2% 2&3

Ea?wam Ea ?mwa HE
amam E. Eama
Raba? Q, 
?m?w?y Eabmma
Ryan .3. Ma?amh?e
ng EL @Mgay
M?m W. PQEEQ

?E?mg?geg 0% HR Pem?y?va?m ?m?e

Maivm?si?cy ?amed hy ?g
A?mmsi

CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE GE CONTENTS

Executive 8111113313137 1
Reasons for Unde?alcing the Review of Free}: Source Documents - 4
. 1. Board of breech of fiduciary duty resulting 111113.1th ?ze University 4
13.2. Perm State President Erie Ben'on?s decision to review the Fl'eeh

Repori . 5
13.3. Fedezel high security clearance neves?ga?on of fonner Penn State President

Graham Spaniel? detennines Spmier?s innocence in Sendusky owner 5
13.4. Challenges 120 the Freeh Repon' 6
Background and History. . . 9
C. 1. Louis Fi?eeh hired conduct an independent inves?riga'iion fo1lowing

indictment of Ieozy Sendesky 9
C2. Freeh Report used by . 10
(3.3. Pe?teino family commissioned expert review of Fred]. Report 10
(3.4-. of PA Sene?ie Maj 0111}! Leader Jake Connan suit resulfed in

early removal of NCAA sanctions .. 11
(3.5. Alumni response . 11
C.6. Alumni?elected Trustees accessed Freeh Source Matelials . 12
Methodology for our Review .. 13
13.1. Interviews . . . . 13
13.2. Doeunzenfzs reviewed by ?Ehe Fi?eeh Group . 14-
13.3. Documents generated by ?ihe Freeh imesiigaiion 14-
13.4. Contem? . 14

COMEDENTIAL

 

gray:

Critiques of Fresh Investigative and Reporting Methodology 
E. l. Inteiyiews: Flawed investigative, analytic, and reporting methodology 15
13.2. independence of the investigation: COMPROMZSED 20
BB. Report release . . .. . . .. 32
13.4. Sway and conclusions 34l-
Documentary Evidence Regarding Maj or Conclusions of Fresh Report 35
.1. Spaniei'a Schultz, Patemo and Carley repeatedly concealed critical facts

relating to Senduslcy?s child abuse . 3 6
F2. Motivation: ?To avoid the consequences of bad publicity? 53
F3. Cause: sti'ildng lack of empathy for child abuse victim? 55
R4 Cause: Sandasliy?s retirement 56
ES. Cause: cultural reverence for the football program? 58
R6. Suininaiy and ?nal conclusions: Are the me} or conclusions in the

Freeh Report supported by the results of their investigation? . 64
Why Would This Report be so De?cient? Sources of Bias . 68
G. l. Investigator bias from the outset of the hivestigation 68
G2. Of?ce of Attorney General 
G3. NCAA con?ict of interest: ?Mags-conscious? 71
(3.4. Freeh?s con?ict of interest: Wanting to be ?go to investigators? 
6.5. Reliance on sources with poor credibility . 74-
Gb. Fresh Group?s media sensitivity . 76
G7. Goyeinor Corbett?s conflict of interest: ?Thumb on the scale? 78
618. Penn State Board Vice Chair John Sunna?s con?ict of interest:

Motivated by revenge? . 81







-

G9. Change in reporting strategy: Deleting infmma?iion ?om Freeh Group?s
investigation of The Second Mile . . 82
(3.10. Conclusions . .. . 83

Review {3f Freeh Report Chapter 10: for Universiw
govemance, administration, and ?die of children is Universiiy

"facilities and programs.? . . 85
Fizzal Conclusions . 87
1.1. Fresh Repozi conclusions: Noi suppor?ed by hivesiigaiive findings 87
1.2. Independence of Fresh Report ?ddly compromised 91
1.3. Invesiigaiive and reporting ?aws 93
I4. Perm State Board is ~foo lm?ge . . . 94-
I.5. Need for public education about aoqusinimoe abusers 94-
I.6. Final comments . . 95
CONFIDENTIAL

 

"we. .. 

 



 
 

a. Esecntive Seminars?

Background

Following the indictment of lorry Sanduslty for allegations of child sex abuse in November,
2011, Louis Freeh was hired by The State Universiw to conduct an independent
investigation into alleged failures of University personnel to report abuse. The
repozt horn this investigation (?the Freeh Report?) concluded that ?(Door of the most power?il
people at The State Utnversitwaresident Graham 13. Spanier, Senior Vice
Pi'esident?Fhiance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Carley and Head
Football Coach Joseph V. Pa?temomfailed to protect against a child sexual predator harming
children for over a decade.? The Fret-3h Report cited as a causal factor for this failure the
University?s ?culttn'e of reverence for the football program that is higrained at all levels of the

campus 

Since the release of the Freeh Report, many credible criticisms have emerged, noting that the
Report?s conclusions were poorly supported by material Within the Report itself. We wondered

Why the documentary support was so Sparse, and Why the Report made no mention of any

contradictory ?ndings.

Documents made public have revealed that: the NCAA was closely involved with the Freeh
investigation; the NCAA knew that their own rules prevented them ?rorn punishing Penn State;
and the NCAA decided to punish Penn State in order to enhance its own reputation. We believed

it was important to understand the degree of cooperation between the Freeh investigation and the
NCAA.

Penn State President Barr-on committed to review the Freeh Report Source Materials hirnseli
saying, ?the contents of the Report have led to questions by some in the Penn State community.
I do not want people to believe that Penn State is hiding something.? We applauded his
to n?anSparency, but are disappointed that, three years later, there has been no

review.

1
CONFIDENTKAL

 

agar?4.2.. .. -

-

 

A recently released report honor a Federal High Security Clearance investigation of former
President Graham Spanier, conducted at the same time as the Freeh investigation, concluded that
Spanier had committed no wrongdoing in connection with the matter. The Federal
investigator called the Freeh Report ?an embarrassment to law enforcemen and ?a political hit
job.? We believed it imperative that the University? Trustees come to an understanding about

the discrepancies between the ?ndings from the two investigations.

The Penn State Board of Trustees has never voted to accept or reject the Fresh Report. Rather,
the Board adepted a ?Don?t ask, don"t loci: and don?t tell? policy. This policy led to a tacit
acceptance of the Report and resulted in prot?btnid reputational harm to our University, along
with $300 million in costs thus far. We believe the Board?s inaction on this matter constitutes a
?duciary breach, and decided to conduct our own review in execution of our fiduciary
responsibilities. Over the objection of the University, we obtained comt~ordered access to the

Source Material upon which the Freeh Report was pinportedly based.
Findings tron: car review

We found no support for the Freeh Report?s conclusion that Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tint

Carley, or Gary Schultz knew that Sandaslcy had harmed children.

We found no support for the Fresh Report?s conclusion that Penn State?s culture was responsible

for allowing to harm children.

The independence of the Freeh Report appears to have been fatally compromised by Louis
Freeh?s collaboration with three interested parties the NCAA, Governor Corbett and his Of?ce

of Attorney General, and members of the Penn State Board of Trustees.

The NCAA, Governor Corbett, and the Penn State Board of Trustees appear to have had their

own con?icts of interest that in?uenced the unsupported conclusions of the Freeh Report.

The Fresh Report was rife with havestigative and reporting ?aws. The investigation used
unreliable methods for conducting and analyzing interviews; failed to interview most of the
individuals with direct knowledge of the events antler investigation; supplied motivations and

causal factors supported only by speculation and conjecture; supported its major conclusions by

2
CONFIDENTIAL

?mm



 

selective misrepresentation of the investigative data, and by ignoring and withholding the vast
majority of investigative ?ndings, which were contrary to the Report?s conclusions. The Freeh

Report?s minimal standard of ?more reasonable to conclude? which requires the majority of the
hiformation to be supportive was not met.
Conelesiess from our review

We believe that Louis Freeh did not ful?ll his obligation to conduct an independent and
comprehensive investigation.

We repudiate the conclusions of the Freeh Report as unsupported by the investigative data.

We believe that our University, as a major center for research, scholarship, and teaching, has an

obligation to come to an honest understanding of the responses to Saiiduslcy?s actions, and to use

that understanding to promote educational efforts to prevent future abuse.

3
CONFEENTIAL

 

-

 

3. Reasons tor Undertaking the Review oi E?reeh Scarce
?oeanients

Bi. Board of ri?i?astees hreaeh oi iidneiary dnty resalting in harm to

the University

We believe the Board of Trustees breached its ?duciary duty by failing to fonnally review or

evaluate the Freeh Report, and by failing to vote to accept or reject the Report. This inaction by

the board has allowed others to conclude the Board?s tacit acceptance of the Report?s

conclusions, and has resulted in grievous harm to the University.



Our University, historically known as a highly ethical institution, has suffered
profound reputational damage.

Plaintiffs? cases against the University have been strengthened by the Board?s tacit
acceptance of the Report?s conclusions.

Costs to the University from the University?s tacit acceptance of the Report?s
conclusions are cun'ently more than $3 00 million and still iising.

By tacitly accepting the conclusions of the Freeh Report, the University has callonsly
attributed unsubstantiated culpability to respected and longstanding servants of the
institution, resulting in irrecoverable damage to those individuals, their families, and
the entire University community.

By not probing deeply into the circumstances sun?onnding Sanduslcy?s actions, we fail
in our obligation to victims of sexual assault to learn the true lessons from this
situation. As a maj or center of reSearch and scholarship, we have a moral duty to
come to the best possible understanding of this tragic episode so that we can educate

others in ways to prevent inane VictMZation of children.

4
CONFEDENTIAL

 

 

3.2. Penn State President Eric Barron?s decision to review the Fresh
Report

Early in his ?rst year as president, Eric Barron committed to conducting his own ?thorough?
review of the Freeh Report and its Source Materials, explaining that ?the contents of the report
have led to questions by some in the Penn State cornmtuiity. I do not want peeple to believe that
Penn State is hiding something. I feel strongly about this.? We supported this plan, as we have
always believed that coming to a resolution of the open questions is the best way for the
University to move forward. However, we are disappointed that, despite promising the Board
that he would ?move with all deliberate speed,? to date more than 3 years later President
Ban'on has not delivered his review. Thus, we have undertaken die review ourselves and have

urged oer fellow Trustees to join us in examining the Source lVlaterials.1

RE. Federal high seenrity clearance investigation oi? former Penn State
hresident graham dpanier determines Spanier?s innocence in
dandashy shatter

Dining the some time period as the Fresh investigation, a parallel investigation was conducted by
the U.S. Federal hivestigative Services for purposes of reviewing Spanier?s high security
clearance. Unlike the Freeh investigation, the Federal investigation involved interviews of Gary
Schultz and Tim Carley, with Spanier interviewed under oath. Special Investigator John
Snedden did not ?nd evidence of wrongdoing and renewed Spanier?s security clearance, "writing
in his report: ?The, circumstances surrounding [Spanier?s] departure from his position as PSU
President do not cast doubt on [Spanier?s] cturent reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment
and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information.?

.2. $32

Snedden subsequently described the Freeh Report as ?an embarrassment to law enforcement.

The report from this Federal investigation was made public in the spring of2017. The ?ndings
of this highly credible report based on an hivestigation conducted with ?true independence, by a
Federal agency charged. udth ensuring the good character of Graham Spengler in. the content of the
Sanduslry matter raise serious questions about the validity ofthe conclusions of the Fresh
Report. We believe that any conscientious trustee would want to understand the reasons behind

the discrepant ?ndings of the two reports.

5
CONFDDENTLAL

v. n. . 

 

3.4g. Qhallenges to the hseeh Report

The imperative to conduct a review of the Source Materials used in the Freeh Report is

heightened by the many credible critiques of the repoit over the past 5 years.

a member of the Freeh investigation team. spoke anonymously with a reporter: This
individual expressed concern that the tree of the Fresh Report by the NCAA was inappropriate
because, due to limitations in the investigation (such as not hitei?yiewing most of the principals),
the ?ndings were ch'etunstantial. ??The sanctions against Penn State were really overwhelming,
and no one imagined the report being used to do that,? this person said. ?People thought it would
help others draw conclusions about what happened and provide a guide for leaders to be able to
identify mine?elds and navigate through them. Instead, Emmett took the report and used Penn
State?s own resources to do them in,? the person said. ?The histitution is nzade of people, too.

And they don?t deserve this.?3

Former ?ommonyyealth of as Governor and US. Attorney General Etch ?l?hoi?nhusgh:
Thomburg conducted an extensive analysis of the Fresh Report and concluded that ?there is no
credible support provided in the Freeh Report for What, if anything, Mr. Paterno was aware of?
conceinhtg the Sanduslty matter. He also states that ?Mr. Freeh did not supply any other
evidence to support the proposition that Mr. Paterno was havolved in or aware of the decision
[not to report to authorities the 2001 shower incident].? He also challenges the Freeh Report
claim of a ?complete? investigation because the Freeh Group ?did not speak to Virtually any of
the persons who had the roost impoitent and relevant information. Three of the most crucial
individualsmMessrs. Paterno, Schultz and Carley?were never nlteiyiewed. Michael

McQueary, the sole Witness to the 2001 incident, was also not haterviewedf?

l?ast Chan's ot?l?he State liniyersity Faenlty Senate: This body stated that the
Freeh Report ?fails badly? regarding evidence, facts, and logical ?On a foundation of
scant eyidence, the report adds layers of conjecture and supposition to create a porhait of fault,
complicity, and malfeasance that could well be at odds with the truth. [A]s scientists and

scholars, we can say udth conviction that the Freeh Report fails on its own merits as the

6
CONFIDENI 

are

gm??

indictment of the University that some have talreii it to be. Evidence that would compel such an

indictment is simply not there.?

Penn. Sisters for Respoesihle Stewardship: This group, which advocates for governance
reform at the University, noted the following: ?substantial de?ciencies in the [Fresh] Report??
failure to disclose the ?fact that the Freeh Group was hired by the Board of Trustees? Special
Investigations Task Force, not the University (and hence faces a potential con?ict of interest);
faihu'e to interview nearly every critical Witness before renderieg the Report; feihne to properly
address the facts 331d circiuristances associated with inves gation of the 199 8 Incident by
government agencies; ?failure to consider the role of The Second Mile Foundation; failure to
consider testimony that casts serious doubt on the credibility of Mike MoQoesry; and several

other coriceros.6

liesneth Frasier, SEQ oi hie-role, Forster l?eeii State ?l?rcstee and Qheir ot? the Spectral

investigation ?l?sslr li?orce, started in. deposition that: ?i just don?t think [Freeh?s inferences is
the Freeh Report] are as clear and irrefutable as some peeple seem to think they are??
Eric Series, oi the State llaiversity, stated that: The Fresh Report
was not use?il and created so ?absur and ?unwarranted? portrait of the Universiw. ?l have to
say, l?ni not it tee of the report. 'l?here?s no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he

Were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to telce the osse.?7

Alvin Clemens, Penn State Trustee for id years, reed a statement to the Board when he
resigaed: ?On November 9th, 2011, I and my fellow Trustees, voted to the Joe Peteino in a
hastily called meeting. We had little advance notice or Opportunity to discuss and consider the
complex issues we faced. After 61 years of exemplary service, Coach Paterno was given no
chance to re3pond. That was a mistelte. lwill always regret that my name is attached to that

rush to injustice. Hiring Louis Freeh arid the tacit acceptsrice of his questionable conclusions,

without review, along with his broad criticism of our Penn. State cultin'e was yet another mistake.

Over the past two years, concerned have spoken clearly acid forcefully. They have
replaced six incumbents with reform??uni?ed determined to sclniowledge and redress
errors ofjiidgmeiit with positive actions. Those who believe we can move on Without due
process for all who have been damaged by urisuppoited accosaiions are not acting in Penn

7
CONFIDENTIAL



 

 

 

 

State?s best interest. We have the opportunity to move forward united in our commitment to
truth. .I urge all who love Penn State?s name to ?ght on.?8 in an interview, Clemens urged the

board to reject the conclusions of the Freeh Report?

Commonweaith of re Senate Maj ority Leader Stoke Cornice: ?Clearly the more we dig into
this, the more troubling it gets. There clearly is a signi?cant amount of communication bemeen
Freeh and the NCAA that goes way beyond merely providing information. I?d call it
coordination. Clearly, Freeh went way past his mandate. He was the enforcement person for
the NCAA. That?s what it looks like. I don?t know how you can loolt at it any other way. It?s
almost like the NCAA hired him to do their enforcement investigation on Penn State. At a
minimum, it is inappropriate. At 3. maximum, these were two parties working together to get an

outcome that was precleteunined.?10

Bob Costes. sartorial sports reporter: ?Louis motivations to pimple,
including Peterno, which at best were turlrnowable, and at worst might have been



Pie. Commonweah?h Senator John rudichalr: ?The Fresh Report is incomplete at best and, at

worst, ?mdernentally iilawed.?12

Attorney Michael L. Bangs wrote a tegel opinion identifying racers}: errors in the Fresh
Report: The ?use of this remarkably incorrect statistic by the Freeh Report, which was then
relied upon to form the basis for a number of its other conclusions, calls into question the

accuracy and veracity of the entire report.?13

Jay Bites, sports analyst for ESPN and attorney: The idea that Penn State?s ?culture of
football? enabled Sanduslcy was ?ridiculous.? He stated that a legacy of Penn State?s handling of
the matter is that no University will ever again undertake such an investigation because ?the
NCAA used the Fresh Report against Penn State as a weapon to do Whatever it chose that was

outside of its miles??

8




 





 

 

Baehgronnd and storv

or. Ennis E?reeh hired to eondaet an independent investigation
tattooing indietnient et? alert}? 

The Penn State Board of Trustees Special Investigations Task Force signed a Letter of
Engagement with Freeh, Sporliin, 6i: Sullivan (FSS), LLC, on December 2, 2011.15 F88 was
?engaged to represent the Task Force? and this condition potentially introduces a con?ict of
interest; FSS was get an agent of Penn State University and therefore potentially held a
con?ict of interest if members of the Task. Force, to when: FSS had a legal agency relationship,

intended to de?ect their own culpability regarding roles with The Second Mile or the tiring of
Joe Paterno.

FSS was engaged to ?perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently
publicized allegation of sexu? abuse at the facilities and the alleged failure of The 
State University personnel to report such sexual abuse to appropriate police and
government authorities.? FSS was to provide a written report that would contain ?ndings
concerning: failures that in the reporting process; ii) the cause for those failures; 
who had lmowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse; and iv) how those allegations were
handled by the Trustees, PSU administrators, coaches and other staff.? FSS was also engaged to
?provide recommendations to the Task Force and Tmstees for actions to be taken to attempt to
ensure that those and similar failures do not occur again.? The terms of the engagement letter

suggested conclusions by assuming that there were ?failures? even before the FSS investigation

began and before Sanduslqr went to trial.

Findings. The report states that ?(t)he Special investigative Counsel operated with tot?
independence as it conducted this hivestigation.? The report concludes that ?(Dent of the most
powerful people at The State Universitvu?President Graham E. Spm?er, Senior
Vice President?Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Carley and
Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paternomfailed to protect against a child sexual predator
harming children ?for over a decade, These men concealed Sandaslry?s acnvities ?ona the Board

of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of

9
CONFDDENTIAL

 

M?m?hm

 

empathy for Sandusky?s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being.? The
report: supplied motivations for these actions as including the desire to avoid the consequences of
bad publicity, and criticized the University for its ?culture of reverence for the football pro gram

that is higrained at all levels of the campus 

C2, tires-3h Report need by NCAA

Less than two weeks after the release of the Freeh Report, Mad: Emmett, NCAA President, and
Rodney Erickson, then Penn State President, signed the ?Consent Decree? that imposed
sanctions on the Penn State football program.? The sanctions, so harsh that they were described
as ?unprecedented,? included a $60 million ?ne, post?season ban, vacated Wins, and loss of
scholarships. Critics immediately questioned the authority to levy such sanctions in: a
criminal matter and accused the NCAA of capitalizing on an opportunity to enhance its own
reputation at the expense of a member institution historically known for exceptional ethical

conduct. 3"

The Consent Decree justi?ed the use of the Freeh Report in lieu of its own investigative
procedtn'es by stating that ?The University? had ?the independent FSS
investigation,? and stated that it could rely on ?the findings of a Criminal hay and the Fresh
Report (as . .t?actual basis horn Which the NCAA concludes that Penn State breached the
standards expected by and articulated in the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws.? The Consent
Decree ?nther stated that it could rely on the Freeh Report ?(1)11 light of. . .the University?s
Willingness, for purposes of this resolution, to accept the Freeh Report.?

C3. Paterno tensity commissioned espeet reyieyy of Fresh Report

The Pate-mo family engaged a team of reSpeoted experts to review the Fresh Report: in 2013.
Former US. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh concluded that there was no factual basis for the
Roper "s ?inaccurate and unfounded fmclings,? citing investigative and reporting weaknesses.
James Clemente, former FBI espelt on child see: victimization, fainted the Report for failing to
consider the liltely possibility that was a ?skilled and masterful manipulator, who
groomed an entire community to obscure the signs of child abuse; using a variety ofproven

techniques??

