King & Spalding’s Critique of the Freeh report, which incorporates the independentanalyses of these three prominent experts, concludes that the Freeh report is deeplyflawed and that its conclusions as to Joe Paterno are unfair and unsupported.
Each one of the Freeh report’s main observations about Joe Paterno is wrong: each iseither contradicted or unsubstantiated by the evidence. The authors of the Freeh reportchose not to present alternative, more plausible, conclusions regarding Joe Paterno’s rolein the events involving Jerry Sandusky.
This Critique concludes, based on our interviews, including of Coach Paterno before hisdeath, based on our review of documents and testimony, and, importantly, based oninformation from our access to the lawyers for other Penn State administrators, that(1) Joe Paterno never asked or told anyone not to investigate fully the allegations in 2001,(2) Joe Paterno never asked or told anyone, including Dr. Spanier and Messrs. Curley andSchultz, not to report the 2001 incident, and (3) Joe Paterno never asked or told anyonenot to discuss or to hide in any way the information reported by Mr. McQueary. JoePaterno reported the information to his superior(s) pursuant to his understanding of University protocol and relied upon them to investigate and report as appropriate.
Former Attorney General Thornburgh is an expert in conducting effective factinvestigations. He has reviewed the Freeh report and concluded that its investigativemethodology is flawed, that its factual findings are limited and incomplete, and that itsobservations as to Joe Paterno are unreliable and unfounded. In the former AttorneyGeneral’s own words, he concluded:
“The lack of factual support for the SIC’s inaccurate and unfounded findingsrelated to Mr. Paterno and its numerous process-oriented deficiencies was a rushto injustice and calls into question the credibility of the entire Report.”
“In my opinion, the Freeh Report is seriously flawed, both with respect to theprocess of the SIC’s investigation and its findings related to Mr. Paterno.”
“When considered in the context of investigation ‘best practices,’ it is evident thatthe Freeh Report and many of its findings as they relate to Mr. Paterno are notaccurate, thorough, fair or credible. . . . The process of the SIC’s investigationwas deficient in numerous ways, including the failure to interview virtually all of the key witnesses and the reliance upon limited, ambiguous documents.”
“Perhaps most significantly, the findings in the Freeh Report about Mr. Paternoconcerning his alleged knowledge of the 1998 incident and purportedconcealment of the 2001 incident were not properly supported.”
“This lack of evidence supporting the Report’s most scathing findings and theserious flaws with respect to the process of the SIC’s investigation cause me toconclude that the Report’s findings concerning Mr. Paterno are unjust andwrong.”