due to poor investigative methods and inadequate evidence. An investigation related to Wynn Entertainment was found to be “structurally deficient, one-sided, and seemingly advocacy-driven.” Most recently, criticisms of Freeh’s investigation related to BP oil spill claims led him to renounce his own inflammatory accusations.
Given this dubious track record, it seems likely that Freeh produced a tainted report for Penn State. Thanks to Judge Leete, we will soon find out.
Alice W. Pope