1 0
CONFIDENTIAL

Maul-C

 

Cd. Commoawealth of re Senate Maiority header dalee Carissa suit
resulted in early retrieval of NCAA sanctions

In 2013, Commonwealth of PA Senator lalce Connor; and then Treasurer Rob McCord ?led a
lawsuit against the NCAA to keep the Consent Decree fine proceeds in Two

years later, the suit was settled resulting in a new agreement Where the remaining sanctions were
21

reduced, and the ?ne money was to remain in 
These proceedings resulted in the release of many documents and deposition transcripts that
showed, among other things, that members of the NCAA Executive Committee had not read the
Fresh Report before approving someone, and that there was likely NCAA collusion with the

Freeh Group in dr?ting the ?ndings of the Freeh Report.22 23 24?

dismal respoese

The Board?s management of the Sandusky crisis was Widely derided as ??disestrous.?25

Dissatis?ed with the Board?s actions and alarmed by the ensuing reputational damage to their
alrna mater, alum advocated for governance reform. Some collaborated with themAnditor

General Jack Wagner?s hivestigation yielding an extensive set of recommendations for change to

Board and processes.26

hmnediately following the dismissal of Paterno and Spanier, Penn Staters for Responsible
Stewardship organized efforts to elect reform candidates to the Board, successfully replacing all
9 incumbent alumni-?elected Trustees over a three?year period, the shortest possible time frame
for accomplishing a complete changeover. Since then, candidates dedicated to governance
reform and to addressing the damaging fallout of the Sanduslcy crisis have held the 9 seats

elected by almoni, despite facing challengers advocating that the University ?move on.?27

1
CONFEENTIAL

Cd. Alumni-elected ?E?mstees accessed heels Materials

Concemed about the many c?tz'cisms of the Fl'eeh Report, 7 alumniuelected Trustees (?Plaintiff
Tmstees?) folmelly demanded access to impact the Report?s Source Materials (the ?Source
Materials?) and were denied by the The Ueiversity?s denial was in direct Violation
of law governing charitable nonpro?t organizations, which affords access to
records to pezmit a Trustee to perform her/his ?duciary duty.29 39 As a result, the Plainti?
Tmstees pm?sued, and subsequently won, a. lawsuit to obtain statutorilyprotected access to

amperate records and reimbursement of legal fees.31 33

12
CONFDDENTIAL

 



 

ethodotogv tor oer Review

   

The documents that were provided to as were of three di?erent types: (1) notes re?ecting
interviews of 4-3 8 individuals (some of Whom were intelvievved multiple times); (2) documents
that were used by the Fresh Group in conducting their investigation (33 3,514,464); (3) I
documents generated by the Fresh Group during their investigation (11 195,471). We may not

have received all documents, as some items cited in the Fresh Report were not found in our

search of the Source Materials.

on. interviews

Notes from hrtervievvs were subjected to analysis using established qualitative research
methodology for narrative material. Categories were created to re?ect general themes identi?ed
in hirervievv inateriads. Interview hiforniation was coded into these categories and cross-?checked
for reliabiliw. We report raw numbers and percentages of respondents providing information
Within each category. Full details of our ?ndings are reported in Appendix 2. The interview
?ndings are referenced throughout our report. In addition to the ?ndings from this summary
analysis, we occasionally include references to individual interviews. Detailed information

about the malytical approach used in our review of interviews is described in Appendix 1.

It is important to emphasize that interviewees were never promised con?dentiality, as indicated
by material at the beginning of each interviewee?s stunniary notes that de?nitively states
con?dentiality was not guaranteed (commonly known as the Upjohn Warning). We interpreted
interview material within the context of each interviewee?s position in regard to the relevant
questions, in order to ascertain Whether that individual could be reasonably expected to provide
credible information. Ont of respect for the sensititdtv of this information, we did not include
interviewee names in the report, with very few exceptions: individuals who were in singular
positions to provide signi?cant insight into important matters, and Who also held positions of 
authority inside or outside of the University. For interviewees Whose names were not identi?ed
in our report, We included information about positions held by individuals in order to
demonstrate the relative weight and credibility of their lorewledge. We roads every attempt to be

sure this information was general enough that the identity of interviewees was not disclosed.

13
CONFIDENTIAL

 

mwi??W?wwuw

Havana. . 

tank?scy?r?nm?vrzr.

 Easements reyiewed hy the E?reeh @ronp

A Wide range of documents was provided to the Freeh Group for their review. We conducted
our analysis using search terms generated from a list of questions designed to identify both
con?rmatory and discon?rrne?toty infometion pertaining to the nae} or conclusions of the Freeh

Report. All documents that we reference in the report are cited.
Ed. Boennsents genereted hy the hreeh ineestigetion

The Freeh investigative tea-1m ?'eqnently by email, which enabled us to gain on
understanding of their developing thought process regarding the investigation. The team (most
likely the hivestigetive teem co?leeder Kathleen McChesney) ltept e. diary that twice
daily brie?n 0?s and other noted highlights horn the ongoing investigation, and this document was
enlightening. Other documents re?ecting organization of investigative material were discovered
and reviewed. We also reviewed drafts of the repon: as it was developed, sometimes with
handwritten margin notes; this permitted us to gain hisight into the thinking behind decisions
regarding information included in, or deleted ?'ozn, the fmal report. These doctnnents were
analyzed using search terms based on questions intended to identify both con?rmatory and
infertiletion related to the inej or conclusions of the Freeh Report. We cite these

documents Where referenced in the report.
?le. Qontestesl reports

A complete understanding of the matters investigated by the Freeh Group reqnires understanding
of relevant contexts. Accordingly, We include a series of contextual reports in Appendix 3. All
information contained in these reports comes from the public domain; some were written
speci?cally for our report, and others are media repoit's. The intent is for these to serve as small

White Papers on a range of topics to enhance the understanding of the main points of our report.

lit-
CONFIDENTIAL

u: . .

 

 Qritiaaes at Fresh investigative and spastic ethedolegv

 

The American Bar Association states: ?For an educational institution, the fact-?nding
investigation of sexual and gender-based harassment and interpersonal violence is one of the
most sensitive and dif?cult tasks in the histiintional reaponse. Our experience has taught us that
an effective investigation demands scrupulous rigor in fact~gathering by individuals with
appropriate training or experience, a toolkit designed to access relevant and material information,
and precise reconciliation and doctnneiitation of available information to support reliable
decisions. The investigation and evaluation of credibility also require Special expertise to
identity relevant screws of elimination, including peripherd and corroborative evidence;
all available information and reasonable inferences; and evaluate the unique md

complex factors at play in each invesngation.?3

Several critical analyses of the Freeh Report have been conducted that indicate that the Freeh
Group?s investigation and reporting methodology do not meet the ABA standards, resulting in
signi?cant challenges to the validity of the Report?s conclusions?" 35 36 Because ?these are
available in the public domain, we will not repeat those ?ndings here, other than to note a
consensus that the Rrepo:t?s primary conclusions are supported by scant evidence as provided

Within the Report. Instead, we will focus on the de?ciencies we identi?ed through our review of

the source documents.

Ed. interviews: Flawed investigative, analytic, and reporting
?methodology

Use or FEE ?302 reporting? methodology

This statement appears before interview notes for each hatervievvee: ?These notes are prepared at
the Speci?c direction of legal counsel as part of an internal investigation for The 
State University Board of Trustees, Special Investigations Task Force. The notes are not
intended as a verbatim transcription of the meeting, but rather as a capture ofmaj or ideas
discussed. Quotes re?ect an effort to capture words used dining the meeting, but are not
intended as verbatim transcription. These notes also contain mental impressions and

observations of legal counsel to the Special Investigations Task Force.?

1 5
CONFIDENTIAL

 

nun/war.

 

A notation dated 12/15/11 in the Fresh Group diary re?ects planning for interview methodology:

?Interviews: From interviewers notes - Not recorded or in statement form??

This indicates that the Fresh hivestigators conducted interviews using the standard FBI ?3 02
reporting? methodology, hivolving a pair of hivestigators, one to conduct the interview and the
second to take handvnitten notes. No tape recording is done and the resulting interview notes,

instead ofbeing a transcript, are expected to capture the essence of the interviewees responses.38

The ?3 02 reporting? methodology has come under criticism by legal experts. A 9?year study of
law enforcement across the nation concluded that the very common failure of memory to
accurately reflect interview statements makes nowreccrding interviews extremely prone to error.39
Deliberate or unconscious bias can affect hater-pretence of subj ects? statements, resulting in
inaccrn?ate Worse, this practice permits the use of coercive interview tactics, which
not only are abusive of interview sets, but tend to produce-false testirnonyd? Accordingly,

the FBI discontinued this practice in 2014- and replaced it with a policy to record all intemelews.?I?Z
inacceraey of interview 

The possibility that the Fresh Group?s interview notes could be inaccurate is not merely
hypothetical. in our review, we saw multiple drafts of interview notes for some interviewees,
with substantive revisions made between the original and the ?nal versions. The examples that

follow are not exhaustive, but are illustrative of the problems we discovered.

The initial interview notes for one ect contained multiple comments ?'orn an interviewer

stating she could not recall reaponses provided by the subject?l?z

One Plaintiff Trustee was interviewed by the Fresh Group and reviewed the notes of his
interview. He format the information in the notes incomplete, cherry?picked, and the resultant
seminary out of context, creating an inaccurate impression of What he believes he

communicated.

Graham Spanier?s intewievv was discussed among the Fresh Group daring a daily briefing, and

notes from that brie?ng were recorded in the daily diary the day following his intervievv.43

6
CONFEBNTIAL

. .. .qmmuw

 



 

When compared to the ?nal interview notes for Spanier, some important and meaningful
information was omitted.? The details recorded in the diary, but not appearing in the interview
summary, include: (1) Spanier explained that the reason he thought counseling was appropriate
for Sanduslry was because Sanduslqr didn?t know he shouldn?t shower with boys, not because
Sp anier suspected molestation was occurring; (2) Carley told Spanier he had explained to
Sanduslcy that most people wouldn?t be comfortable with the idea of his showering with youth;
(3) when Spanier hifornied Carley and Schultz that he was stepping down, each independently
responded that Spanier was being wronged because they never told hire of abuse; (4) Spanier
described a con?ict between himself and Governor Corbett that could be a factor 'm Corbett?s
actions: board members told Spanier in 2010 that Corbett wanted him out because Spanier had
hosted the Governor?s opponent at the University; Corbett then cut the PSU budget by 52%;
Board Vice Ch?? John Senna hosted Corbett and Spanier at a lunch in in an attempt
to resolve the con?ict; (5) Spanier spoke about intercollegiate athletic integrity, including the
history that only Stanford and Penn State had never been cited for a major NCAA violation, and
that Spanier personally held meetings with football players about compliance Wi?l NCAA rules;
(6) Spaniel-?3 government security clearance renewal involved a polygraph. Given that the
omitted material could be exculpatory, this is a strong indication of bias, with troubling

implications for the validity of lireeh Report conclusions.

We observed instances Where Source Materials did not accruately correSpond to portions of the
Fresh Report. Quotes attributed to Spanier in the Report?l5 were not contained in the notes from
his interview,46 prompting questions about What source material was used in the uniting of the
Report. Also, the Fresh Report describes Spanier reporting in his interview that he informed
four Trustees about the Sanduslcy investigation prior to the May 12, 2011 board meeting, and
states that the Freeh Group rte?interviewed the four Trustees and that all stated they did not
remember behig ini?onned. However, our search of the source documents produced reminterviews
with only two of ?those four Trustees. We were unable to ascertain, in either ofthese two
instances, Whether these discordances were a result of sloppy handling of hivestigative material,

or instead may have been intentional nusrepresentations. Neither possibility increases

confidence in the validity or? the Report.

1 7
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

Use of coercion

Multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive
tactics when interviewed by Fresh investigators. Interviewers shouted, were hisulting, and
demanded that interviewees give them speci?c information ?Tell me that Joe Paterno knew
Sanduslry was abusing lcidsl?). Some inteivievvees were told they could not leave until they
provided the information interviewers wanted, even when interviewees protested that this would
require them to lie. Some individuals were called back for multiple interviews Where the same
questions were repeated; some were told they were being ?uncooPerative? for refusing to
antiuthfully agree with interviewers? statements. Those who were currently employed by the
University had been told their cooperation was a requirement for keeping their jobs, rind
therefore behig called uncooperative was perceived as a tlneat their employment. One
individual indicated that he was ?red for failing to tell the interviewers What they wanted to hear;
this is continued by a notation in the Fresh Group diary of an interviewee contemporaneously
reporting his tiring to the hivestigatorsfw An entry in the diary indicated that ?coaches are scared
for their jobs?"?3 It is deeply distrabing that members of our comenurity were allegedly
subjected to harassment and mistreatment at the hands of Freeh hivestigators. Rather, the use of
coercion indicates a lack of neutrality on the part of investigators, and, as previously noted,

increases the likelihood of inaccuracy.
Failere to interview principals

The Freeh Group did not interview individuals with direct lmowledge of the events under
investigation, including Jerry Sandeslry, Gary Schultz, Tim Carley, Joe Paterno, University
outside legal counsel Wendell Courtney, Penn State Director of Public Safety Thomas Harmon,
former coach Michael McQueary, MoQaeary?s father John McQaeary, and John McQoeary?s

boss, Dr. Jonathan Dranov.

The Fresh Report states: ?Although the information these individuals could have provided
would have been pertinent to the hivestigation, the ?ndings contained in this report represent a
fair; objective and comprehensive analysis of facts.?49 It is surprising that an hivestigator as
experienced as Fresh could think it possible to render a fair and comprehensive account of a.
complex set of events Without hearing from the individuals directly involved. Indeed, Freeh

1 8
ONFIDENTIAL

.. 

 

 

railed against another investigation for failing to interview ?the critical players,? calling it a
?glaring investigative lapse? to rely solely upon ?the paper recor and insisting, ?facts

rnatter.?5O

The major fault of the Freeh Group was not that they did not interview ?the critical players? 
most of Whom declined on advice of counsel, or at the request of the PA Office of the Attorney
General but that they failed to qualify their conclusions accordingly. The investigation yielded
some information about the actions of Penn State of?cials, but had no sound way of making
conclusions about the of?cials? understanding of events or the intentions behind their actions. It
is striking that informanon ?iron; the only one of the four officials who was interviewed Spaniel?
was summarily discounted, without any jns?cation. During the writing of the Report, several
of the Fresh Group voiced reservations about inferring motivations of the primary parties, noting
?rst this would involve speculation because they recognized that ?only the principals know??
Their public relations firm likewise cautioned against engaging in any speculation.52 These
concerns were apparently overruled, as the Freeh Report conclusions are assertively stated as

fact, and include inferences about motivations that are weakly supported even Wi?diin

the Report itself.

liailure to conduct a systematic analytic review of interviews

The Fresh Report states that 430 interviews ?were conducted. Surprisingly, only 25% of
interviewees are cited. What information was gained hour the remaining hundreds of
interviewees? It is inconceivable that every last shred of information gained from 4-3 0 interviews
was entirely consistent with the Report?s conclusions, yet only con?rmatory information was
reported from the interviews. This gives rise to the possibility that information contrary to the
Report?s conclusions was disregarded. A ?fair, objective and comprehensive analysis of facts?53

must sorely incorporate the broadest range of information available, along with an explanation of

how discrepant material was resolved.

1 9
COWDDENTIAL

 

Regortirig ?aws

When interview material is cited in the Freeh Report, information about the individual?s position
is vague or absent. It is understandable that the identity of interviewees was protected, but it is
problematic to fail to provide information that pertains to the credibility of the material. or
example, the Freeh Report states, senior Pear: State of?cial referred to Carley as Paterao?s
?errarrd hey. ??54 To evaluate this statement, it is necessary to understand Whether the of?cial was
in a position to have direct loiowledge of the working relationship between Carley and Paterno.
0111' review revealed that the source of this statement was then University President Rodney
Erickson,55 who as provost for the previous 12 years would have had no regular direct contact
With football stall", and Whose opinion therefore would most liltely have been based on or
other indirect loiovvledge and, consequently, of low credibility. Much of the interview material
included in the Preeh Report lacks the appropriate context for the reader to effectively evaluate

its credibility and thus weakens the existing basis for the Report?s conclusions.
3.2. ladeperrdeace or? the irrvestigatiorr: 

?Nose oftize Special Zrzvesz?iorrz?z?ve ?0arzsel?s attorneys or investigators attended the
State {frziversz?rv or Izod am; has: or erases? relaz?iorrsizia with the thriversiz?v.?

(Fresh Resort, gr. it}

When Frazier called Freeh to hire him for the independerrt investigation, he asked Freeh to
con?nrr that he had so con?icts of interest. Frazier said Freeh responded mthat he has no
con?icts (01? connections with PSU, the Board, Second Mile, Shortly after the hiring, the
Philadelphia ?rgw?rer reported that Freeh had spent 5 years as a vice chairman at MBNA Corp,
which had a ?lucrative relatiorzship? with Perth State, promoting its credit card to students and
Freeh?s associate at MBNA, Ric Soothers, is a Penn State almnnus who was
responsible for this business. The closeness of their association is demonstrated by Freeh?s 2005
appearahce as a featured speaker at a Perm State event Where Soothers, a premier-mt donor, was
the guest of horror. In addition to Shothers? close coorrectiorrs with Perm State, the article
described him as ?the most prominent eatiorral business ligtu?e on the board of the Second Mile

Formdation, the charity started and formerly the by coach SanduskyCon?icts of interest can be effectively managed; this is accomplished in part through full
disclosure. The Philadelphia Inquirer article reports that Freeh?s tenure at MBNA was not
mentioned in Penn State?s amouncernent of his hiring, although other aspects of his professional
resume were described. Why would Fresh fail to disclose his associations math Penn State and

The Second 'Mile tln'ough his employment at MBNA and his close coenection With 

In fact, it appears that Struthers was instrumental in helping Freeh get the Penn State job. In an
email to his associates}8 Fresh wrote: ?Spoke to Rio and we?ll try to meet this week. He will

call the PS Board Chan recommend that we do the hiternal investigation.? Eleven days later,
Freeh was hired.

ln emery: Freeh did not diaclose that he had a close relationship with a Penn State alumnus

who had in?uence with the Board Chair and was also a Director on. the Board of The Second
Mile.

?No party interfered with 01' streamed to iizflaeece, the findings it: this report.?
{Fr-eels Resort is. 12)

Our review revealed active in?uence, accepted by the Freeh Group, by several

parties: The Of?ce of the Attorney General and Federal hivestigators; the 

and several high level Penn State of?cials.

as Of?ce of the Attorney General and Federal Investigators. Our review of documents
indicates that the Freeh Group spoke regularly with Sanduslcy prosecutors Frank Fina, Randy
Feathers, and Anthony Sassano, as well as Federal investigators Gordon Zubrod (U .S. Attorney?s
Of?ce) and George Venizelos (FBI). These comrmmications were occasionally by email, but
primarily in person or by telephone, and the information discussed was memorialized in emails

among the Freeh Group or in entries in the daily diary of the Fresh Group.

Approval for collaboration between the investigators and the GAG was granted by Governor
Corbett even before Fresh was hired; in an rennin,59 Tornalis hiforrned Frazier, talked with the
Governor this a?enaoon re: the ttorney General and our approach about having the outside ?rm

tall: directly with ?at office. He strongly agreed with the approach, and added that he had

21


 

ah'eady discussed the role of the committee with her. He suggested that you still reach out to her

early next week. 

There are abundant indications that law enforcement officials shared information with the Freeh

roup and that the intent was to steer the Fresh investigation in a direction that was consistent

with the prosecution?s case against Sanduslry.

The GAG prosecutors provided infonnation that disparaged individuals interviewed by the Fresh

Group:

1.

Very early in the investigation, two of the Freeh Group emailed about a telephone
conversation where Feathers spoke with one of them about a report the GAG had
received about Spanier being ?involved in a problem in a day care center and the PSU PD
covered the issue up.?613 Feathers promised to keep them informed on this matter and
suggested ?a ?get together meeting? after the holidays.? The investigator who spoke with
Feathers commented, ?Spaniel? may be a concern for our group to watch/develop.?

On at least 10 separate occasions, beginning in March 2012, DAG informed the Freeh
Group that Graham Spenier would soon be arm-zeted.61 52 53 Fina suggested questions for

the Freeh Group to ask Spanier.?

