I don't think Freeh's mission was to critique the OAG, DPW or CYS. Indeed it would be inappropraite. It was the BOT from PSU that wanted to know who within PSU knew what and when about Sandusky. Also, the Mouton Report I read did not say that Corbett "stonewalled" Victim One and in fact said that he found no political motivation at all in delaying the Sandusky investigation.
Also, you realize TSM cannot by law give campiagn contributions to any political candidates. To do so would jeopardize their 501c(3) status.
Also, I think others on the BOT recommended Freeh as well. Since Freeh was never asked and indeed would have been inappropriate for him to investigate TSM, or the state I don't see any deflection.
The deflections seem to be coming from another side. Those who support PSU and the Paternos. Freeh's report sends a powerful message to those in charge of strong institutions that if they suspect CSA they must report it or face a similiar result.
BTW if you want to talk about Winston then you can start a thread or better yet go over to warchant and go to the Locker Room forum. You'll get plenty of input!
Instead of guessing about what Freeh's mission was, why didn't you read the engagement letter? Why is it that you think that you know something about this case, when you clearly do not.
The engagement required a full, fair, and complete investigation of the incidents occurring on campus as reported in the Sandusky grand jury presentment. So let's stop there for a moment. The grand jury report included crimes dating to 1996 -- the Freeh Report did not include crimes prior to 1998.
Next, you opine that other members of the BOT recommended Freeh. Incorrect. Didn't happen.
You state it would have been inappropriate for Freeh to investigate TSM or the state. The Freeh Report included information on the state's role in 1998, TSM's role in 2001, and an overview of TSM's relationship with PSU. However, Freeh did not include evidence (that was on the public record) about the financial relationships between TSM and PSU BOT members -- just one land deal that involved Schultz acting on behalf of PSU. It did not highlight the damning evidence of the state's failure that, again, was available in the public records AND if the publicly released 1998 police report (that Freeh somehow managed to exclude from the exhibits in his report). BTW, exhibits 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9 are missing -- so what does that tell you. Or is that an acceptable method of listing research exhibits in coursework at FSU??
As for deflection, Freeh deflects the blame away from Second Mile, who later admitted to covering up Sandusky's abuse finding in 2009, and from the state agencies, who clearly failed in 1998. The recent Tutko case in PA shows that the state agencies screen out calls that are repeat complaints against offenders, once they have cleared said offenders. In other words, the chances are very good that the state agencies were contacted in 2001 and decided against investigating -- which is within their purview to do. It was also the law at the time that child abuse complaints could be classified as general protective service complaints, thus there was no requirement to make a record of the call.
Finally, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of a failure to report child abuse at PSU. Two individuals from PSU believed a report was made in 2001 and those beliefs CANNOT be refuted for the reasons above.
Chapter 8 of the Freeh Report also confirms there was no evidence to conclude a failure to report abuse -- as it cites the relevant child abuse reporting laws in Pennsylvania, then MAKES NO FINDING that anyone at PSU violated them. Freeh's statements of "concealment" are also a joke, as no crimes occurred on campus after 2001, thus there was nothing to conceal, given 2001 was in fact reported outside PSU. The latter is confirmed on the public record and in the Freeh Report.
So please stop coming over here and making arguments based on innuendo -- otherwise known as Freeh's press conference remarks.
