Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Freeh Group Tampered With Evidence _ Final

Freeh Group Tampered With Evidence _ Final

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22|Likes:
Published by Barry Bozeman
Evidence of Evidence Manipulation in the Freeh Report
Evidence of Evidence Manipulation in the Freeh Report

More info:

Published by: Barry Bozeman on Sep 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 Altered E-mail Found in Freeh ReporContains Damaging Info about 1998 DPW Investigation
 Insider(s) leave trail of evidence suggesting Freeh, PSU, and PA covering for DPW’s failure
Part I: The Insider
Louis Freeh’s Special Investigative Counsel’s (SIC) diverse “membership included men and women withextensive legal, law enforcement and child protection backgrounds who were experienced in conductingindependent, complex, and unbiased investigations.”Apparentlyone of these individuals chose to be more unbiased than the rest of the group. This individual took advantage of Freeh’s lack of knowledge and experience with e-mail and PSU’sagreement not to review the document before publication, to alter e-mails, insert evidence Exhibits andtext at or near the last editorial review of the report that points the finger at DPW for dropping the ball in1998 and how PSU officials (beyond the four identified) were complicit in covering for DPW. The mostdamaging evidence includes:
A DPW e-mail on 13 May 1998, just 10 days into the investigation, informing PSU that they wantedto “resolve the matter quickly.” (Exhibit 2B)
Exhibits 2H and 2I, indicating 14 signs of suspected child abuse that were uncovered on the first twodays of the investigation and turned over to DPW on May 5
. This exhibit also contained the firstname of the other child and the name of the apartments in which he lived.
Tom Harmon providing an update to Gary Schultz in which he expresses concern over DPW’s role inthe investigation due to a conflict of interest with Second Mile. (Page 49)
Exhibit 6A, an affidavit from former PSU Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin, who does not identify DPW ashaving a role in the 1998 investigation, yet reviewed the 1998 University Park Police Report thatclearly identified DPW and Lauro.Baldwin may have violated the law.The clues left behind by the insiders included: the odd numbering scheme of Appendix A that wasordered 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10; footnotes referencing the exhibits were out of sequence, the turning the pagesin Exhibit 2H and 2I on their sides; and including exhibits that served no useful purpose. All but the lastcould be attributed to sloppy work – but you don’t pay $6.5M for sloppiness. This is sabotage fromwithin Freeh’s SIC.
Part II: Computers don’t lie, people do.
On page 11 of the Freeh Report it states: The University Staff provided a large volume of raw data fromcomputer systems, individual computers and communication devices. The Special Investigative Counsel performed forensic analysis of this
raw data
independent of the University Staff.Sounds great in theory, but didn’t work so well in practice.Below is a screen shot of Exhibit 2B from the Freeh Report. I have added two arrows, each labeled “A” pointing out the date stamps that are out of order. Chronology of e-mail either flows up the page or down
the page. If you go to Exhibit 2C (farther down the page) of the Freeh Report, you’ll see a more correct, but not complete, flow of e-mail between Curley and Schultz regarding the updates.
Conclusion A:Exhibit 2B is not raw data and has been altered. It is also a signal that other e-mail evidence mayhave been altered.
The more critical piece of evidence is at “B,” which states that DPW has decided to
resolve this quickly
.This e-mail was sent just days after the DPW brought in an unlicensed counselor, John Seasock, toconduct a psychiatric evaluation of the child (Victim 6) and three weeks before the DPW interviewedSandusky.The conclusion that this e-mail is the work of an “insider” is drawn from the fact that the footnotereferencing it as the source to the passage “coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Exhibit 2C, below,could have been used to source the information about “coach is anxious” because it provides a morecorrect, but not complete, chain of correspondence between Curley and Schultz.
Conclusion B: Exhibit2B serves the purpose of leaking damaging information about DPW (that Freeh attempted toconceal) and the undermines the veracity of the Freeh Report

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->