Baldwin, PSU General Counsel, was vigorously criticized. DAG told Fresh

Group investigators that Baldwin interfered with their irwestigation;66 was ?deeper in the
mix than they expected?? that the Grand Jury judge was unhappy with Baldwin?s
inconsistent statements;63 that they looked forward to a day when would be ?led
away in cuffs?? Even after the Freeh Group investigation was complete, the DAG
continued contact. In October 2012, Fina bragged about tln'eatening Baldwin: ?the ever
colorful Fina said yesterday that he has told Baldwin?s counsel that he was comfortable
putting 12 people in the box3 and being able to convict her. He also said she was
?looking at a bullet? and ?facing the Big 

Kira Belcher, secretary for Gary Schultz, was repeatedly described by DAG as a liar:
Fina told Freeh Group investigators that she lied to Freeh Group about ?everything she

saith?:i1 she ?got kicked out of police office as she was she ?is still lying to thorn

and they?re planning to charge her with obstruction ofjustice.?73 Fina also said

22
ONFDDENTIAL

.A?w?ndu?roim- 

 

 

Belcher ?got rid of stuff when Schultz left?; aad suggested she may have been sleeping
With Schultz. 75 Details from OAG interviews with Belcher were shared with the Freeh

Grotth6

. Fina discussed the Gary Schultz notes on the 1998 and 2001 incidents and speculated that
Schultz may have provided them to OAG to get immunity and added that Schultz?s
actions in regard to the two incidents were ?inappropriate at least, at most criminal



. Fina described the report by John Seasock of Department of Public Welfare which
concluded that actions in 1998 did not appear to be consistent with sexual

abuse or grooming as ?overly de?nitive? and commented that the process by which

Seasoele became involved in the case ?sun ests there is somethin noon 3?73


Apparently referring to Spaniel?, Schultz, Carley, and Paterno, Fina said ?the four of them

(hicluding Wendell Cotntney) are really in the edit??

There were multiple addition? incidents Where DAG improperly shared information with the

Freeh Group:

. Fina said he would provide the Fresh Group with copies of transcripts horn the Grand
Jury.88

Sassmo described documents obtained from Sanduslty?s hoase, which included names of
Second Mile children with asterisks, and said that when those children were interviewed,
?most admitted they had been assaulted? by 

Sassano sent information on a former Penn State administrator who subsequently worked
at The Second Mile so that the Freeh Group could interview him.32 -
Sassano disclosed information about the GAG interview of a. PSU Trustee?s son, who
was said to have information about Sandusley showering with boys.83

GAG reported to the Fresh Group in April of 2012 that they had nothing more on Joe
Paterno beyond the information already obtained by the Fresh Group.? Feathers
provided the name of an assistant coach Whom they considered to be ?the key to Paterno?
and said they planned to put additional pressure on this Fina later disclosed

details horn their interview with him, that this coach and others knew about the

23
CONFIDENTIAL

.uw- 

. 

 

MoQueary incident.86 Fina told the Freeh Group that ?lay Paterno said his father knew
about l998.?87

Our document review produced a copy of the OAG interview by Feathers of Joseph V.
Paterno, on letterhead for Office of Attorney General, Commonwealth of 
dated 10/24/1133

Fina provided the Freeh Group with updates daring Sanduslcy?s trial and said that ?the
feedback he received from jurors was that they want someone to take a ??re hose? to
Penn State and rinse away the bad that happened there.?39

After the Freeh Report was released, Fina contacted the Freeh Group to tell them that

Lisa Powers, ?'om PSU Communications of?ce, was under investigation for Withholding

habituation??

In October of 2012, well after the completion of the Freeh myestigation, Fina contacted
the Freeh Group to inform them of the imminent arrest of Spanier, and roan-est of Carley
and Schultz, on charges of obstruction of justice; in an email with sabj eot line, 
HOLD Important,? he noted, ?Spanner does not know this information yet, and his
lawyers will be advised about an hour before the charges are announced tomorrow.? Fina
thanked the Fresh Group for their help and said they were ?instrumental? in bringing this



The Freeh Group appeared to welcome this cozy relationship with DAG prosecutors:

1.

From the outset, Freeh investigators collaborated extensively with the DAG by sharmg
information, including providing interview summary notes, even for individuals who
were not suspected of criminal actions, when requested by Fina.92 A member of the
Freeh Group spoke with Jonelle Eshbaeh, identi?ed as the lead lawyer in the Sanduslcy
investigation, and said the Fresh Group ?expected to cooperate mirth her in every way we

can.?93

Very early in their investigation (February of 2012), Freeh emailed his team after they
were informed mat Penn State had received a new Grand Jury subpoena, saying, ?We

should try to melee sure the GI is not onto something new which totally ?scoops? us.
Not sore how to do that btw.?94 A few days later, one of the Freeh Group investigators

emailed to others: ?We should make certm that we determine the utility of looking into

24-
CONFEENTIAL

 

2:1. .m 

 

.. . . 

all the same areas of interest raised by the AG in subpoenas, to ensure we do not get
?scooped? (borrowing Louie?s tenn used in connection with the recent federal



3. The Fresh Group carefully reviewed docmnents forwarded by Fina that detailed the

charges against Carley and Schultz.95

A Freeh investigator told others in the group that he had heard a tumor that Spanier

would soon be charged and said he would ask Fina to con?rm.?

5. A Fresh investigator told others in the group that Fina had offered to review their report:
?He also said he was Willing to sit with us and talk to the extent he can before the
report is released it we wished for any feedback.?98

6. in an email exchange among the Freeh Group discussing the request of an interviewee to
review the stamary notes of his interview, one investi gator comments, definitely

don?t want to get cross with the AG by even appearing to help a possible target??

Contacts between the Freeh Group and Federal hivestigators were less frequent and less detailed

than those with FA DAG. Federal investigators provided updates on their hivestigation of The

Second Mile,100 complained about ?obstruction? by Penn Statef?l speculated about plea bargains

being considered by Sanduslty and SCllellIZ,102 disclosed their interest in the 2001 emails,103
10"; indicated their primary
106

disclosed that they were considering subpoena of the PSU Task Force,
focus was on The Second Mile and Trustees}105 shared information from their interviews,
expressed their belief that there were ?50 more Sanduslcy victims,?m commented on
implications for GAG case presented by Si??li'e of limitations,108 reported that they were 
closely with 0};wa and passed along Fina?s ewectation of proceeding with charging
documents against Spanier.110 In April of2012, Veniielos told a Fresh Group investigator that
he had learned Spanier had contracted to work with a national security agency; Venizelos
contacted a colleague in the FEE to say that Spanier - Whore he apparently had decided was
of some then of wrongdoing should not be working with the Bureau, and promised to

share with the Freeh Group his emails exchanged on this matter.121
The independence of the Freeh Group investigation came under question in March of 2013 after

Ryan Bagwell (who obtained do consents through the Freedom of hlfornlation Act) publicized
several emails between the Freeh Group and OAG. The Freeh Group discussed their response

25
CONFDDENTIAL

 

 

via emails and Louis Freeh agreed to this statement: ?Our communication with these o?ices in
no way irnp acted the independence of our work or the conclusions contained in our rep ort.?112
To the contrary, our close examination of the ongoing contacts between the Freeh Group and
GAG (and, to a lesser extent, Federal investigators) provides compelling indications that the
Freeh Group was in?uenced by the OAG to craft a report that was consistent with the OAG case

against Sanduslcy and implicated Penn State leaders as enabling Sandusky?s victimization of

children.

NCAA. Early in the investigation, Frazier, chair of the Special Investigative Task Force,
informed Mail; Emmett, Fresident or? the NCAA, that the Freeh Group had ?complete
independence in carrying out the investigation.?1 13 Frazier then told Fresh that Emmett ?would
like to Speak with yen in order to assess the situation {tetherinm?l A few days later, a member of
the Freeh Group reported back on his conversation vrith Eminert and recommended to Frazier
that the Freeh Group share ilrfoiniation with the NCAA and the Bi Ten to avoid duplicate

irmestigatione,115 and Frazier recommended this to the Tesla Force. i 16

After a phone conversation with NCziiA~ General Counsel Donald Remy, a member of the Freeh
Group briefed Frazier and Fl'eeh on the arrangements with the 1? explaining that the
NCAA would provide a list of what they wanted to leans, and would be invited to provide onwsite
education to the Freeh Group ?to ensure that the SIC has a solid understanding of the 
standards for determining loss of histitntional control and ethical misconduct.? it was also
reported that Remy had agreed to a plan Where ?the SIC will provide the NCAA an advance
review of any SIC interim and ?nal recommendations and any portions of the SIC report which
relate to the areas of concern.? They agreed to weekly calls with the NCAA to provide

updates. Remy said he saw the role as ?monitoring an internal investigation.?

The training of the Freeh Group occurred on January 6, 2012 via conference call,
presented by Julie Roe Lach, head of enforcement for the NCAA, using a PowerPoint
presentation titled, ?institutional Control and Unethical Cornlnot.?3?18 The training materials also
included a document titled ?Principles of lastihrtional Control as Prepared by the NCAA
on infractions?? A list of 34 search terms was provided, including: whistleblovrer,

cash covv, power coach, blind eye, retaliation, and CYA (believed to be an abbreviation for

26
CONFIDENTIAL

4 ?Manny wan-M.? 





Cover 'Your Ass, an expression conveying a defensive posture). Also provided was a list of
categories of individuals to be interviewed, including those with former and current affiliations
with Penn State athletics and football, and a list of 32 questions to be asked; the Freeh Group
incorporated all this into their hivestigative plan.220 These materials provide insight into the
mindset of the NCAA leadership even before the investigation commenced, suggesting an
interest in documenting lack of institutional control by demonstrating volitional mongdoing
involving the ?power coach? who operated a ?cash cow? program. In fact, lay Paterno (a
member of the "football coaching st? was interviewed by Fresh investigators very early in the
investigation and was smprised that most of the questions involved ?power relationships? among
Coach Joe Patezno, Ciu'ley, and Spanier; in his book he recalls his realization that the
investigation would lead to conclusions allowing an NCAA ?nding of lack of institutional

control.121

Under the best possible how could an interested party (the NCAA), who expects
to use the outcome of an investigation, be fairly and objectively involved in ?monitoring? an
independent investigation Without in?uencing the process? Does this constitute a con?ict of
interest? The answer lilcely depends on Whether clear lines were respected in the relative roles of
the NCAA and the Fresh Group. An example that suggests some line-?crossing involves an email
exchange between Remy and a member ofthe Fresh Group in December, 2011, Where Remy
requests and receives editing on a letter from the NCAA to Penn State establishing the proposed
terms of the involvement with the investigation.122 Arguably, to preserve the
independence of the investigation, Remy should have negotiated the ground rules directly udth
the University. It appears that Remy was trying to have it both ways claiming in a January
email to the Freeh Group that ?at this time the NCAA does not have an open enforcement
inquiry or hivestigation into the issues at Penn Sta?te"?123 While simultaneously maintaining an
open conduit for regular updates and advance access to the ?ndings from the Freeh mvestigation.
Certainly, it was the understanding of the Fresh Group that they were conducting an
investigation nicoiporating questions ?fom the NCAA and the Big Tea ?in lieu of them doing a
joint investigation with he??4

Based on documents produced during discovery for the Connan litigation, the public now knows

that these were not ?the best possible circumstances? due to the biased intentions of the NCAA.

27
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

We will elaborate further on this, and will provide a summary of information horn our review
that indicates reasons for the Freeh Group?s willingness to work closely with the NCAA, in

Section G, Sources of Bias.

interference by Penn State tenders, Example Keith Mass er, Vice Chair of Penn State
Board ct rErnstees. Dining the trial, Masser inexplicably gave an interview to the
Associated Press, saying that he had come to believe ?rst Penn State of?cials had covered up for
Sanduslty.125 It is dif?cult to fathom any constructive reason for making such a statement in the
midst of a criminal trial, and just a month before Freeh?s Report would he released. Are we to
believe that Masser acted tentaterally, due to a momentary lapse Or did he tslce
this step with the full lmowledge and consent of Board leadership? Masser issued an apology a.
few days later for his ?inappropriate comments.? The only public reaction from the Board was a
comment iron; a fellow Trustee, efhlsively praising Masser?s character and saying he had the
?utmost resident? for the Board?s Vice Chair.126 lithe Board lost con?dence in Masser over this
incident, it was not apparent. Six months later, Masser was elected to the chairmanship of the

081d. 12'?

Freeh readily accepted the suggestion of his employers, as conveyed by the Board Vice Chair
though the AP siticle. After receiving the article from one of his investigators in an email with
the message, ?Messer?s comments are interesting,?1323 Fresh responded to the 
and tends to raise the expectations that ?We? will inicover a ?cover up! This goes to our niaj or
?headline? and key ?ndings and recommendations exactly What the Grand Jury ?rst noted the
motivation by the most senior PSU of?cials (and perhaps the ?coach?) to move these ?had things
off campus, ignore the sufferings of the child victims, and ?help? a friend because it seemed like

the chumane? thing to do. Right nowl believe this is our main ?message.??129

interference hy Penn State tenders, Esarnpte than}; Gnadagninc, ontside l?StJ
attorney. As the investigation was Winding down, Gnadagnnio sent an email to the Fresh Group
pointing out a article on a story from Esquire, focusing on Whether Pateino knew about
the 1998 investigation he suggested the investigators follow up these leads and
samine Paterno?s calendar.131 This task was then assigned to one of the investigators. (It is

worth noting that Deodspz?n is scarcely a source of unbiased and i'eSponsihle jozn?nalistic integrity,

28
CONFBDENTLAL

 

for example, having previously published an article with a headline of, ?Joe Paterno is Full of
Shit.?132) As outside counsel, Guadagnino would have been working under the direction of high
level Penn State administrators (General Counsel Baldwhi, President Rodney Erickson)
and/or Board leadership. Certainly, as an attorney, he should have understood that providing
havestigative direction to the Fresh Group constituted hrterference with an ?independent?
investigation. Was Guadagnino directed by Penn State leaders to rnake this recommendation to

the Fresh Groap?

interference by Penn State leader's, Example trestee Eden Frasier, Chair of Board
Special; investigation 'l?ash Force. hi June cf2012, with the Fresh Report being dialled,
Frazier forwarded an amide}33 sploring the question ct" Why Sandusley was not stopped earlier;
the article concluded, andusky was allowed to exist because no one dared challenge the power
of Penn State or Paterno, no one wanted to threaten the legacy of the football powerhouse and
the great man himself.? Frazier commented in the email, happen to ?nd this ESPN piece by
Howard Bryant well mitten and well reasoned. It focuses on the larger lessons to be learned

from excessive respect for ?icons" (Coach Paterno and PS 

Fresh wrote to his team, ?Follows on nicely to our discussion yesterday and tends to answer Why
protecting the children was always the second thought.?335 One of the Fresh investigators "mote
the others, ?The below Howard Bryant article that Ken Frazier passed along over the weekend is
indeed interesting, in that it shows that undoubtedly many people (in and outside of the

University) are expecting our report to state that the ?why? for the failure to report was the desire
to protect Paterno and the ib program.? However, he adds that since they had no opportunity to
interview the principals, they should avoid speculation and focus only on the facts. 136 Another
member ofthe team agreed, saying that they could explain the WHAT and the HOW but not the
WHY, ?since only the principals truly know.?237 Freeh responded, understand there is a
stronger case to be made for ?orotectina the university? than IP or the progran? which is

never really articulated in any credence Ihave seen?138 (emphasis added).

And yet, the Freeh Report included motivation to protect the University from bad publicity 
and paired "that with a list of causal factors, including a condemation ofPenn State?s ?culture of

reverence for the football 

29
CONFIDENTIAL

 

This was the single instance we identi?ed of Frazier sending an article, his own
commentary, to the Fresh Group. As chair of the Special hivestigative Task Force, which hired
Fresh and oversaw the investigation, his parapeotive certainly carried immense weight. What
could have been Frazier?s purpose in sending this communication, if not to in?uence the content
of the Freeh Report? Despite the misgivings of investigators, including Freeh?s own
acknowledgement that they had not found evidence that Sanduslcy was purposely ignored to

protect Pateino and the football program, Frazier?s peI?Speetive found its way into the Report.

??re work product Was not shared with anyone who was not part of size Specter? fawsz?r?gar?ive
Corozsel?s ferret.? (lit-eel} Report, p. 12)

Our review indicates that L?ormation gathered in the hivestigatzion was regularly shared with

individuals outside the Freeh Group.

@it?iee at the attorney General and Federal investigators. The Free]:. Group

Openly and regularly shared information with OAG and Federal investigators throughout the

investigation. 140

NCAA and Big 'l?en. Enh'ies in the Fresh Group diary?I indicated that a standing call was set
up in early January 2012 to brief the NCAA and Big Ten each Friday, and that regular updates
were provided tln'oaghoot the investigation. Both NCAA. and Big Ten requested Speci?c

information as the investigation progressed, and the Freeh Group appears to have provided that

information.

Penn State leaders. Regular updates were provided to the Penn State Special Investigative Task
Force, primarily with Task Force leaders Ken Frazier and Ronald 'l?onaalis.?2 One diary entry
re?ects Freeh reminding the group that Frazier had asked for updates when new hiforniation
arose, and a plan was made for one of the tears. to call Frazier to apprise him of the latest
?ndings.?3 On May 2, as the investigation was close to complete, the full Task Force was
briefed. Notes in the Fresh Group diary re?ect the discussion; the Trustees were told the ?report
Will impact more on Schultz and Carley? and Trustees expressed that the Board was ?concerned
about conspiracy?? In early June, a brie?ng was provided via conference call to the entire

Task Force, the Board?s Executive Committee, and President Rodney The focus

3 
CONFIDENTIAL

- 



-



Was primarily on the implementation of compliance recommendations; Board chair Karen Peetz
wanted to be able to ?sync up recommendations With proactive changes? already made by the

Board. There was also extensive discussion of the plan for releasing the Report.

The fall Board was briefed on the status of the investigation on April 9 via conference call.146
The information session was led by Frazier and Tornah's, who were prepared by Freeh. An
emailm between Fresh and a lead investigator laid out the points for Frazier and Tornalis. The
primary focus was the discovery of ?certain critical and extremely sensitive emails between key
parties involving What appears to be the McQueary Shower Incident.? Brie?ng points also
included: ?The parties to the emails consciously decided not to report the matter to the
authorities, and appreciated and accepted the risk of not reporting? deepite apparently seeming to
?believe that conduct was severe enough (as opposed to there ?horse?play?) as to
decide to offer Sandusky assistance in getting ?professional help. Another bullet point noted,
?Joe Pa?tetno was consulted by one ofthe parties before making a ?nal suggestion regarding the
course of action.? The eznm?l with the briefing agenda included a note suggesting that, ?One
additional statement Ken may ~want to make is that there is a possibility that one ofthe parties to
the emails who has not yet been indicted may he? [apparently a reference to Spanier].

A brie?ng was provided to a group ofPenn State?s attorneys midway through the investigation,

focused particularly on the emails and a discussion of the implications raised by the emails.148

?The Special ?rvesz?z?gaz?ive Counsel revealed this report and the ?ndings herein to the Board
of Trainees and the general public at the some time. No advance copy was provided to the
Board or to raw other person outside of?ze Special ?rvestigai?ive Counsel?s tantra.?

(Ereeh Rep Cart, p. 12)

Our review demonstrates that advance copies of the Report were to be provided to the NCAA,

the Big Ten, and to Frazier and Tornalis, leaders of the Task Force. Gnadagnino also appears to

have been briefed regarding the Report?s ?ndings.

arena and Rig Ten. The original arrangements vei?dr the NCAA, as described above, included
?an advance review of any SIC interim and ?nal recommendations and any portions of the SIC
report which relate to the areas of concern.?149 In keeping that arrangement, Fresh

Group diary entries re?ect repeated reminders to ful?ll that plan by providing an advance copy

3 


 

of the Report to the NCAA and the Bi Ten no later than 24 hours prior to the formal Report

released?

Penn State leaders. The Freeh Group diary shows plans for providing a ?nal draft of the Report
to Frazier and Tornalis, who wanted the opportunity to ?provide constructive in
May, a diary entry describes ,a reqaest ?om Geadagnino3 who asked for ?a discussion about What

the report is going to say;? a subsequent entry documents a date set for that conversation.15Z
Report release

Fresh press conference

Freeh?s press conference, held in concert with the release of the Report: was more of a media
circus than a sober, professional communication of ?ndings front an hives?ga?don. (See
Appendix 3.1: Freeh press conference: Media Circus.) This was perhaps not surprising given
that Freeh was hired over another candidate because Frazier believed he was ?more at ease with
the media side of things?sg? The press conference was planned by Kelcst, a public relations ?rm
hired speci?cally for this purpose, and Fresh was carefully prepared by the PR team.154

The press conference appears to have been designed to produce the greatest media impact and to

reduce the ability of reporters to fully yet the 267-page Report:

The date was a slow news day for Sports reporters, just following the MLB All-?Star
Game.

The chosen date was shortly before the Olympics, and reporters would soon be traveling
to London, and be distracted horn conducting a close review of the Report.

