II. KEY FAILURES OF THE FREEH REPORT
PS4RS has conducted a review of the Freeh Report despite limited resources and
limited access to documents and witnesses However, even in light of those
limitations, through a review of the Report, available documents and transcripts.
and available witness interviews, PS4RS has identified the following substantial
deficiencies in the Report:
. Failure to disclose the fact that FSS? client was the Board of Trustees, not
the University, and, as such, FSS had a duty to act in the best interests of the
Board of Trustees relative to the investigation and preparation of the Report;
. Failure to disclose that FSS sub-contracted a substantial portion of the
investigation to the law firm of Pepper Hamilton, LLP, and to disclose the
relationship between Pepper Hamilton and individual members of the Board
of Trustees and their employers, including but not limited to Merck & Co.,
employer of Penn State Trustee Kenneth Frazier, Chairman of the Special
Investigations Task Force;
. Failure to report the relationship between FSS and Pepper Hamilton,
including August 2012 announcement that FSS had been acquired by Pepper
Hamilton;
. Failure to consider inherent conflict of interest involving members of the
Board of Trustees and Special Investigations Task Force in light of the
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare?s investigation of the 1998
Incident;
. Failure to report on written threat by the brother of an influential member of
University Board of Trustees to publicly disgrace Mr. Paterno as evidence of
bias;
. Failure to follow basic investigative and reporting procedures for an internal
investigation;
. Failure to interview nearly every critical witness to the 1998 and 2001
Incidents before rendering the Report;
. Failure to properly address the facts and circumstances associated with the
investigation of the 1998 Incident by the Pennsylvania Department of Public
Welfare, the Centre County Children and Youth Services, the State College
Borough Police Department, and the Centre County District Attorney;
. Misstatement of facts and complete lack of evidence in support of
conclusion that Dr. Graham Spanier and Messrs. Tim Curley, Joe Paterno,
and Gary Schultz concealed 1998 and 2001 Incidents;
Failure to acknowledge that the University?s investigation of the 1998Incident with multiple child welfare and law enforcement authorities, while
Sandusky was still employed by the University, weighed heavily against a
conclusion that these individuals intentionally concealed the 2001 Incident
from authorities, when Sandusky was not employed by the University;
. Improper reliance of unauthenticated, incomplete, and out of context emails
from 1998 and 2001;
. Misstatements of facts and unsupported conclusions regarding the
knowledge of Mr. Paterno relative to the 1998 Incident;
. Failure to acknowledge that, within days of the 2001 Incident, at least 13
individuals, many of whom were outside the University, had knowledge, in
whole or in part, of the incident that Mike McQueary reported;
. Failure to acknowledge that there was not a single witness interviewed who
stated that there was an intent to conceal the 2001 Incident by anyone at the
University;
. Failure to acknowledge that there was not a single document that indicated
an intent to conceal the 2001 Incident by anyone at the University
. Failure to acknowledge that the decision by Mr. Curley to report the 2001
Incident to The Second Mile was wholly inconsistent with the idea of an
intentional concealment, as alleged in the Report;
. Failure to consider the role of The Second Mile and failure of The Second
Mile to act upon report of 2001 Incident;
. Failure to address information, including testimony of Dr. Dranov, which
casts serious doubt on the credibility of Mike McQueary in connection with
the 2001 Incident;
. Failure to consider that Mike McQueary?s statements to his father and Dr.
Dranov, immediately after the incident, were likely to have greater reliability
than statements made over 1 0 years later;
. Failure to acknowledge the fact that all email records of the University prior
to 2004 were unavailable as the result of a computer system change;
. Failure to consult a psychologist or other medical professional for assistance
in seeking to interpret the acts of various individuals in response to
allegations of improper actions by Sandusky;
. Failure to acknowledge that FSS made personal findings and credibility
determinations of witnesses who FSS did not even interview; and
. Failure to identify who waived the attorney-client privilege and authorized
Mr. Freeh to conduct a nationwide press conference announcing the
?findings? of the Report before presenting those findings to the University.