Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship releases critical analysis of Freeh Report

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 —- Two full months after Louis Freeh managed to pass off a wholly unsubstantiated distortion of the facts as a “full and complete report” that convicted three Penn State administrators and the University’s football coach in the court of public opinion, Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) today released its Critical Review & Analysis of the Freeh Report. The grassroots watchdog group, numbering more than 12,000 members, has been consistently critical of the Board of Trustees’ handling of events related to the Sandusky case since it broke in November 2011. Its Legal and Regulatory Task Force, comprised of more than 40 legal experts, logged thousands of hours in preparation for this analysis to educate the Trustees themselves, the NCAA and the general public as to the gross negligence exercised in using this document as the basis for any critical decision-making or direction-setting, including that which was recently handed down by the NCAA.

The PS4RS Legal and Regulatory Task Force set out to examine the Freeh Report critically — to differentiate between facts supported by documented evidence, facts without evidentiary support, opinions of the author, and wholly unsupported conclusions reached by the author. The purpose of the PS4RS Critical Analysis & Review is to identify the shortcomings, inaccuracies, and the gross incompleteness of the Freeh Report.

The PS4RS Critical Analysis & Review specifically outlines 23 key failures of the Freeh Report that are notable not just in their quantity, but in their magnitude. The analysis goes far beyond the already public criticisms of failure to interview individuals central to the case and unsubstantiated conclusions. It further delves into issues relating to exactly who Freeh’s client was — Penn State University or the Board of Trustees; conflicts of interest in the hiring of Freeh; failure to provide specific documentation to support the concept of concealment; and complete absence of consideration of the role of the Second Mile and its failure to act upon report of the 2001 incident…   (more)

Share