The location of the press conference was not University Park, but Philadelphia, allowing
greater access for reporters.

The Report was to be released on a website at 9 and. Leaked docmnents, published by an
online news source almost 8 hours before the press conference, predicted an
?unexpected? website crash that prevented the release of the Report until Penn State did
a mass emailing at 9:10 amiss From the leaked document: ?9:05 Thank you for

bearing its. Apparently there have been some difficulties with the website. We are

32


-. . 

working to email the Report as soon as we can. Please bear with us a bit longer.
Meanwhile we have copies of Mr. Freeh?s statemen The predicted website crash did
in fact. occur on schedule, and Freeh?s statement}56 was distributed to reporters, who
used that infomia'tion as their only source and quickly sent out their initial reports.
a One of the leaked documents was a set of responses for do A, providing advance
knowledge that Freeh would justify the ?rings of Spanier and Paterno, along Wi??i his
opinion that Paterno did not do ?all he should have? to report the allegations of abuse.
Fresh tool: the podium to respond to reporters? questions at 10 and, before it was possible

for them to fully review the Report.

To reiterate: A. ohonv website crash appears to have been engineered to prevent reporters from
having access to the Report, forcing: them to relv on his written statement:? which was ?lled with
in?ammatorv versions of the Report?s findings (See Appendix 3.2: Fresh press conference

statements: Ettore.) Were Penn State leaders complicit?

Penn State leadersi response

A few hours after Freeh?s press conference, Penn State President Rodney Erickson, Board of
Trustees Chairman Karen Peetz and Task Force chair Ken Frazier held their own press
conference. Peetz spoke on behalf of the Board, accepting ?full teaponsibility for the faihu?es

that occurred.? Frazier said, ?We are deeply ashamed.?157

Statements by Penn State and by Freeh a?lnaed that no one outside the Freeh Group was given
information in advance of the 9 am release on the day of the press conference. Did Penn State
leaders get advance copies of the Report, as was re?ected in the planning notes of the Freeh
Group? Or, instead, did the};r receive the Repelt at the same time as the public and then make
statements accepting the Fresh Report conclusions before they could have had sufficient time to

review and consider the Report? Either possibility has troubling implications.

33
CONFDDENTIAL

 

.-.-..-.



 

ea. Summary and coeetesioes

Our review indicates that the investigative and reporting methodology used in the Freeh Report

Were seriously ?awed.

4.

The Freeh Group used interview methodology that was prone to cum; subject to
conscious and unconscious bias of irzvestigators, and involved coercion of interviewees.
hidependence of the Freeh hivestigatioo was compromised by in?uence 

a. Of?ce of Attomey General and Federal investigators

b. NCAA and Big Ten

0. Penn State leaders
Connery to their own statements, the Freeh Group regularly provided information about
the oegoiizg investigation to:

a. Of?ce of Attomey General and Federal investigators

13. NCAA arid Big Ten

0. Perm State leaders
Contrary to their om statements, the Freeh Group shared their conclusions in advance of
the Report release with:

a. NCAA and Big Tea

in. Pearl State leaders
The release of the Report was designed to prevent thoughtful analysis by repmters so that

Freeh?s in?ammatory statements would predominate in media coverage.

34


 

 

i7. Bocunsentai?v Evidence Regasding Mates Eonetusions ot? hi'eeh
Report

In this section, {are review the infonnation and inteipretations used in the Freeh Report to support

the major conclusions, and provide material from the investigation Source Materials that is

contrary to the major conclusions.

The ireeh Report provides explanations ?'oni Spanier, Schultz, Pateino, and Culley for the

?reasons for taldng no action to identify the February 9, 2001 child victim and for not reporting

Sanduslary to the authorities:

Through comisel, Curley and Schultz stated that the ?hurnane? thing to do in 2001 was to
care??ly and reapousibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations.
According to their 001111381, these men were good people trying to do their best to make
the right decisions.

Paterno told a reporter that didn?t know how to handle it and Ivvas afraid to do
something that nzight jeopardize What the university procedure was. So I backed away
and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more
experience than I did. It didn?t work out that way.?

Spanier said, in his haterview with the Special Investigative Counsel, that he never heard
a report from anyone that Sandusky was engaged in any sexual abuse of children. He

also said that if he had known or suSpected that Sanduslcy was abusing children, he would

have been the ?rst to 

The Fresh Report continues, ?Taking into account the available Witness statements and evidence,
the Special Investigative Counsel ?nds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to
avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most power?il leaders at the University Spaniez?,
Schultz, Pateruo and Carley repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky?s child
abuse hour the authorities, the University?s Board of Trustees, the Penn State comrulity, and

the public at large.?59

The Fresh Report details a list of ?causes? for this, including ?a stinging lack of empathy for
child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the University;?160 ?a decision by Spanier,

35
CONFDDENTIAL

 

- - -

 

Schultz, Paterno, and Carley to allow Sandusley to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child
predator, but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy essentially granting him
license to bring boys to campus facilities for ?grooming? as targets for his ?a culture

of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus eonniuinity.?362

Ell, ?Spar/gist; Sonatas, Persians and ?irrley repeatedly concealed eritieai?
feces relating to Sentinels); ?s child sense?

?From the authorities?? Supporting informanion/interpretations

The Freeh Report relies primarily on a sequence of emails to suggest that an initial action plan
(to nifonn Sandusky he could not bring children to the football facilities, to inform the director
of The Second Mile about this decision, and to report to the Department of Public Welfare 
was subsequently changed to not contact DPW unless Sandu'sky was uncooperative
with the other elements of the planm? An intervening event between the two emails was Carley
?giving it more thought and talking it over with loeg,?155 the Freeh Report includes references to
information gained from interviews indicating that Carley was subservient to Paterno and
making the inference that Pateino may have pressured Carley to change the plan and not report

to 113de

Spinner agreed to the proposed change in plan, adding, ?The only downside for us is if the
message isn?t ?heard? and acted upon, and We then become vulnerable for not having reported it.
But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable
way to proceed.?167 The Fresh Report interprets this as an indication that Spanier, Schultz, and

Carley decided to report Sandusky?s conduct to The Second Mile but not to DPW.153

Schultz also agreed to the change in plan, Willi a quali?cation: can suppoit this approach, with
the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or Without his cooperation (I think
that?s What Tim proposed). We can play it by ear to decide about the other organizaiion.?169 The

Freeh Report infers that ?the other organization? is ?313de

The Fresh Report states that documents in Schultz?s office ?had been Withheld from the Special
Investigative Counsel.??l There is no mention ofwho udthheld these materials but the
implication appears to be that Schultz was attempting to conceal them.

3 6
CONFEENTIAL

 

?From the authorities? Contrarv information/interpretations

Interpretation of emails. The emails discussing planned responses to the 2001 report of
Sanduslry showering with a child were not de?nitive in terms of demonsnating What exactly
Penn State o??icials understood about the incident. Freeh inhestigators acknowledged this; in an
entry in the work diary, they ask, ?What evidence that they lmew it was more drain horseplay??m

Certainly, the Fresh Group should have fully considered all relevant information before coming

to any conclusions about the accurate meaning contained in the emails.

Spanier interview, In his interview with the Fresh Group, Spanier said he had not been told
about anything of a sexual nature in conduct saith the youth in the shower, and given
his own background (having been abused as a child) he believed he would have taken action had
he known that Sentinel-{37? actions crossed the line; he believed the idea of octuiseling for
Sanclushy was to address Sandusky?s fajita-e to recognize that showering with kids was
inappropriate, not because he thought Sanduslcy was molesting children; the ?only downside? 1n
the email referred to Curley?s concern that Sanduslq did not work for Penn State and they could
not dictate to him and therefore he might not comply with the request to stop bringing Second

Mile kids to campus, which would require them to revisit the situation later.173 17?

Spanier stated that Wendell Courtney, PSU outside counsel, told him that Schultz had consulted
Courtney on child abuse reporting laws and that Spanier was not present at that meeting;
Courtney told Spanier that if he (Courtney) had believed Sanduslty?s conduct had constituted

abuse, Courtney would have informed Spanier directly at the time.

Spanier also disclosed that after he informed Schultz and Carley that he was stepping down horn

his position as University president, each independently told him he was being monged because

they never reported to him anything that would constitute abuse.?5

As the Fresh Group discassed their turtlerstandmg of their interview with Spanier, Freeh eel-red,
?How does this relate to the My: Spanier says had anyone told him about molesting he would
have gotten involved; how consistent with evidence that he must have been told about allegation
of sexual conduct? Or, is he telling the tratlr??ml?i6 Here we see that the Freeh Group recognized

that Spanier?s statements were not consistent with their narrative, especially in regard to their

37
CONFEENTIAL

 

 

insertion of motivations behind the idea that Penn State ohicials concealed information that

Sanduslcy was molesting childree.

Federal high security clearance investigation oi? Spanier. Spanier?s Federal high security
clearance, held since 1995, was temporarily suspended due to events surrounding Penn State?s
response to Sandusky?s arrest?? and Spanier was rednvestigated by Special Investigator John
Siieddeii from February 6 to May 8, 2012. Spanier informed the Fresh investigators of this
report?s availability, and the investigators made a note to obtain it,173 yet no mention. of this
hivestigatiori appears in the Freeh Report. The Federal investigation is notable because: 
passed a polygraph and was interviewed under oath; Schultz and Carley were interviewed;
?ndings from the hivestigatiOii led to a renewal of high secta?ity clearance, concluding:
?The circumstances surrounding [Sp?mi?fS] departure from his position as PSU president do not
cast doubt on [Spanier?s] oturen?t reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast

doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security irrioraratioamw

Using interviews turd documentary evidence, Suedden specifically and directly investigated the
events the 2001 incident and the respoeses of University leaders to this incident and

to Sanduslty?s arrest. Important information in the Federal high secru'itw clearance report:

a From Spasiier?s irrterview statements or: 2001 incident: Carley and Schultz told him
Saaduslry had been seen showering with a Second Mile kid; Spanier believed at that time
that The Second Mile served only adolescents; the usidentilied reporter ?was not sure
What he saw because it was around the corner? and ?What he saw was described as ?horse
play? or ?horsing aroaadf? Spaniel? asked if that was how it was described, said if that
was all, and was told yes; all agreed this was inappropriate and that Carley would tell
Saaduslty and The Secorid Mile that children from the charity could not be brought to
campus; a few days later Curley reported the discussions had taken place; ?The issue
never came up again. It did riot appear very signi?caht at the time,?

In his interview, Schultz stated: McQueary was uncomfortable after seehag Saadoslcy
with a hid ?horsirig around and wrestling? in the shower arid ?did not say anything of a

sexual nature tool: placeg? Schultz, Sprinter, and Carley agreed jointly this was

3 8
CONFDDENTLAL

 

.M - 

 

inappropriate but not criminal; Schultz recalled a decision to report to Depainnent of
Public Welfare but was not sure who had made the report.

Then University President Erickson was interviewed and said he trusted Spanier?s
judgment and Spanier was reSponsible and reliable; said ?Spender is collateral damage in
all this.?

At the time of Sandusky?s arrest, Schultz called Steve Garban, Chair of the Board of
Trustees, and told him Spanier did notlolow of anything beyond ?horsing around,?
according to Garban?s interview.

From his interview, Torn Poole, PSU Vice President for Administration, described being
in Spanier?s of?ce when Schultz rushed in to relate that Mcheary had testi?ed he had
told Schultz about sexual activity between Sanduslty and the youth in the shower; Schultz
was shocked, said McQueary had never told hire of anyming sexual; Poole ?believed it

appeared there was a lot of disbelief in the room regarding this informatics.?

In a subsequent news interview, Special Investigator Snedden described Spanier as completely
credible and stated, ?There was no covernp. There was no conSpiracy. There was nothing to

cover up.?130

Horseplay: interview data. Interviews re?ect multiple reports of the 2001 incident as

consisting of ?horseplay? or minor, nonabusive conduct by Sanduslqr.

Several internewees spoke about McQueary?s report to Patenio, noting that the information
shared was vague and nonspeci?c. A friend said McQueary told him that he (McQueary) told
Paterno about seeing Ssnduslcy in the shower with a young boy. From the hitewiew notes:
?Mcheary told [friend] was a little vague with what I told Joe? and added ?lce wouldn?t
understand.? Mcheary believed this was because of Paternc?s age. McQueary also said the
Grand Jury misrepresented What he saw to the general public because he never said ?anal

rape ??131

A former football player believed that Paterno?s oldwfashioned attitude may have played a role in
McQueary?s decision about What to report to Paterno, and added, ?Joe was as close to being a

priest as a priest an especially concerning discussions of girls and sea.?132 A senior administrator

39
CONFEENTLAL

 

 

 

expressed a similar opinion, describing Paterno as a good Catholic who ?may not have wanted to

go there? and didn?t understand the seriousness of the situation.183

A friend of the McQueary family said that Mike knew and respected Sanduslcy. and would have
been ?shocked and embarrassed? about disclosing any misconduct to Paterno. l-ie said he
believed that ?Mike probably didn?t commsicate things properly and would have been

?reluctant to say things 5063,9134

Trustees said that Spanner185 and Schultz136 told the Board they had been given reports of
?horseplay? or ?homing around.? Another Trustee said that ?Spanier was an ethical person with
lines you didn?t cross. He thought that Spanier wasn?t aware of the level of the problem with the

Sanduslty hivestigation or he interpreted it 

The attorney for The Second Mile said Carley had told TSM Director Rayleovitz that Sanduslty

had showered with a youth which was deemed inappropriate but not serious misconduct. 133

A senior administrator wi?i decades of experience at Penn State discounted the idea that Penn
State officials were given explicit infonnation about Sandoslcy?s misconduct: is of the
opinion that the entire public scenario of the Sanduslry case makes no sense. The scenario
indicates a cover up by Joe Paterno, Tint Carley, and Gary Schultz after Mcheary told all of
them about the rape of a young boy by Sandusky. The cover up would require all of die of?cials
to make a joint decision to keep the incident quiet to avoid embarrassment and would depend on
McQueary not telling anyone else. What does make sense, according to [the adminisuator], is
that McQueary was not clear in describing the incident to Paterno, Carley, or Schultz and [he] is
con?dent that neither Carley nor Schultz would peijtne themselves about the situation. [He] said
John Dranov diSpntes McQueaijr?s statement and Dranov was supposedly present when
McQueary told his father of the incident. Dranov claims he asked MoQueary three times if he
observed seas: and McQueary reaperided that he did not.? He added that he was ?con?dent that it
Courtney attorney] were in the ioop on McQueaiy?s intonnation, he would have advised
[Spaniel] to report it to authorities. Courtney would not try to protect the University or the

football team if he was aware of the incident.?139

40
CONFDDENTIAL

a. kaM.m?' .c

.. 

 



 

Oar thorough and systematic review of interview data did not produce a single instance of
anyone reporting having been told by Spanier, Schultz, Curley, or Paterno of any explicit or
serious by In contrast, there are multiple reports of vague, nonspeci?c

descriptions of ?horseplay? or other minor acts.

Relevance of 1998 investigation of sex ahose allegations against The Fresh
Report cites Jerry Laure, caseworker for the Department of Public Welfare, as concluding that no
sexual assault occurred.190 Freeh investigators interviewed key individuals involved in the 1998
hivestigation, as well as law enforcement of?cials who vouched for the skill and integrity of
those who conducted the investigation. Reports lions all hitei'viewees consistently supported the
conclusion that there was no indication that law enforcement or child services professionals were
aware of any illegal misconduct by Sanduslty (see Append'm 2.1: Interview Analysis and

Summary: 1998 investigation. of allegations of sex abuse against 

Contemporaneous emails con?rm that the understanding in 1998 was that Sanduslty?s behavior
was not criminal. An email from Penn State?s police chief, Tom Harmon, to Gary Schultz
stated: ?The DPW investigator and our of?cer met discreetly with Jerry this morning. He was
advised since there was no criminal behavior established that the matter was closed as an
investigation?? 3 Schultz ?ien emailed Culley and cOpied Spanier and Harmon to relate this
news: ?They met with Jerry on Monday and concluded ?iere was no criminal behavior and the

matter was closed as an investigation. lthinl: the matter has been appropriately investigated

and lhope it is now behind ns.?192

Whereas the Fresh Report implies that awareness of the 1998 hivestigation would suggest
?loiowledge? that was a pedophile, it is also possible that the outcome of that
investigation no charges were ?led due to insufficient evidence?3 might reasonably lead to
an assumption that Sandaslty was NOT a pedophile. The Freeh Group discussed whether
knowledge of the 1998 allegations should have led to conclusions that the 2001 incident was
indicative of abuse, and agreed that such lorowledge was ?not probative?g?l
iamning training to ll?reeh Group on identi?cation of ?pillar of the community? child sex
o?'enders. Kenneth V. Lancing is retired from 30 years ?Wll'll the FBI as ?dreir premier expert in
child molestation cases and was hired by the Freeh Groop to train the tom?s investigators in this

4 
CONEIDENTIAL

 

specialized area. A full day training was provided on December 13, 20ll (see Appendix 4:
Kenneth Lancing, FBI Expert in Child Sex Abuse: Training Provided to Fresh Group,
December 13, 2011).

It appears that the Freeh Group completely failed to 131211428 use of this training, which contained

the following very pertinent information:

i. Lansing provided infomaticn consistent with the interpretation that Jerry Sanduslcy was
a ?pillar of the community" offender whose stance in the community blinded people to
the possibility he could be banning children; this idea was not included in the Fresh
Report.

2. Lancing provided information indicating that youtheerving organizations along with
law enforcement, child protective services, and society and the media are commonly
zmaware of the ways to recognize acquaintance offenders; the possihility that Penn State
of?cials may have rmintentionally failed to understand Sandasky?s actions as abusive is
not included in the Fresh Report.

3. Leaning provided infonna?tion to guide youth?serving organizations in obtaining quali?ed
consultation when creating policies to protect children emphasizing the need for
consultants to be knowledgeable about acquaintance victimization; this was not included
in the Freeh Report recommendations.

4-. Leaning provided guidelines for conducting investigations of child sex abuse, and
emphasized the importance of evaluating infomation and carefully corroborating reports
before making conclusions; the Fresh Report disregards information contrary to the
conclusions rather than qualifying the conclusions.

5 . Lanning cautioned that media reports on child sex victimization cases are often
inaccurate and motivated by competing interests (getting ratings, ?lling time); the Fresh
Group read media reports uncritically and allowed themselves to be in?uenced by

sensationalistic accounts based on questionable ?ndings.

No reports of anyone Easing asked to suppress hnotsiedge of Sandashy?s actions: inteiviesv
data. There was not a single instance of any interidewee reporting having been asked to conceal

information about Sandusky engaging in inappropriate conduct with children.

42
CONFDDENTIAL

Characters of Spanies?, Schultz, Carley, and Patents: Interview data (see Appendix 2.2:
interview Analysis and Summary: Were the characters of Spasiet', Schultz, Carley, and
Patches coesisteet with coverieg up to protect a pedophile?) Only 9 of the 132 hiterviewees
cementing 011 the characters of any of these four men were critical; 93% of respondents
conveyed consistent praise for their ethics and commihheht to the highest standards of personal
and iostitutional behavior. Trustees described Spanier as ?an ethical person with lines you didn?t
cross? and ?the roost morally upstaodhig man I have ever met.? Schultz was described by-
Trustees as ?a straight arrow who always took the right road? and who was ?one of the ?nest
men [he?s] ever been associated with.? Carley was described by a Trustee as ?one of the most
honest peeple you could ever ?nd? and a icimer football player ctorently working in college
Sports compared him to other athletic directors saying ?no one has a hi ghee level of hitegrity than
Tim Carley.? Patemo?s integrity was praised by Trustees, faculty, colleagues in athletics, and
former players: ?The ?Patemo Way? included ethics, integrity, public service, and academics;?
?a true visionary? who held everyone to a high code of conduct; ?a tough disciplinai'iaag?
?Patemo would challenge you do do it the right way,? challenge anyone to show me a person

who has done more for the Uoiversity or the community than Joe Patemo.?

Intewiew data compellihgl'y support that Spahier, Schultz, Carley, and Patemo were all men who

behaved with the highest hitegrity in their personal and professional roles.

Patemo met repostieg obligatioes. Patemo was homcdiately praised for repo?ing the
allegations against Sahdusky to his superiors. ?T?enri State head footba? coach Joe Patemo did
the right thing and reported an eye?wimess report of child sex abuse by Jerry Sanduslry the
football locker room in 2002,1 according to the indictment released this morning by the State

Attomey General.?195

Penn State policy in effect hi 2001 was mitten for sexual assault of students, but not of children;
the sexual assault policyr required coeseot of the victim for a report to be made, or in the few
situations where a report was required even Without the Victim?s consent, it was required that the

Victim be informed. 19 5 This presented a problem, as Patersio did hot know the identity of the

 

1 Originally, there was confusion. over the date of the shower incident observed by Mike
McQaeaiy; this was later corrected to be 2001.

43
CONFIDENTIAL

 

victim. A conservative approach was to repoit the incident to his superior, Carley (the Athletic

Director), and to the head of campus police, Schultz.

In a written statement Patemo prepared before being dismissed by the Board, and made public in.
June of2012, he described his actions in 2001: ?Paterno said that he told McQueary ?he had
done the right thing and that I would take the appropriate next step. Aftex consideration, I
deteuuined that, given Sandushy?s status as a retired employee govemed by a retirement package
negotiated with the adminish'atiou, I had no authority to act directly. The next day, in
accordance with University policy, I contacted the head of my department and related what was
told to me. That was the last time the matter was brought to my attention until this hivestigatioc

and I assumed that the men I refeu'ed it to handled the matter appropriately. ?"97

The NCAA changed their reporting policy in 2014. to require the exact actions taken by Patterns
in 200]. The new policy emphasizes that athletic departments must not become involved in
investigations into reports of sexual assault, and instead must ?repeat immediately shy suspected

sexual violence to appi'OpIiate campus offices for hivestigation and adjudication??3

Patemo ?8 statement upon his retirement ?With the bene?t of hindsight, I Wish I had done
more? - has been Widely misinteipteted as an admission of guilt for having failed in his i'epo?ing
obligations. Within the contest of the hill statement, it is apparent this is the compassionate
response from a deeply moral man who was sori'oudul about Sauduslty?s victimization of
children and Who was committed to the best of the University: am absolutely
devastated by the developments in this case. I grieve for the children and their families, and I
pray for their comfort and relief. lhave come to work every day for the last 61 years with one
clear goal in mind: To serve the best haterests of this universiur and the young men who have
been entiusted to my care. lhave the same goal today. That?s Why 1 have decided to announce
my retirement e?ec?ve at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should
not spend a singie mieute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to
address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can. This is a tragedy. it is one of the

great son?ows oftuy life. With the bene?t of hindsight, I Wish I had dose more.?399

4.4
CONFIDENTIAL

?em??H 

"ma?anahm

.

A

'WA?kf?: scam-z

2's:

Schultz file: Con?dential hut not secret. Schultz retired from his position as Senior Vice
President for Finance and Business in 2009. The con?dential ?le on Sanduslry was left in his

of?ce; his successor, Al Horvath, along math several administrative assistants, had access to it.

If Schultz had participated in a coverup of actions, Why would he not have
destroyed the tile on this matter when he retired, rather than allowing the possibility that
his successor could ?nd it?

In September 2011, Schultz was rehired on an emergency basis until a replacement could
be found for Al l-loiyath. Back in his old of?ce, Schultz had access to the tile on the
2001 incident. After testifying before the Grand Jury 9 months before, he was certainly
aware that his actions in 2001 might come under scrutiny. If he had indeed been
involved in a coverup, why did he not at that time destroy or remove the ?le documenting
the decisions made in 2001??

Schultz testi?ed before the Grand Jury in January 201 1 that he might have kept notes
about the 2001 hicident. (1) Baldwin was present for his testimony. My did she not
search for the ?le in order to share it with law enforcement of?cials? (2) Fresh
investigators reviewed testimony.280 How could they think he was Withholding

information about his records when he had testi?ed under oath to the possibility of their

existence?

The Freeh Group work diary contains notes on a discussion With DAG prosecutor Fina, who
provided an account of events involving Schultz?s administrative assistant Kim
Belcher and the handling of the con?dential ?le on Sanduslqr. Fina said: (1) Schultz told
Belcher the ?le was ?sacrosanct and secret? (2) Belcher may have been sleeping with Schultz;
(3) Schultz (whose attorney provided the ?le to DAG in April of 2012) ?may have presented the
papers to get immunity,? (4-) ?nories are being put together to match each other,? apparently a
clairn that Schultz and Belcher were conspiring; (5) Schultz had ?profound control over 98
investigations inappropriate at least, at most criminal conduct.?201 The Freeh Group appeared
to have accepted Edna?s interpretation of events Without considering diet it was illogical that
Schultz would have testi?ed to the possible existence of a ?le that was accessible to others a

?le that he could have destroyed if, in fact, he had intended to conceal this information.

45
CONFDJENTIAL

 





. ?can-L1,; 

There is no indication that Schultz concealed the existence of the ?le,

Was a report made to Children and Youth Services in 2001:? Our document review produced
notes made by the Freeh Group showing their review of information related to the 2001

allegationsmg

Email from Wendell Cotn'tney (Penn State outside counsel) to Baldwin in January 2011:
?We don?t have any ?le on the mettei' you and I discussed yesterday, and my recollection of
events is as I stated yesterday. However, I also recall that someone (i don?t think this was me,
since if it was I would have mitten documentation of contact) contacted Children and Youth
Services to advise of the situation so that they could do whatever they thought was eppi?Opi?iate
under the circumstances, While beinU apprised of what PSU actions were, advising 38 to no

longer bring kids to football locker rooms.?
Excerpts from Schultz?s Gremd Jury testimony:

A: So I believe Tin: to len?y that that tyqae of thing
should not be occurring in the ?llm?e. It also have a.
recollection that we asked the child protective agency to look
into the matter.

Q: It?s your testimony that you believed the 20 02 incident was
repoited to the same agency, that child protective selyiees
agency, for an investigation as the ?98 one had been?

A: That?s my recollection, yes. (Preliininaiy Hearing trans. at 212,215)

Did the Freeh romp melee any attempt to investigate the independent, and consistent, recollections
of Ceintney and Schultz that a report to Children and Youth Seiyices was made in 2001?? On:
review did not produce any hidication that they pursued this possibility, nor did we ?nd any

information that reihtes this possibility.

evaluation of 1998 slieged victim hy dohn Seasoeii. As part of the hivestigetion
of the 1998 allegations against licensed counselor John Seasock conducted a fennel

evaluation of the alleged child Victim. This evaluation included interviews of the

46


.. 

 

child, along with a review of police and Children and Youth Services interviews. The report

concludes, ?It does not appear that a sexual victimization occurred directly between [child] and

Jerry Sanduslry.?203 Important excerpts hora the report:

?No evidence of threat, manipulation, or force designed to elicit sexual
behavior.?

Child ?disclosed no discomfort with the situation givih Jerry r10 opportraiity to alter
his behavior.?

?The reported wrestling was more iridicative ofhorseplay, consistent with the
developmental behavior of a young adolescent.?

Simduslqr ?did eat evident sexual arousal.?

Another coach was present is. the locker room: inconsistent with pedophile behavior.
?The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sauduslry is directly consistent with What can be seen
as an expected daily of being a football coach. This evaluator spoke to
various coaches ?'om high school and college football teams and asked about their
locker room behavior. Through verbal reports from these coaches it is not tmcou?inion
for there to shower with the players. This appears to he a Widespread acceptable
situation, sad it appears that Mr. Saaduslty followed through with patterhiag that he
has probably done Without thought for many years. lbelieve the mistake that was
made was that Mr. Sauduslcy did root take into account the pre~adolescent age of this
boy and the level of sexual development that he was at.?

No staring, no prolonged touching, which are typical behaviors of pedophiles.

?Nor does it appear that this young gentleman has been placed is a situation where he
is being groomed for future sexual behavior.?

?One must be careful not to quicldy assume that a sexual Victimization occurred and
then set forth to ?nd factual information to support such ideatiori, but should gather
all facts ?rst and their malice a deteiihinatiori to What has been presented.?
Seasoch recommended a conversation with Serrduslry to help him understand
commuoity sensitivities about adults showering with children. ?The of the
conversation oath Mr. Sahduslry is not to cast dispersion upon his actions but to help
him stay out of such gray areas the future.?

4-7
CONFIDENTIAL

 

'Wm' .. .. _v ?him?. . . . . .. 

 

 

The fact that a trained mental health professional could conduct a careful evaluation of the
situation and conclude that Sanduslcy?s behavior fell into a ?gray area? but was not abusive
should have been considered by the Freeh Group as an indication that people who did NOT have
this training ?w Spanier, Schultz, Carley, and Paterno might similarly have been unable to

identify Sanduslry as a predator.

Sandeslry and "the Second Mile

At the time of the 2001 incident, was no longer employed by Penn State and was
working with his charity, The Second Mile; his activities included ?rndraising as well as working
directly with children. The charity?s CEO, Jack Rayhoyitz, was a licensed Why
was Rayltovitz unable to detect that Sanduslcy was abusing the charity?s child clients? Raylcoyitz
came under criticism by Second Mile Board members for not appropriately intonaing them
about the 2001 incident, as well as about the 2008 Clinton County allegations, which were
determined to be valid accusations of abuse by child protection professionals?? Why did the
Freeh Report fail to mention that the licensed who was a mandated reporter, failed

to perceive that Sandaslcy was engaged in misconduct with the agency?s child clients?

history as a foster and adopt-lye parent: Repeatedly screened lay child services
professionals. A news article shortly ?rst arrest deson'bed the ?very stringent
screening process? the Sandusley family would have raidergone to become licensed foster and
adoptive parents?? ?Long before his arrest this month on 40 charges related to child sex abuse,
Sanduslcy successfully navigated the system?s various background checks to become the
adeptive father of ?ve sons and a daughter, a foster parent, a host for a half?dozen Fresh Air
Fund children from New York City and a congressional honoree as an ?Angel in Adoption.?
Court records show Sanduslqr and his wife, Dottie, were designated to coordinate visits with his

grandchildren as recently as last year when one son?s marriage began to disintegrate.?

Those who knew Sanduslry were well aware of his role as an adoptive and foster parent, as he
was ?'eqneatly accompanied by children, and likely recognized that he had been screened by

child services professionals on multiple occasions,

48
CONFEENTZAL

 

 

 

?From the Univeisitv?s Board of?'zisz?eesf? Supporting informanon/interpretations

Supporting infonnation provided in the Freeh Rep cit includes criticism of Spanier for not fully
reporting the following to the Board: (1) the 1998 investigation of sex abuse allegations against

Sancluslty;206 (2) the 2001 sex abuse allegations?? (3) the Grand Jury proceedings.208
?From the University?s Board of Teesz?eesf? Contrast? information/interni'etations

W98 and 2891 incidents. The 1998 allegations were hivestigated and ultimately deemed
unfounded; the 2001 incident was judged to involve a gay area of ?dioi'seplay? rather than abuse
or criminal activity. Given these interpretations of events, it is reasonable that Spanier would not

report either incident to the Board.

Baldwin, been State General Enamel. dewin has been faulted for multiple aspects
of her conduct in impending to events sinrounding Sanduslty?s hidictment. In an article on legal
ethics published by the American Bar Association, Baldedn was criticized for actions indicating
confusion regarding who was her client (The University? The University president, Spanier?
University employees, Schultz and Carley?) This con?ision resulted in a serious con?ict of
interest that affected not only her subsequent role regarding the nominal prosecution of Schultz
and Cm?ley, but also appeared to have in?uenced her decisions about informing Spanier and the
Board about ongoing developments with the case, according to the article.299
The Fresh investigators were aware that Baldwin?s mistakes interfered with her duty to properly
inform the Board of Tiustees. One investigator emailed Freeh and sin others after conducting a
review ofPA Grand Jury secrecy law.210 He stated: ?Baldwin?s insistence on appearing before
the Grand Joly Schultz, Corley, and Spanier created an unnecessaIy hindrance to
University?s access to information about the Grand Jury. The appearance by Baldwin before
the Grand Jury as counsel for Penn State is an example of a misstep by Baldwin in this matter.?
He noted that it" she had obtained outside counsel for Spanner, Schultz, and Carley, she could
have debriefcd them after theit appearances because PA law states that a witness has no secrecy
obligation; Baldwin would not have been boond by a secrecy obligation ?and then could have

conveyed the witness information to her clients so that appropriate planm'ng and decisions could

have been made.?

49


 

x-

amunor:

Marry Trustees Were harsh in their judgments of Baldwin. A former Board Chair said he
?blamed? Baldwin for the Board?s problematic decisions following Sandaslcy?s indictment?11

Ken Frazier, Chair of the Special Investigative Task Force, described the ?bi'ealcdouaa of?h'ust?

between Baldwin and the Board.212

hi his interview with the Freeh Group, Spanier was clear that he relied on Baldwin for her legal
advice in his decisions about infonning the Board about the Grand Jury.213 He described
Baldwin as ?cautious? with the Board wd described multiple incidents Where he wanted to 
provide information to the Board but was told by Baldwin he could not. Spanier said he had
believed he could be held in contempt of court if he disclosed information concerning the Grand

Jury proceedings. Spanier also noted that Baldwin failed to inform hint about subpoenas on

multiple occasions.

The Freeh Report aclorowledges in several instances that Spanier and Baldwin, or Baldwin
alone, briefed the Board about the Grand Jury hivestigations?? It is certainly reasonable that a
University president would rely upon his general counsel to provide sound advice. Since
Baldwin?s guidance was apparently ?awed, and since the Fresh investigators appeared to believe
that her conduct was misguided, the most reasonable conclusion is that Spanier was NOT at fault

for any failures to fully inform the Board about Grand Jury proceedings.

Governor Corbett?s failure to inform Board. Governor Corbett carne under criticism in a
news article examining the impact of Grand Jury secrecy rules on his obligation to inform Penn
State of the ongoing investigation of Sandusky as an alleged child sex abuser.215 Several law
school professors were quoted in regard to ways that Corbett could have legally informed the
Board; all agreed he could have, and should have, pointed Trustees in the direction of checking
into Sanduslcy. One said, ?Corbett had a ?duciary responsibility to the Board. He didn?t have to

dimtlge that Sandasky was even being havesti gated, only that they should look closer at him.?

A subsequent email exchange between Fresh and his colleague lodge Sullivan re?ected on this
article and discussed the ethical and legal obligations that were not met when Corbett, as an es.
officio Trustee of PSU, failed to notify the Urnversity about Sullivan described two
potential options for informing Penn State neither of which Corbett did noting, would
have done 1 or 2 I also think you [Breeh] would have done 1 or 25"? Fresh told his team,

5 0
CONFEBNTIAL

 

 

?We Will need to investigate and research this as part of our focus on the Dif?cult but

important questions for us to be asking and answering.?217

Despite Freeh?s recognition that nnderstandhig Governor Corbett?s failure to inform the Board
was ?important? along with his assessment that Corbett was in the wrong, no mention of this

matter was included in the Fresh Report. Instead, hill blame for inadequate brie?ng of the Board

was placed on Spanner.

?From else Pee}: State consent-zinc? Sneeoi?ting information/intetei'etations

infomation in the Freeh Report includes statements that the 1998 incident was not

reported to the Penn State O?ice of Human Resources;213 and that no dominientation of the 1998

incident was made in Sanduslty?s personeel tile.2E9

?From size Pee}: State commenz?z?m? Sentient! informat?ionjintei?ntetatioes

?ftice of Roman Resources joolicy. The Freeh Report suggests mishandling of this situation by
the University, referencing a statement from Ron Schreli?der, Detective for the University Police
Department, that the Sanduslcy investigation was not refeired to Human Resources, as would be
l?O?Lt?llIle.220 However, the Report does not include Schi'ef?er?s qualifying statement: ?He said the
referral being made would depend on the circumstaooe of?ie incident. Since Sanduslcy wasn?t
arrested there?s a good chance a refen'al wasn?t done.? 221 The Fteeh Report notes that no
mitten policy required campus police to notify l-llnnarz Resources of incidents involving

employees.222 Schreffler also said that ?no one from the University Administration or Chief

Harmon interfered the investigation.?223

1998 incident. The outcome ofthe 1998 investigation into allegations of sex abuse by Sanduslcy

resulted in no charges beieg ?led. Penn State of?cials might reasonably have concluded that

was cleared.

5 
CONFIDENTM

 

?From the public or Zorgef? Supporting information/interpretations

Supporting information in the Fresh Report includes statements that no action was taken to
determine Whether Sandiisky?s conduct in 1998 was reportable under the Glory Actfg?; and that
?some coaches, administrators and football program sta? members ignored the red ?ags of

Sandoslgi?s behaviors and so one warned the public about him?;125
?Free: the bowie or large?? Contrary iatbrmattontinteroretations

?ery rec-t policy at Penn State is. 1998. Overtime, Clery Act reporting requirements have
become progressively more stringent. Policy in 2011, the most recent we were able to access, is
suggestive that Sandoslqr?s behavior in the shower with a child in 1998 would not have been
reportable; fondling was considered a reportable offense only if the offender?s intent was sexual
gratidication.226 This was not determined to be the case, as law enforcement decided no crime
was committed. A conservative position on this matter wotdd indicate that the requirements in
place in 1998 may not have indicated a need to report a matter that was investigated but not

prosecuted due to insuf?cient evidence.

Remote abont lnteryietar data (see Appendir 2.3: int'eryiety and Analysis and
Samary: Were members of the retro. State community aware ot? rumors about
Sandaslry??). A. wide range of the University community, with a heavy emphasis on current and
former employees horn the football program and other areas of athletics, was asked if they had
heard rumors about [a total of 279 individuals). A large majority, 88%, said they had
never heard rumors of Saaduslcy doing anything inappropriate with children. Most of the
interviewees reporting rumors were referencing knowledge of public information (either the
March 2011 article in the Han'isbm?g Patriot-?News about the ongoing criminal investigation, or
the September 2010 incident at Cocoa Mountain High School that resulted in an indicated report
by Children and Yoa?i Services). The remaining few (16) hitewiewces had only vague, hearsay
knowledge. Not a single individual reported addressing, or hearing directly about, irnpr0per
behavior with children. Notably, many ofthe interviewees who had heard vague rumors stated
unequivocally that they did not believe them, citing Sanduslty?s exemplary work helping
troubled youth, or his goofy antics, describing hire as ?a big laid? who may have had ?boundary
issues.? A member of the football staff said he and his colleagues still had dif?culty believing

52
CONFIDENTLAL

 

 

 

that Sanduslcy had molested children, adding, ?he fooled the football staffjost like he fooled

everyone else and no one had any knowledge about what he was doing.?

1 Interview data regarding minors did not soppozt the opihion that members of the University

community had knowledge of Sendusky?s abuse of children.

concessions

 

An analysis of all the lDfOlmalliOH gained {though the Fi'eeh hivestigation strongiy indicates:

Spenier, Schultz, Culley and Paterno believed Sanduslcy was engaged i122. horsepley, not in
any type of serioes misconduct, in 2001. They believed that he did not understand that
showering with children was ineppmpi?iate and they informed him, and his cuii?eet
employer, The Second Mile, diet children from TSM were not to he brought onto
campus. When Sanduslcy agreed to this anaegernent, they believed the incident was hilly
slid properly addressed.

There were no indications of any e??ozts made to conceal Seriduslgy?s actions.

All hiioonation supported the idea that Spenier, Schultz, Curley end Petemo were men of
hitegrity and good character.

There were no indications that the University community had heard rumors or had aziy
Imowledge supporting the idea that Sanduslcy was s. pedophile.

Sanduslty ?t the pro?le of a. ?pillar of the community offerzder? Who escaped detection
because his actions were interpreted within the belief that he had devoted himself to

providing services for needy children.

otivetioe: ?Eh avoid the efhedp ohiz'eizjz?

 


Snpportine informationdietetpi?etatioes

Supporting information provided in the Fresh Report includes: a statement by Spenier that in
2001 ?he was coneetned with Sandusky because the situation ?doesn?t look good, I was
concerned with What people will think, the tdsihility and the public relations aspect of it;

a statement attributed to Curley as saying ??to avoid publicity issues,? the University would not

53237 313.51

permit Senduslcy to bling kids on campusfozs

53
CONFIDENTLAL

 

This idea was raised by a Trustee who said he was ?not fond of? Spanier and criticized Schultz?s
truthfulness, and suggested that ?if Schultz, Carley, and Spanier Were aware of the allegations
against Sanduslcy, they may have kept the matter quiet to protect Sandusky and to avoid any

adverse publicity to the university.?229

Contrarv information/internretations

alternative interpretation otintornsation need in Fresh Report to support this eoneiusien.
Spanier?s statement, provided in the Freeh Report, includes this alternative perspective: was
not concerned with criminality. There was no suggestion of anything about abuse or sexual

contest??0

Curley?s statement about avoiding publicity, as reported in the Freeh Report, was third hand, and
thus the accuracy may be in question. The Fro-eh Report states that Carley made this statement to
"the executive director for The Second Mile in 2001, who repeated it to the counsel for The
Second Mile (no time frame given for this, so it could have occurred at any point between 2001
and 2012), who then relayed this information to the Freeh investigators in an interview in
2012.231 The precise wording Carley used is almost certainly not re?ected in the statement that
appears in the Freeh Report, and any nuance of language used may have been lost and may affect

accurate intemretation of Curley?s communication.

Ei?reeh Group decision to include motivations and causal factors. From a review of emails
among the Freeh Group, along with notes in the diary, it appears that the Fresh Group began
considering causal factors What they referred to as ?the after the investigation was
completed and as they were uniting the report. Their discussions indicate that their investigation
did not reveal clear causal factors, as they argued among diemselves about the problems of I
speculating about matters where they did not have hard facts. In one email, they discuss the need
for ?adding ?why? language, including Louie?s ?the stated reason is but the only reasonable
explanation is fear of scandal??232 demonstrating that the search for causal factors amounted to a
fishing eslsedition. The Group consulted Keltst, their public relations ?rm, for guidance: ?Kelrst
reaponse to What do they think about the issue of having to describe the ?Why? in addition to the
?how?? ?Ifwe have a factu? rather than speculative answer, it would be ?ne. Knot, no. ??333 In
another exchange, one of the Group asked, ?As I reviewed my notes ?torn LJF Wreeh] yesterday

54
CONFIDENTIAL

112'me .axzrn-



vs 

 

 

he talked about a culture Where child victims concelns were not a community value. Is that What
you guys heard?? and another investigator disagreed with that idea and reSponded, still

maintain that we should not say anything that we can?t supp ort.?234

In the search for ?Why?? factors, the Preeh Group exchanged numerous news articles, actively
seeking support for certain conclusions and highlighting relevant passages. One email exchange
suggested information tron}. a news article to be used ?as we continue to beefnp the culture
section.?235 Oar review indicates that haterest the ?Why?? factors, and use of media pieces for
supporting infomation of those causal factors, appears to have begun or accelerated after
receiving the email from Task Force Chair Ken Frazier with comments indicating his agreement
with an ESPN writer?s statements that Penn State leaders? failure to report was due to a
motivation to protect Pa'teino, the ?iconic coach.? (See ?investigative wd Repo?ing Flaws:
hiterference by Penn State Leaders, Example as: Trustee Ken Frazier, Chair of PSU Board

31386?ch Investigation Tesla: Force?)

I EGNQLUSIQNS

 

Speeder, as president of a major University, and Carley, athletic director of a large athletics
program, were certainly'not novices in regard to handling eegative publicity. Freeh investigators
produced no previous history of these adminish'ators having buried bad news. Support for
Freeh?s idea that ?the only reasonable explanation is fear of scandal? was not provided. That

Freeh would urge his team to iden??r causal factors that were speculative, and not based on data,

is concerning and possibly indicative of bias.

F3. Cause: ?a striking Zack ofeegpatiryfer* child (tease victim?

Seep ortiaa iai'oraiaticn/intereretatieas

Supporting htt?orniation provided in the Freeh Report included: lack of urgency in teaponding to
McQueary?s report;236 failure to identify the child who was in the shower with 
Carley ?exposed child to additional harm by alerting ?no indication that Spanier,
Schultz, Pa?teino or Ctn?ley had discussions about any other enforceable actions that could have

been talcea to safeguard childrrai.?239

55
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

 

 

 

 information/interpretations

The lack of urgency in taking any action to protect the child seen in the shower with Sanduslcy is

consistent with the belief of Spenier, Schultz, Curley and Peteino that no child abuse had

occoired.

Spar?er and Schultz both explained that they did not believe it was the University?s role to

conduct any kind of investigation into the identity of the child or the suirounding events.

Freeh Group notes contain Schultz?s Grand Jury testimony: ?Again, ?98 was hivestigated. There
was an allegation. lhave no idea What the conclusion of the investigation was, Whether there
was any merit to the allegation or not. did have the impression that it concluded Without any
charges being filed. The incident in 2002, again, I recall that it was also tinned over to that same
agency for investigation end it?s appropriate for them to do that, not for me to determine the

name of the boy.? (Preliminary Hearing trans. at 216)240

From the notes for Spnnier?s hiterview: ?Spenier was asked Why he did not authorize an
investigation. Spenier said that he never thought of "luring to put together the facts, as this was a

police and A?ttoiney General issue. He said that he felt like he would have been interfering.?gill

- 

 

A full and fair analysis indicates that Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not believe that
had harmed the child in the shower. Thus, there was no need for urgency or for

actions to protect children.
E24. Sense: retirement
Seneoi'ting info 

Supporting nlfonnetion is not provided even Within the Freeh Report. in feet, all relevant

ini?onna?tion in the Report unambiguously contradicts the conclusion.

5 6
CONFIDENTIAL

1. 

 

Conn-aw Emforrnation/intereretations

Fresh Report says Sendesley?s retirement arrangements were not suspicious. Key Findings
from Chapter 3, Sendusky?s Retirement from the University, state, ?The Special Investigative

Counsel found no evidence to indicate that Sandeslcy?s retirement was related to the police
investigation of him in 

Another Iiey? Finding from Chapter 3 implies that the awarding of emerihts status to Sanduslcy
was somehow sospicioesd?l?? Tins does not re?ect the conclusion from Chapter 3: ?Vt/hilt: the
decision to grant Sandusky emeritus rank was unusual, the Special Investigative Counsel found

no evidence to show that the emeritus rank was related to the 1998 events at the Laseh



Building

Sendesh?yts retirement: lntewieer data (see degendize Zed?: interview Analysis and
Semarang: Was Sandaslty given a speeial retirement deal heeause of?cials hoesI he
was a pedonhile and wanted to get rid of him?) Ofthe 42 intewiewees who provided
infomiation about Sanduslry?s retirement, only 8 provided comments supporting the idea that the
timing of retirement may have been suspicious; of those 8, only 3 were in a position
to have direct lmowledge of this matter, and all said merely that the an'angements were unusual
but had no concrete infoxmation to support that idea. Interviewees who were personally involved
in the retirement arrangements stated that many employees had chosen to take early retirement
due to a one-time Window providing full bene?ts and stressed that no pressure was applied to do
anything different for Sanduslcy. Interviewees noted that emeritus status was awarded to
individuals who had made outstanding contributions, across all facets of the Urdversity.
Interview data. revealed no hidication that Sanduslcy? retirement arrangements were in?uenced

by a motivation to remove him horn the coaching staff due to knowledge that he was mistreating
children.

Boeameataiy information on retirement. Examination of the Source Materials
produced support for there bemg no zeletionship between Sandusky?s retirement arrangements

and the 1998 incident:

5 7
CONFDDENTLAL

 



 

 Sanduslcy?s retirement was discussed via email among Spengler, Schultz, and Carley,
including?Sanduslqr?s decision not to accept the offer of becoming assistant Athletic 
director and his consideration ofretiremeiit the following year; dates of these emails are
BEFORE the 1998 incident occurred, demonstrating that Sanduslcy?s retiremeet was not a
consequence of?ie i998 incident.245

as A member of the Freeh Group reported to other investigators Via email on his review of
handwritten notes trailed over by the Patelno family. These materials included some
handwritten eotes by Carley. The Fresh investigator surmnarieed his ?ndings: ?No

indication there was any problem with Sanduslcy?s conduct other than too much time to

2?d Mile ?246

arse 

 

The documentary and hiteiyiew information are consistent in tailing to support the idea that Peso
State of?cials hastened Sandesky?s retirement, or improperly allowed him to be honored with
emeritus status, on the basis of oederstanding him to be a child abuser due to their lmowledge of

the 1998 investigatioe,

Freeh?s decision to irrelude this in?ammatory accusation despite aclmowledghig - in the Report

itself the lack of supporting information is a strong indicatioe. of bias.
E115. ?ease: (zeitgeist sizefeoz?eeiipz?ogmm?

Sum: citing information/interpretations
Support in the Fresh Report for this conclusion comes from four sources:

Reports ??om interviews with Lasch Building janitors that, after orie janitor witnessed 311
incident Where Saodusky was engaged ire. behavior with a child the
showers, the aeitor failed to report due to fear of losing his job. ?The University would
have closed ranks to protect the football program at all costs?m

Suggestions that Patemo wielded influence out of proportion with his role as head
football coach: senior Pena State of?cial referred to Carley [later-110?s admonish-attire
superior] as ?Paterao?s elraad boy;??2?i8 ?Witnesses consistently told the Special

58
CONFIDENTIAL

 



 

Investigative Counsel that Pateino was in control of the football facilities and knew

?everything that was going on. ??249

A total of two incidents Where administrators reduced disciplinary sanctions imposed on
football players by the Student Affairs Of?ce, indicating (according to the Fresh Repelt)

?an example ofPateino?s excessive in?uence at the University.?250

a An obsewation that the football program did not participate in Clary Act compliance.251

Cents-are inform ration/interpretations

llreeh Group linear there was as ?culture problem? with Penn State football. in an email to
his team, Freeh stated: ?There is a stronger case to be made for ?protecting the university: than
JP [lee Paterno] or the [football] program? which is never really articulated in any

evidence I have seen.?252

Examination of a report draft revealed important insights into the thinking of the Freeh Group.253

a A detailed section that did not appear in the final report described the football pro grain?s
?Commitment to Compliance,? reviewing Paterno ?s Grand Experiment and adherence to
the standard of ?success with honor.? Statements lion; hrtewiewees described
consistently high standards that were expected. and enforced. This section concludes,
?There was a strong and consistent message from Coach Joe Paterno and other head
coaches that compliance was as important as winning on the ?eld ofplay.?

A section with the heading ?The Culture and the Dominating In?uence of its
Athletic Program? contained the following passage: ?There was a culttne in PS
Athletic Department that led sta? members to fail to identify or act on observed
hiappropriate conduct by Sandasky. When made aware of a Violent crime, the AD
leadership focused on damage control and more shocking, Sanduslcy?s welfare vice (sic)
?ee pmper reporting of the crime and victim support. There existed an environment
Within the athletic department that led an employee to determine that the perceived threat
of losing his job on?hsreighecl the necessity of reporting the violent crime of a child.?
lwIandvn'itten notes in the margin adjacent to this section: EVIDENCE AT 
A section with the heading ?Isolation of the Football Program? contained the follondeg

passage: ?This isolation led to a department that was not cooperative with those who

5 9
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

rneddled into the football program business this seclusion of the football program
created an ?ns against tliern? mentalitv Where anvone from outside the football program

could not be trusted. This attitude that the football coaches could police their own and

 

handle matters externally, and the University?s acquiescence to this independence,
decreased the external oversight from the athletic deparhnent and the university
administration.? Handwritten merits on the draft bracketed this passage and underlined
as above, With a margin note of apparently noting the lack of supporting

information for these assertions.

This draft report shows that the Freeh Group recognized the football pro grani?s historical
commitment to high standards and compliance, but decided to wait this hrforrnation from the
?nal report; (2) the Fresh Group could not ?nd facts to support the ?flawed football caltrn?e?
conclusion, and removed the speculative sections from the final report while retaining the
unsupported claim that ?a culture of reverence for the football program??s?i was responsible "for
?directly contribut[ing] to the failure of Penn State?s most powerful leaders to adequately report

and respond to the actions of a serial sexual predator.?255

danitors? attitudes shoot reporting: interview data (see Appendix 2rd: interview analysis
and Seminary: Were janitors {cartel to report wrongdoing?) Fresh investigators
interviewed 8 janitors, three of whom were present the evening that another janitor (who was not
interviewed, but is referred to as ?Janitor in the Freeh Report) reportedly observed Sandoslry
performing oral sex on a boy in the Lasch Building showers. The jariitors present that evening
that Janitor A described inappropriate conduct between and a child and was
upset, and each of the three said they strongly encouraged Janitor A to report the incident. Of
those three, only one (?Janitor in the Fresh Report) expressed concern about possibly losing
his job as a result of reporting to their supervisor. The second janitor (?Janitor present that
evening appeared to have been skeptical about the validity of Janitor A?s report, considering the
possibility that Janitor A may have had a drinking problem or was not credible for other reasons;
this information was not included in the Freeh Report. No hifornration from the interroievv of the
third janitor present that evening was included in the Freeh Report; this janitor ?rmly asserted
that reporting such an maident would not endanger anyone?s job. Four other members of the

janitorial staff likewise stated that fear of losing their jobs would not have been a concern if they

60
CONFIDENTIAL

 

-. vrxg-g-?rz. 

 

 

 

 

had been faced with this situation. A fonaer Trustee and previous Board Chair explained that

the failure of Janitor A to report the Saaduslcy incident was a result of a ?awed culture Within

athletics but provided no speci?c or concrete information.

Interview data did not support the idea that janitors in athletics were to report wrongdoing
out of concern for 103331;; their jobs.

hateroo did act the McQueary for reporting Seedasl-ryts ioappropriate conduct. Hit were
indeed true that the calorie srurouudiag the football program was such that ?the University
would have closed ranks to protect the football program at all costs? a quote from Janitor 
included in the Fresh Report255 why was MoQueary not tired by l?atemo after he reported
seeizlg Saoduslcy 3211 the shower with a child? No iirfmmation indicated that McQueary was

pressured, or even requested, to conceal his report about Saudusky.

Search Patei?eo?s lateryiew data (see dppeadis 2.6: leteiyiety Analysis and
Summary: Was Search Joe l?aterao powerful beyond his role as head toothall coach?) Of
the 64 interviewees who provided information 033 this topic, 20 suggested that Coach Patemo
was powerful beyond his role as head football coach. Nearly half of these were cturent or former
Trustees; their cements were exaggerated, was ?the roost powerful man in
?a god,? ?the ?lo'rig? in the monarchical culture of intercollegiate athletics.? No
speci?c concrete examples of such power were provided, in keepirig with the fact that Trustees
would not have had direct ongoing contact to make an informed judgment. Few meauirlg?il
examples were provided by any of the interviewees who expressed the opinion that Paterao was
excessively powerful. In contrast, the numerous individuals (44) who stated that Patemo?s
power did not exteod beyond his role as coach tended to he staff and administrators in the
football program and in athletics, and these interviewees described Paterno?s ethical behavior
and adherence to external regulatioos, his disciplined ese of the chain of command, and his
deference to the athletic director and the adversity president. A senior admiiaistrator in athletics
said, ?people are among if they believe that Patemo ran the inversion? A. Trustee and a senior
Uaiversity administrator each independeotly debunked the rumor that Patereo had tla'owo

Spanier and Curley out of his house when they attempted to discuss his retirement.

61
CONFBDENTIAL

 

Interview data indicated that despite a belief arnong some individuals that Paterno held power in
the University beyond his role as football coach, interviewees in a position to directly observe
Patenro- stated that he was a disciplined and effective coach with high standards of personal

ethics who followed the rules and respected the University?s administrative hierarchy.

Special treatment for athletes in disciplinary and academic matters: lntetyievv data (see
Appendix 2.7: interview Analysis and Summary: llo strident athletes receive special
treatment?) Out of 8?7 interviewees Who spoke about this tepic including Penn State and
State College law enforcement personnel, administrators in the Student Affairs Office, faculty
having had oversight roles with athletics, athletics employees, and Trustees 90% provided
credible support showing that strident athletes at Penn State have not been given epeei?
treatment allowing them to escape academic responsibilities or disciplinary consequences for any
misbehavior. Student Affairs Of?ce administrators said, ?the integrity of the Student Alfons
Office is beyond reproach? and at Perm State, ?people have been doing the right things for a long
time? by never giving athletes Special treatment. A. former dean said that during his 50 year
career at Penn State he was never aware of any faculty being asked to give special treatment to
athletes. A faculty member described an athletic cultin'e where student athletes and their coaches
ascribed to integrity in achieving academic success. A PSU police of?cer with 25 years in his
position said there had never been a patteni of preferential treatment of student athletes and was
not aware of any interference by administrators into police matters involving athletes. A State
College police of?cer said during his 20 years, athletes and coaches had been consistently

helpihl with investigations.

Interview data provide compelling support that Penn State student athletes are not given

preferential treatment in disciplinary matters or academics.

Football program did not intervene vvlien players brolte the latv, according to State College
latv enforcement o?eial. Carmine W. Prestia ha, who served 25 years with the State College
Police Department, and 15 years as a magisterial district judge, wrote an 0p ed describing his
experience with football players: ?Never once in my time as a police of?cer or judge has myone
in the football program asked me to cover up mything, nd?idraw a change, or do something else

nne?drical. I certainly saw a number of players get in trouble. Offenses ranged horn staple

62
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

summary offenses to felonies of the ?rst degree. . .. Never once a request to do anything to cover
up something. In all those years, if Joe was trying to protect his players, covering up for them,
why didn?t I hear or see anything? Where were these conspiracies? llcnow that legal problems

pained and embarrassed all of the coaching staff, but the players had to deal with the

consequences on their ownf??

This article appeared during the tirne name ofthe Freeh investigation, when the investigators
were energetically reviewing relevant. news reports.

Qlei'y act compliance lay toothall program. From the Freeh Report: ?Like the rest ofthe
[caveman the football program staff had not been trained in their Clery Act reaponsihilities??f?8
(emphasis added). This statement alone demonse?ates that the football program did not stand
apart from the rest of the University in this regard. Because, as noted in the Freeh lE?teport?159 the
University?s Clery Act policy was still in draft form and had not been implemented as of
November 201 l, the football program could not have ?opted out? of training in Clery Act

compliance as claimed in the Freeh Reportz?g

Penn State?s history of integrity with athletics. Since the earliest days of collegiate athletics,
Penn State has been a leader in academic standards "for its student-a?rletes as well as ethical
behavior on and off the field of play (see Appendix 3.3: Penn State Athletics and the Culture of
Academic Excellence: A I-list01ical Review). There is no indication that Freeh?s investigators
researched Penn State?s history of athletic integrity, which would have been an important context
as they attempted to understand the University?s current culture surrounding athletics.

The Freeh Group also appears to have disregarded statements by interviewees who were
knowledgeable about Penn State?s compliance with internal and external requirements for
athletic integrity, including Spanier?s statement that only Penn State and Stanford had never had

a maj or NCAA violation??

63
CONFIDENTIAL

 

- concresrons

 

The Fresh Report misrepresented the information contained in the Source Documents and
cher?rypiclred information to support the conclusion that Penn State has a ?culture of reverence

for the football program.? Instead, the Source Documents support the following:

a Most of the Lasch Building janitors did not believe they would lose their jobs for
reporting a problematic incident involving Sanduslry.

Individuals in a position to have direct knowledge consistently described Patemo as a
highly effective coach with high standards of personal ethics who followed the rules and
respected the University?s administrative hierarchy. The minority of interviewees who
held the belief that Paterno was ultra?powerful hosed this on reputational generalizations
and provided no concrete details.

lnterrdews with faculty, administrators in Student A??airs, and campus and town Larar
enforcement officials overwhelmingly indicate no special treatment of student a?diletes
regarding disciplinary matters or academics.

The Fresh Report itself indicates that the football pro gram did not differ horn the rest of

the University in regard to Clery Compliance.

its. Seminary and ?nal eonelnsions: are the major eonelnsions in the
h?reeh Report sapported hp the resalts or" their investigation?

The Fresh Report claims that ?it is more reasonable to conclude? that Spanier, Schultz, Carley,
and Paterno concealed Sanduslry?s abuse of children. The ?more reasonable to conclude?
standard requires that the majority of the information supports the conclusion. By that standard,

the reaj or conclusions in the reeh Report fail.

Our full, "Em, and thorough review of all aven'lable information obtained though the Fresh
Group?s investiga?on indicates that it is more reasonable to conclude that Spanier, Schultz,
Carley, and Paterno believed that Sandrislry was engaged in horseplay rather than in any serious
misconduct. They thoughtfully considered the appropriate response and decided to help
Sanduslqr understand that it was inappropriate for Irina to shower with children. They instructed

Sanduslty, who no longer worked for Penn State, not to bring children to Penn State facilities.

64
CONFHDENTIAL

- mew 

.. 

 

 

They also informed the director of Sauduslcy?s charity Where Sanduslcy worked with childre 
that they had given him this instruction.

The Fresh Report relies on a damning interpretation of vague emails outlining a plan of action
for reSponding to Sanduslq being observed in Penn State showers with a child. The great
majority of available supports the competing conclusion that ?these men were good

people trying to do their best to melee the right decisions:?

A Federal high sectu?ity clearance hwestigstion of Spaniel; conducted concturently
with the Freeh investigation, conciuded that Spenier did not conceal information
hidicsting wrongdoing by Senduslry. The Federal investigation was superior to the
Fresh hivestigstion because Carley and Schultz were in?terxdewed, end Spanier was
interviewed under oath and passed at polygraph.

i terview date indicated that McQueen; was vogue when reporting the shower
incident; that no one reported having heard from Spenier, Schultz, Carley or Paterno
about anything more serious than horsepley in the 2001 incident; that the Penn State
community had not hes-rd credible rumors or that anyone had directly observed
concerning behavior by Senduslry. No one suspected Senduslcy.

Interview data strongly supported the integrity and good character of Sponier,
Schultz, Curley and Paterno, which is inconsistent with the allegations that they
concealed Sanduslcy?s misconduct.

No reports were made that Spanier, Schultz, Curley or Pateino ever asked anyone to
conceal information about Sanduslcy.

Peteiuo met his reporting obligations in 2001. His actions were consistent with
NCAA policy implemented in 2014, Where a report is made to a superior and there is

to be NO followup by the person reporting

To support the conclusions, the Fresh Report relied upon selective misrepresentation and

chenypiclring of their own investigative dots.

The Fresh Report suggests that Paterno was on ultra-?powerful ?gure who could
dictate to his superiors and that Curie}! subservient to him ideas that are
completely opposite ofthe great majority of ?ndings in the investigative date.

6 5
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 



The Freeh Report states that Schultz concealed documents, but his Grand Jury
testimony made the judge, and Peini State general counsel Baldwin, aware
that those documents could be in his of?ce, and Schultz never destroyed them even
though he had the opportunity.

The Fi'eeh Report notes multiple fajita-es to ini?onn relevant parties about Sanduslcy as
indication of conceahnent 21 point that is moot if, in fact, the officials believed no
misconduct occurred.

The Freeh Repelt contends that the 1998 incident where Sanduslcy was thoroughly
investigated by lawr enforcement and child services, and no changes were made 
should have resulted in Penn State officials concluding Sandushy was a pedophile.
There is no consideration of the likely possibility that this incident might suggest that

Sanduslcy had been cleared of no?ongdoing.

With suspect support for the me} or conclusions, The Freeh Report attempted to sn'engthen its

case by providing motivations and causes, each supported by chen?ypiched data:



The Freeh Report states that Spaniei?, Schultz, Ciu'ley, and Pate-inc were motivated to
conceal Sanduslq?s abuse of children out of a desire to avoid bad publicity, an
assertion that is only Weakly supported by selective haterpretation of statements by
Specter and Curley.

The Fl?eeh Report contradicts itself by making in?ammatoiy statements about
Sandeslty?s retirement When the Report itself states that there was nothing suspicious
about Sanduslcy?s retirement an'angeinents an indisputable indication of bias. .

The Fi'eeh Report describes ?a striking lack of empathy? for the child in the shower in
2001 in?ammatory language and amoot point if, in fact, Penn State of?cials
believed the child was unhanned by horseplay.

The Freeh Report claims a major causal factor was a ?cultural reverence for football,?
something that is not remotely supported by the investigative data, and that Freeh and

his investigators piivately aclmowledged was unn'ue.

66
CONFIDENTIAL



 

Our full, fair, and thorough review of the source documents indicates that Sandusky may have

been a ?pillar of the community? pedophile (see Appendix 3 .4: ?Pillar of the Community?
Pedophiles):

a Sauduslcy was a promineut'figure in the community Who was admired for his

devotion to children, as a foster and adoptive parent, and as the founder of a charity

for childreu at risk.

attentions to children were understood by members of the community as

examples of his sel?ess devotion to the welfare of children.

Sanduslcy was described as a ?goofball? and a big kid who was socially awkward, had

?boundary issues,? and preferred the company of children.

a The Fresh Group was 'h'sined by a leading FBI pro?ler of semlal abusers, and
therefore had all necessary information to come to this conclusion as 

supported by their own investigative data.

The Freeh Report assigns nefarious reasons for the failures of Penn State o?cials and the
community to identify Sanduslcy as a pedophile. Our full, fair, and thorough review of
iuyestigative material indicates that a more accurate interpretation is that Sanduslcy, like all pillar

of the community offenders, fooled the entire community.

a Research on social judgment Which the Fresh Group should have considered 
indicates that humans cling to their initial impressions of others and interpret
discrepant information in ways to be consistent with those initial impressions (see
Appendix 3.5 Science on Social Judgment). Interview data show that
many individuals discounted or disregarded any doubts about Sandusky, and that
even after he was charged with abuse, they had dif?culty believing he was a
pedophile.

was repeatedly evaluated by child welfare professionals as a foster and
adoptive parent.? These professionals failed to any concerning behavior.

An in?depth evaluation ofthe 1998 incident by a trained mental health professional

concluded that Sanduslcy had-not engaged in grooming or other behavior consistent

with abuse.

67
CONFIDENTIAL

?div-(Hr

Mus. . 

w. . . 

 

a At the time of the 2001 incident, was retired from Penn State and was
Working for his charity, The Second Mile. The CEO of the charity, Jack Raykovitz,
was a licensed and a mandated reporter. There is no indication that
Raykovitz had observed any misconduct between Sandushy and the chen?itv?s child
clients.

at The Fresh investigators failed to consider this question: If professionals were unable
to determine that Sandusky was a pedophile, how could University administrators he

expected to do better?

By advancing a sensationalistic narrative, the Fresh Report neglected to address the true
problem: that public pro?le as an individual with a national reputation for service to
children made it dif?cult for members of the Penn State community to recognize that Sandusliy
was a pedophile. in so doing, the Fresh Report imfairly and scapegoated individuals
with long records of distinguished service to the University, and attached the

culture of an institution with a prond history of high standards for achievement and ethics.

Q. What Wentd 'i?his honors he so heheieht?? henrces or hiss

Qt. investigator hiss trons the ontset oi the investigation

An article published by the American Bar Association cautions against bias in assuming, in

investigations of sexual misconduct, that college administrators have acted to protect the

institution. An excerpt:

Perhaps the biggest challenge for colleges and universities is
overcoming the perception of bias, the idea that if
administrators make a mistake, they do so to protect the
institution. if the institutional failure results in harm to a
complement or respondent, discerning the nature of the
failure is often a distiection without a di?erence. (A word of
caution, here, however: in taking steps to improve campus
practices and remedy past harms, we should take the time to
understand most adminisn'ators? good intentions and
common reasons ?for failing to respond properly, including
hisufiicient h'aining, incompetence of one or more
individuals in the system, human error, and lack of

68
CONFEENTIAL

 

 

 

coordination. In the current climate, few recognize that most
college and university administrators genuinely want to work
collaboratively to educate and transform current practices.)262

Kathleen was hired by Freeh as co?leader of the investigative tearn because of her
expertise in child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church; she was formerly the Executive Director
of the Of?ce of Child and Youth Protection of the US. Catholic Bishops Conference, and con
editor of ?Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Decade of Crisis, 2002-2012.? She offered
her services to Freeh in an email, saying, ?Louie: Just wanted to reach out in the event that any
ofrny experiences at the Catholic Bishops Conference would be of use to your tears. Good luck
wh?h the investigation. Too many sad parallels between this case and the Church.?263 A
member of the Freeh Group reported on her meeting with McChesney, saying, thinlr: she will
be very helpful. She does not have much Clery Act experience but she does have experience
changing attitudes in the ehta'ch which has an insularity similar to What we are seeing?e?i? It is
important to note that before the investigation had begun, Freeh investigators were making

assumptions about an insular culture at Penn State and melting connections with the Catholic

Church coverups of pedOplnle priests.

Notes in the Freeh Group diary reflect an early interest in identifying problems with Penn State?s
culture; in December of 2012, two separate entries outline plans to ?focus cnltin?al issues PSU
engaged at highest levels Sports? and ?Focus on Practice, Procedure, 
Comments were made in the diary after reviewing interview material from a member of the
football program staEfWho said that Sandaslcy was often observed showering with children and
people casually handed him towels. Notes in the diary: ?No one tried to step it; sick culture and
weird Investigator bias interfered with a possible interpretation that numerous
people had seen Sanduslcy in showers whit children and never observed any problematic
behavior that would lead to concern. In an early report draft, there was a passage about failure to
respond to Sanduslq showering with kids; a handwritten margin note aslcs, ?How is this

abuse??357

it diary entry records a brie?ng ofthe Penn State Board?s Task Force, indicating an apologetic

attitude for not having found eyidence of a coverup: ?No allegations of CSA [child sexual

6 9
CONFEENTLAL

 

abuse]. No smoking gun to indicate coverup. Enough into details 81; haven?t found that, but still

could find sonaething.?25g Surely this statement would not be made by investigators committed

to neutrality in conducting their investigation.

During the editing of the Freeh Report, the investigators discussed how to frame the ?ndings in
their Report. McChesney emailed to another investigator a linlt to an 0p ed titled, Priest?s
View of Penn State,? which begins with the statement: ?The terrible parallels between the
horri?c sexual abuse cases at Penn State and those in the Catholic Church are by now well
know,? and continues to describe similarities between the two institutions. McChesney
commented, as discussed in Wilmington,? referring to a recent meeting of the Freeh
Group, and the other investigator replied, ?Really interesting. I saw many things we just said

around the table re?ected in this 

la our document review revealed numerous indications that the Fresh Group lacked
neutrality horn the very beginning of their hivestigation, as they expected to ?nd indications of
cultural de?ciencies at Penn State that had led to covering up for a pedophile, consistent with the

situation in the Catholic Church.
G2, ?fties ot? attorney General

The OAG talgorously pursued the prosecution of Sanduslcy. Grand Jury presentments are
understood to be one-sided representations of the prosecution?s case and thus are inherently
biased. The Sandusky presenhnent played a signi?cant role in shaping the narrative around Penn
State of?cials? response to allegations against The Presentinent unfairly mentions
Paterno deepite not charging him with a crime, making him appear to be guilty, and making the
scenario focused more on Penn State than on The Second Mile or on child protective services;
inaccrnate portrayal of the tiineline of Sandasiry?s then alleged Victimization of vm'ious children,
creating the mistaken impression that multiple children were abused atter the 2001 shower
incident; claiming that Mcheary stated he witnessed anal rape, despite his attempts to correct
that statement; misleading statements about adiness credibility (see Appendix 3.6: Factual
Errors in Sanduslry Grand Jury Presentnient). Freeh investigators unquestioningly accepted the
statements in the presentment despite hatdng access to transcripts of Witness testimony, some of
Which di?ered horn the presentment in important respects.

70
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

 

The efforts of Fina and other OAG prosecutors to steer the Fresh investigation are described in
our report section Independence of the investigation: where we detail
repeated contacts between OAG prosecutors and Freeh investigators, including nmnerons
incidents Where information may have been improperly shared by prosecutors. The pattern of
these communications strongly suggests an effort by prosecutors to in?uence the direction of the
Freeh investigation to mirror the prosecution?s case, and a willingness by Fresh investigators to

work closely with the OAG in a way that arguably compromised the independence of their

investigation.

It is worth noting that the PA Of?ce of Disciplinary Counsel has lodged a petition for discipline
against Fina for improper questioning of Baldwin; Baldwin?s testimony was used to support
charges of conspiracy to commit perjury and conspiracy to commit obstruction against Spanier,
Schultz, and Carley, but the perjury charges were later dropped when a judge complained that

Fina had misled hint and had improperly questioned Baldwin??

The efforts to make their case in prosecution appear to have profoundly

in?uenced Freeh?s investigation and Report.
NCAA con?ict oi? interest: ?itaageeonscions?

Documents released from the discovery process in the German lawsuit against the NCAA
revealed that NCAA of?cials believed that the organization had no jurisdiction over the Penn
matter, but that they were motivated to sanction Penn State in order to enhance

the reputation (see Appendix 3 .7: NCAA, Fresh worked together).
Excerpts ?om an ESPN article?"1 show the motivations of NCAA leaders:

Last week, emails znade public in the Carmen lawsuit showed
that NCAA officials had questioned their own authority to
sanction Penn State and that enforcement of?cials were
hope?il that the university would be ?so embarrassed they will
do anything? when Erickson signed a consent decree accepting
historic sanctions in July 2012.

?We could try to assert jurisdiction on this issue and may be
successful but it?d be a stretch,? wrote Roe Lech, the fonner
NCAA Vice President of Enforcement, in an email on July 14,

7 
CONFIDENTIAL

 

just nine days before Brnmert announced the sanctions against
Penn State. characterized our approach to PSU as a bluff
when talking to Mark [Emmett] yesterday afternoon after the
call. He basically agreed b/c it we snake this an enforcement
issue, we may win the numediate battle but lose the war when
the COI Committee on In?'actions] has to rule.?

The emails released last week also shoer that the NCAA did
not believe it had the jurisdiction to act against Penn State. 
know we are banking on the fact the school is so embarrassed
they will do anything, but I are not sure about that, and no
con?dence conference or other members 1will agree to that,?
NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs
Kevin Lennon wrote on July 14, 2012. ?This will force the
jurisdictional issue that we really don?t have a great answer to
that one.?

In a July 2012, story in the Centre Daily Thrice, Gene Marsh,
who vaas hired by henn State to deal with the sanctions issue,
was quoted as saying that the NCAA Penn State
after the conviction of Sanduslty and millions in civil
settlements would be ?like shooting roadkill.?

Shep Gospel, an administrator for the Committee on
Infractions, wrote an email about those to Marsh.
?For What it?s worth, I agree,? Cooper mote. ?However, the
new NCAA leadership is extremely image-conscious and if
they conclude that pursuing allegations against PSU would
enhance the association?s standing with the public, then an
infractions case would follow. I know that Mark Eumert has
made statements to the press hidicating that he thinks it could
fall into some sort [loss of institutional control] case.?
Cooper ended the email: c?Shooting road hill? is an apt
analogy.?

These documents establish that the NCAA leadership did not think they had jtnisdiotion to
sanction Penn State; (2) the NCAA leadership decided to proceed anyway, hoping that Penn
State would acquiesce; (3) the NCAA leadership was motivated to use the Penn State situation to
enhance the organization?s reputation; (4) Merle Emmett made statements to the press that the
Penn State situation involved loss of institutional control the only avenue available for the
NCAA to have jurisdiction in What was otherwise a criminal matter not subject to NCAA

oversight.

72
CONFBDENTIAL

. . . .. -.-.. um. m-

 

CA. lireeh?s coer?lict of ihterest: Wasting to he ?go to
investigators?

Fresh? Group began speculating in January of 2010 about ways to get business ??oni the
NCAA.272 An email sent by Freeh to his associates sm?d, ?You may have seen conuneats by the
oncoming NCAA President that he intends to increase enforcement actions by adding new
investigative It is an ideal time to launch a targeted 813 [Business Development
Plan] in this Sissies??3 Freeh arid his group worked energetically in 2010 to create a business
model offeiing their services for ?athletic compliance and investigations,? noting that their team
included ENCAA compliance subject matter experts?i?i Documerits outlining their services offer
a View into their early perspectives on their investigative approach, including a focus on
assessihg ?the culture??f5 and a comieot about ?typical corruption issues which
fall into our Throughout much of 2010, Freeh and his group an
investigation at the University of Southern California, which was sanctioned by the NCAA for
lack of institittioaal Fresh suggested to his team that they use the USC investigation
as a ?test am? in order to develop a ?more mature template? to he used hi futurejobs}:178
A year later ust months before Fresh was hired by Penn State a member of the group
emailed others, quoting a newspaper article about University of Miami?s NCAA violations,
which suggested that the NCAA might do well to use some ofthe ?millions? it reaps ?'cni
football and basketball championships ?to fund an independent investigative am.? He adds, 
showed it to Louie and he mentioned that we would be perfect? for that?? Fresh ?ien suggested
working immediately to ?develop a sales/marketing plaza.?230 A few days later, one hivestigator
emailed others a news article suggesting that the NCAA did not have enough investigators, and
said, ?1 forward it to you with the hope that it can be of assistance to our marketing efforts.?281
Another email followed two weeks later, hrforming the group of an upcomhig conversatioa
scheduled with Mark Emniert, president of the NCAA, to inquire about his interest in usicg the

Freeh Group?s investigative sewices.232

Pursuit of?the NCAA did not h?t durizsg Freeh?s investigation at Penn State. In Feblumy of
2012, one ofFreeh?s associates who was working on the Penn State investigatioa contacted lnlie

Roe Lach, Vice President for Enforcemerit at NCAA, to offer the Freeh Grou ?3 services as
l3

73
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

 

independent investigators, adding that ?the PSU case is going well.?283 Lech responded that they
were beginning to cousider the use of outside ?rms for investigation, and said she would add the
Fresh Group to their list.234 Lach subsequently sent an email to an NCAA colleague with the

instructions, ?Please add the Fresh Group to our contractor list.?235

Shortly after the Fresh Report was released, and two days before the Consent Decree was signed,
Donald Remy, NCAA General Counsel, contacted the Freeh Group to briefthenr on the
sanctions to be imposed on Penn State, and the group discussed their desire to honours the
?go to investigators? in a series of emails. One of the group said, ?This has opened up
an opportrurity to have the dialogue with Enunert about possibly being the go to external
investigator for the NCAA. It appears we have Enunert?s attention novv.?23?S Fresh responded,
?Let?s try to meet with hire and make a deal a very good cost contract to be the go to
investigators? we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a

client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting if he does not ask: for one ?rst.?237

It is a clear con?ict of interest that the Fresh Group was soliciting work from the NCAA While

simultaneously conducting an investigation Where results were to be shared with the NCAA.

Gig. Reliance on sources with poor eredihility

Baldwin. The Fresh Report made extensive- use of Baldwin as a source; 20% of
citations of interviews were attributed to her. Fresh investigators relied heavily on Baldwin even
though they were aware that she had mishandled her role in attending Grand Jury proceedings on
behalf of the University and had interfered with Spanier?s attempts to inform the Board about the
Grand Jury (see our report section ?Fl Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley repeatedly
concealed critical facts relating to Sanduslcy?s child abuse: ?From the University?s Board of
Trainees? Contrary Rather, the Freeh Group was aware that GAG
prosecutor Fina believed Baldwin had ?interfered with the investigation??238 and that Fina was
pressuring her With the ?nest of rarest (see our report section ?13.2. Independence of the
investigation: COMB OMSE ?the Fresh Group themselves encountered early dif?culties
in gaining Baldwin?s assistance in producing materials for their investigatinn.289 in the face of
all these indications that reduced Baldwin?s credibility, why did the Fresh Group neve?heless
rely substantially on her?

74
CONFEDENTM

 

 

It is worth noting that Baldwin?s missteps were suf?ciently serious that she has been recently

accused by the state Of?ce of Disciplinary Counsel of violating several of the Rules of

Professional Conduct for lowers??

Vichy ?i?riponey. Triponey, who served as Penn State?s Vice President of Student Affairs from
2003 to 2007, found her 15 minutes of fame by granting an interview where she was hailed as
?The Woman Who Stood up to Joe Patents.?291 Resurfacing 5 years after leaving Penn State I
under duress, and reportedly earning $10,000 for her innerview,292 Triponey found eager

acceptance from the media when she detailed her criticisms of Pateino in the wales of the
Sandusliy scandal.

Triponey?s time at Perm State was characterized by intense con?ict with students, who reviled
her for their student government and replacing it with a paliid governance stroctzn'e
having little in die way of meaningful autonomy (see Appendix 3.8: Vicky Triponey: Biased
Source). A student activist website called Safeguard Old State was created, where the ?Triponey
Thneline of Terror? recounted her assault on free expression by imposing censorship on the
student radio station, along with other actions to diminish student inr?lnenee.293
Interview data from the Fresh investigation indicate strong consensus from. administrators and
Trustees that Triponey was unprofessional, combative, and had an axe to grind with regard to
athletics, especially football (see Appendix 2.8: Interview Analysis and Summary: Vicky

Triponey). One interviewee stated that Triponey ?was the only person he could recall that made

the University better by leaving.?394

Triponey contacted the Fresh Group early in the investigation to offer her perspectives. The
investigators regarded her as ?key? to interview.?295 However, after the unambiguous message
from interviewees that Triponey was not credible, investigators acknowledged that they did ?not
want to reference Triponey in any way (given her issues)? and began to search for other sources
to support Triponey?s claims that Paterno oveirode Spanier?s authority by insisting err-special
"irea'hnent for football players facing disciplinary actions as the investigators put it, ?to
strengthen our discussion about culture/?the ?why. 295 One report draft showed that material
previously attributed to Triponey was subsequently cited as coming horn a current Trustee who

was a former football player and who had pushed Spanier to force Patemo to retire?? 298

75
CONFDDENTIAL

 





 

 

The Freeh Group?s disdain for Triponey was most evident after she sent a gushing email
effusively congratulating the team the day the Fresh Report was released; one of the

investigators responded to the team, ?Sucloip. But 11 already lolew that.?299

The Fresh investigators perpetuated Triponey?s biased story about Paterno?s excessive in?uence
in protecting football players despite foil recognition that their only source for this information
was not credible. In their need to ?beef up the calorie section?300 they 1:11aneg disregarded the
majority oftheir investigative data showing that Paterno did not Wield improper in?uence and
that football players did not receive special treatment in disciplinary matters (see our report

section Cause: calm-n? reverence for the football program?).

?enn State leaders. The Fresh Report relied extensively on information from Trustees and
senior administrators, who collectively accounted for 40% of the citations referencing interview
data (30% trustees, 10% administrators). Those in the highest leadership positions in the
university would have had the least direct contact with many matters under hivestigation. This is
particularly true for Trustees, who have no role in institutional Operations and meet to conduct
business only a few times a year. Given the indications that Penn State leaders appeared to have
interfered with the independence ofthe investigation (see our report section Independence
of the hivestigation: the heavy use of this group as sources in the Freeh
Report potentially hrtroduces bias.

on. E?reeh Groap?s media sensitivity

Focus on press notices about Freeh. The Fresh Group closely followed press reports on
Freeh?s work as an independent investigator. In one example, the group shared an article from
The Chronicle osz?glzer Education pro?ling Freeh?s work at the University of Southern
California: ?What?s the best way to clean up a mess in college sports? Why, hire the former
head of the FBI, of cota?se.?303 The investigator who circulated the article noted ?tree
puhlicityl?3i32 Fresh replied, ?Thanks 21 lot of media play for us it seems. I take it we?re
collecting ?thisf?3?33 In another exchange during the Penn State investigation, Fresh expresses
concern about getting ?acceped? if their group was not ?rst to find relevant informationdo?" This
interest in getting good press may have in?uenced the Freeh Group in their decisions about
investigative strategy or interpretation of the evidence.

76


 

 

 

 

Fresh Group ?s uncritical use of media. From the very start of the investigation, investigators
in the Fresh Group exchanged and discussed media reports about Sanduslcy. When the group
was working on waiting their Report, the focus on media pieces intensi?ed. Passages from
articles were highlighted and decisions were frequently made to include reporters? ideas in the
Fresh Report. Often, the team appeared to be looking for direction, and at other times,
continuation of their own ideas. The Fresh Group appears to have been willingly led by the

ongoing sensationalistic media narrative.

One prominent story line in media pieces involved die notion that Porcine eras more power?il
than the University President, and used his in?uence to prevent football players from facing
student judicial processes. The Fresh Group circulated several articles on this sub} ect and were
quite clearly motivated to direct their conclusions to be consistent. One article quoted a Sports
law espert Who said none of the events surrounding Smdusley fell under NCAA jurisdiction, but
stated that the Fresh Report would likely iden?o'fy instances of preferential treatment to athletes,
which could indicate lack of institutional control and thereby constitute an NCAA rules
violation. One of the investigators cemented, ?Note the statement that says there is an
expectation that the Fresh Report will ?nd evidence of favorable n'ea'nnent for student athletes in
the school judicial process. Yet another sign that we need to say something about the Meridien

incident (but not 'l?riponey)3?39?3

The Meridian incident involved misconduct of football players in 2007 which produced a
con?ict between Triponey and Pateiuo regarding the appropriate disciplinary process to be used.
It is notable that the Fresh Group had previously ?concluded that this incident was not relevant to
our focus??5 but upon reading a media article showing ?expectations? that the Fresh Report
would discover evidence showing preferential treatment of athletes, they decided to ?nd a way to
include information of questionable relevance provided by a source of questionable credibility.

A reference to this hicident is found as a footnote in the Fresh Report in a section about the
janitors; the footnote begins, cine individuals interviewed identi?ed the handling of a student
disciplinary matter in 2007 as an example of Paterno?s excessive influence at the University.?307
Infometion in this footnote is conveyed ndthout contest from interviews, and the incident itself
is an anomaly Within the broader information gathered that shows overwhelmingly that football
players did not get preferential treatment in disciplinary matters and that Paterno did not have

77
CONFIDENTIAL

 

- - 

excessive in?uence at the University (see our report section Cause: cultural reverence

for the football program. 

Crafting the report: Need to ?add more pooch.? Towards the end of the report writhig
process, Freeh encouraged the group to intensi?i the language used in conclusions. One
investigator reviewed their tinreline and said, ?That should be enough to take a good pass at
making it more forceful, as we have discussed especially the Executive Summary. I do think
that may address [Freeh?s] View about some of it reading like a ?high school terns. paper? which
again I think is a way of stating that we have the facts without enough strong conclusions.?383 In
a later communication, another hivestigator forwarded a draft and said, ?1 may still have to add
more punch.?309 At this stage, report drafts did not include mention of colonel reverence for the
football program in the list of failtnes reopensible for Saoduslcy?s actions. A few days aiter the
?more forceful? and ?add more punch? emails, the highly inflaimnatory and blatantly untrue 
reference to retirement was added to the list of ?failures? and remained in the
report?s ?nal version: despite acknowledgement adthin the report itself that there teas nothing
suspicious about Sandoslcy?s retirement (see our report section Cause: Sanduslcy?s
retirement?). The express interest in producing media sound bites is re?ected in the direction of
the report writing, and especially in the press conference when the Report was released (see our

report section Report Release?).
G37. Governor ?orhett?s conflict of interest: ??i?honrb on the scale?

Corbett was enormously in?uential in the Penn State Board?s handling of the Sanduslcy matter.

As governor, Corbett was an ex of?cio voting member of the Penn State Board of Trustees. The
governor appoints 6 members of the Board: Three members of the governor?s cabinet are also
voting members of the Board. Together, the governor, along Trustees appointed by the

governor, comprised 10 of the 32 voting members of the Board in 201 and 2012.310

Traditionally, the governor did not attend Penn State Board meetings. It was
therefore a surprise to Trustees and to Penn State administrators when Corbett actively involved

himself in Board afl?ans following the release of the Grand Jury prosenttnent.311 312

78
CONFBDENTIAL

.-.-.-: 

wan-hem .mmwr. 

 

Corbett was Attorney General when Sandusky investigation began. Corbett was
Attorney General in 2009, at the time when an investigation was initiated into
allegatioris of sexual abuse by Sanduslcy. He came under criticism when, as a Trustee, he did not
biotin the Board about the possible pending charges against Sanduslcy something that legal
experts said he could have done and that his fiduciary duty as a Trustee required313 (see our
report section ??ber-afar, Schultz, Paterno and Carley repeatedly cascaded 

relating to Sasduslgi ?5 child abuse: From the University ?5 Board ofli?asteesf Contrary
informEldon/interpretations3?)

Sorbett eoetroiled the hit-iag of Corbett took an active role in the selection of the
independent awestigator. Corbett?s geueral counsel provided a ranloordei'ed list of 3 candidates
to Secretary of Education Ronald Tonialis, es: o?icio Trustee who sewed as the Co?Chair of
the PSU Board?s Special Investigative Task Force?? Fresh was second on the list. When Fresh
was chosen by Frazier and Tomdis, Corbett?s approval was solicited and conveyed to
Tomahsd? (At that time, Tomalis voiced to Frazier his resewations about Freeh?s connectioe
with the legal tine Pepper Hamiltoii: ?Among some other things some members of tires are
politically active in PA, but that can be addressed.?316 Our document review did not produce any
indications that this potential con?ict of interest was addressed in any way.) Why did the Board
defer to the governor?s Wishes when selecting their independent investigator? Why did the

governor insert himself into this decision?

Corbett?s role Board deliberations about Speeder and Pater-no: political hit 3301:.? A
New York Times article in November of 2011 described the surprising involvement of the
goveroor in the Board?s decisions to dismiss Spanier and Paterno: ?At an
emergency meeting on Wednesday night, the Board removed both the university .
President, Graham E. Spanier, and Joe Paterno, the football coach. [Trustees] conceded,
without being speci?c, that the Board. had received some unsolicited encouragement about What
action to tags. ?It was indicative of hire putting a thumb on the scale,? said a person with

direct loiowledge of the goveznor?s deliberations.?m

A11 ESPN article313 reported that Corbett actively lobbied for the removal of Spanier and Paterso,

and quoted a friend of Corbett?s who asked the governor, ?th told the Board to ?re Joe and.

79
CONFIDENTIAL

 

?re Spanier?? and received the reply, told them to do it,? adding, ?[Corbett] was proud ofit.?
?Throughout this Whole process, I felt he had some ulterior motive,? a Trustee says of Corbett.
?Most Trustees felt uncomfortable with his rolethere and participate
the way he did. Very odd?? The article reviewed ?the untold story about bare?ltnucltle
politics, old grudges and perceived slights? that accounted for Corbett?s
motivations. Reportedly, Corbett held animosity towards Spanier, who prevailed in restoring
?rnding to Penn State after the governor enacted a massive budget cut, and towards Paterno, who
declined to endorse Corbett whee he ran for governor due to a wish to avoid the con?ict of
interest that would result hour the governor?s ex of?cio seat on the Penn State Board. The day
after the decisions were made to remove Spanier and Paterno, Corbett was seen at a restaurant
celebrating: ?He was just effusive. It was like a victory celebration. lrernember thinking at the

time that it just seemed a strange thing, a kind of gratuitous political piling on.?

John Suedden, the federal iuvesti gator reopensible for the renewal of Spanier?s high sectn?ity
clearance, put it bluntly. ?Instead of ?nding a sea: scandal or a coverwup in the cold case he was
investigating in Happy Valley, Sneddeu said he discovered ample evidence of a ?pclitical hit
job.? When the Penn State scandal hit, ?lt was a convenient disaster,? Snedden said. Because

it gave the governor a chance ?to fulfill vendettas.??339

Interview notes for Trustees who were present "for these meetings are consisteot with the news
reports. A former Board Chair was ?appalled at the behavior of the governor? who ?urged the
Board to act because ?my reputation is at stake.?326 A Trustee who was subsequently elected
Board Chair said that dining the meeting ?Goveruor Corbett was very vocal and [interviewee]

had the impression he was leading the meeting. Corbett endorsed the dismissals of Spaniel" and

Paterno.?321 Another Trustee who later became Chair of the Board said that Board Chair Garbau 

Wes ?out of his element and intimidated by the governor.?322 Frazier, Chair of the Task Force,
said the govemor told the Board to ?third: of the kids? and threatened loss of support in
Harrisburg ?if you don?t do the right thing? and characterized the decisions as ?more PR thau
legal.?323 Trustees were aware of the governor?s feud with Speeder; one longtime Trustee said,
?Corbett is no fan of Graham Spanier as a result of last year?s budget ?ght?m Another Trustee

was told by Secretary ofEdacation Tornalis that Spanier would soon be tired; she had been 

80
CONFIDENTIAL

..

 

aware of the con?ict between Corbett and Spanier but was nonetheless surprised at the level of

?vindictiveness? from Harrisburg-3?25

The Fresh Report misrepresents the consistent and credible comments from Trustees about
Corbett?s active role in Board discusSions, suggesting that Trustees had ?differing recollections?
about Corbett?s actions.326 It is telling that an earlier draft of the report provided a more accurate
account of interview data in describing Corbett as taking an active position in advocating for
decisive action,327 indicating that the Fresh Group made a decision to downplay Corbett?s

influence on the Board when Spanier and Paterno were removed.

Seminary and. eenelnsions. Freeh was hired, in part, due to the influence of Governor Corbett,
who helped create a crisis at Penn State by withholding irformation about criminal
investigation, and who engineered the removal of Spaniel? and Paterno by tineatening loss of
state ?rnding to the University. The Board?s actions created a public impression that Spanier and
Paterno were guilty, and the Free]; Report. reinforced that narrative through selectively

misrepresenting information from the investigation.

on. Penn State Board Vice Qhair delta darnaa?s eoni?het at interest:
Motivated by 

A series of emails obtained through our search of the source documents revealed that John
Burma?s brother, Vic Senna, held a longstanding grudge against Paterao due to Vic?s belief that

Paterno mistreated Vic?s son While he was a football player.

In 2007, a Letterman (former Penn State football player) emailed a member of the football staff,
describing Vie Sinma?s email sent to all former football players with harsh criticisms ofPaterno:
?He refers to Joe as Rat. It was really ugly. I wrote him a personal note asking him to stop, and
he came back with more personal attacks. Not sure What his problem is, but he is angry man
and looks like he is out to get ?revenge? on Joe, the staff, the program.?323

Following Sanduslry?s arrest, Vic emailed a Penn State football coach, saying: ?l was always
proud to have been football player. Not anymore. The old man?s 40 year reign of
hypocracy has ?nally caught up with him. .. Yon loiow as well as I how many young guys he
mined for the purpose ofprornonng his own self interests spoke to my brother today and he

81

CONFDDENTIAL

 

is sickened by this also dc said that the Trustees are meeting very soon. He is not permitted to
tell me anything yet. I got the distinct impression though that the Pateino Virus has run it?s
course in Central Pa.?339 A few days later, Vic wrote to the same coach: ?You know him
(Paterno) much better than I ever could, and my vitriol toward him is all because of the way he
treated my son, nothing more.? He added (referring to his brother John Sarina), ?Tonight, seeing

him sitting in judgement of Joe was the ultimate irony.?33?j

hrfonnation provided by Task Force Chair Ken Frazier indicates that Sarina was a power?il
in?uence in the Board?s decision melting in the aftermath of Sandoslcy?s arrest?; Frazier said
that Sonora steered the Board?s discussion to ?who are we going to blame?? and said that no
time was provided for debate, as Sienna was a ?non?nuanced thinker? who ?forced his opinion on
the Board by stating things should be done his way or he was going to leave.? Frazier described
Susana as a bully and said that many Trustees were ?cornered? by Surnia?s force?tl approach and
went along with him. Frazier said that ?Sarina and Corbett had a private discussion and Selina
then stated that the Board needed. to take decisive action or risk losing the Governor?s support in
Harrisburg. . .. Senna then asked if there were any objections to relieving Spanier and Paterno of

their dnties? and no one objected.

The Board?s dismissed of Spanier and Paterno supported the idea that Penn State officials were
guilty in the matter. Rather than insisting on due process, the Board rushed to a
decision before they had ?ill hiforniation. Having taken this precipitous action, the Board had

reason to continue to support the guilty narrative as the investigation was conducted.

G9. Change in reporting strategy: 3eleting information from h?reeh
Groap?s investigation at 'i?he Second Mite

Our review of the Source Materials produced a Ill?page document outlining a plan for
investigating the role of Sanduslqr?s charity, The Second Mile, in abuse of
children.332 The plan included a table showing til individuals having Motions With both The
Second Mile and Penn State (many of these were current or former PSU Trustees), and
describing the close connection between the two organizations. It is unclear to What extent the
investigative plan was completed. However, a draft of the Fresh Report included material that

was subsequently deleted from the ?nal 1'eport.333 Excenjts of material that was removed:

82
COWDDENTIAL







?Since its founding, TSM has been closely intertwined with the University. In 2011,

more than 31/4 of TSM Board were University alumni.?

?In addition ties between several wella'es nested and in?uential members of the
3
graversity?s Booed of Trustees and TSM is well docrnnented.?

3?

?Some TSM Board members were awarded lucrative connects from the University.
This passage goes on to detail the multimillion dollar construction projects received

by Speci?c TSM Directors.

This hrformation indicates possible con?icts of interest that may have affected some Penn State
Trustees and their close associates, raising ?die question of Whether a decision was made to

remove scrutiny irons The Second Mic and focus it exclusively on Penn State.

Coneirisions

The Fresh Group entered into the investigation with expectations about ?nding evidence of a
coyemp, due to a flawed and insular culture, similar to the pedophile scandal in the Catholic
Church.

The Fresh Group was sensitive to their om press due to interests in marketing their services.
They shaped their Report to be consistent with media narratives and added in?ammatory
language when writing conclusions to gain more press coverage.

DAG prosecutors had an interest in Freeh?s hivestigation being consistent with the case they
were deveIOping against Sanduslcy. Corbett arranged for prosecutors to share information
with Fresh. Fresh did not want to be ?scooped? by law enforcement and willingly took
direction from prosecutors.

The NCAA knew it did not have jurisdiction because Sandash?s prosecution was a criminal
matter. Nevertheless, they decided to pursue sanctions against Penn State in order to enhance
their organization?s reputation. The only avenue for the NCAA to take action was ?loss of
institutional control.? Fresh wanted to become the ?go to investigator? for the NCAA and

therefore had motivation to accommodate their needs.

83
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

Freeh used sources with low credibility and eherrypioked information in order to support
certain conclusions in the Report, especially those relating to a ?awed football culture, which
constituted loss of institutional control for the pinposes sanctions.

Penn State Trustees sod administrators were oveitepresented as somees for the Freeh Report,
and had oppozttmities to in?uence the shaping of the Report throughout the investigation.
Governor Corbett aed Peon State Board Vice Chair John Sarina wielded eoonnous in?uence
over the Board; each had reasons to peipetuste a. narrative Where Speniez mil Patemo were
blamed and both aggressively pursued the removal of Spenier and Patemo. Fi'eeh was
supportive of Corbett for helping him to get the job at Penn State eiid thus had motivation to
support the govemor?s actions by crafting a report Spanier and Petemo at fault.

The con?ict of interest represented by the associations of many Trustees with The Second
Mile may have motivated Trustees to eneomege Freeh to delete their investigation of The
Second Mile from the Fi'eeh Report. Fteeh wes supportive of Rio Sttethei?s, a member of the

Board ofDii?eotom for The Second Mile, for helping him to get the job at Fem: State.

84
CONFEDENTIAL

.

 

thumewmr?g . ., x; .. 

 

 

Review at hreeh Report Chapter re: ?iteeoraereederions for
University governance, administration. and the protection of
shimmer in tiniest-sin facilities and otherness.?

 

A full review of these recommendations is beyond the scope of our evaluation, Winch was

intended to focus on the investigative basis supporting the ma} or conclusions. However, We

highlight several areas of importance.
Compliance recommendations

The Report contained 119 recommendations, including enhanced compliance measures and
training, more centralized HR organizations and functions, expended risk-management protocols,
and board governance refonns. in support of these initiatives, Penn State has added new senior
level positions and personnel in areas such as: Chief Ethics and Compliance Of?cer, Title IX
Coordinator, University Ethics Of?cer, Athletics Integrity O?ccr, Clery Compliance O?'icer,
Associate Athletics Director for Compliance. New policies and councils include: New Statement
and Codes of Ethical Conduct, New Statements of PSU Core Values, Ethics and Compliance

Council, Strategic Commor?cation Council, Sexual Assault Task Force, and

various new mandatory trm'ning programs in a number of related areas.

Penn State and its 2012 Board should be commended for rapidly implementing many of the
recommendations. The University has integrated what many experts regard as best?in-class
compliance measures at every level of the University. The overall cost in human resources and
other capital has been substantial, and there will be ongoing costs related to upkeep and
monitoring of the programs now in place. New, at six years post-hnplementation for these
measures, it is time to evaluate their effectiveness and efficiency to be certain that the desired
goals are being met in a cost?effective manner. In addition, unintended consequences should be
considered - are the new policies detrimental in any way, for example, by overburdening
administrators, faculty, and staff with red tape and paperwork that interfere with their execution

of the University?s mission?

Finally, given that some recommendations in the Pro eh Report were intended to address alleged

problems with ?Penn State emitters?334 -- and since our review emphatically demonstrates that

85
CONFIDENTIAL

 

there was no support for the Fresh Report?s conclusions about culture problems relevani?
recommendations should be subjected to careful review to determine Whether cost savings can be

realized by removing any unnecessary policies.
Board governance reesmroeedeiioss

Our review demonsh?ated that cement and former tmsiees were about board
governance, and that Vir?mally all of them complained that the board was too large to effectively
condoct the University?s business. Many described the negative impact of the large board,
inolodizrg: a?powe1'bloe? of trustees who determined the diree?on of {he board, with 'h?ustees
ou'iside this inner circle feeling excluded;33S 335 337 333 339disengage2nen?? oi?nzerly trustees as a

?mction of the real decisionanaldng being done by the small group ofirisiclers;340 342 343 344 345

3 I '7 0 fr:
lack Ofll??llSpEll??l?iQY?ir? 3?7? 340 3 :9 350 35l 352 353 354 356 35'? 350 3.39

These coneems have been validated by reports from two Auditor Generals, where
recommendations for Penn State board. governance reform have highlighted the need to decrease
the size of'the board and to increase aceozmtability and b'anSpareney.350 361 Penn State?s Faculty
Senate undertook its own ihdepenclent evaluation of board govelnanoe and reeommended a
smaller board for more effective decision~making352
It is surprising that the Freeh Report does not mention the pervasive negative in?nence of the
large board An early draft ofthe report was pointedly critical of the board?s ?mctionzhig. Why

were criticisms of the board deleted from the ?nal version ofthe report?

Notably, in 20ML the board voted to WCREASE its size, and this was supported by many of the
same husrees who told Preeh invesiigators that the board was too large in 2012. How are we to

understand this change in perslseo?ve?

86
CONFEDENTIAL

 

 

t. Etna} ?onctesions

M. Ereeh Resort eonetnsions: Not snpported try investigative
findings

Fresh used a ?more reasonable to conclude? standard, claiming that: the majority of investigative
data supported the conclusions of?ie Freeh Report. Our full, fair, and thorough analysis of the

Source Materials concludes mtequiyocally that the Freeh Report conclusions do not meet that

standard.

The great majority of Freeh?s inves?gative ?ndings support a conclusion that: (1) Spanier,
Schultz, Culley and Paterno were not aware that Sanduslcy harmed children; (2) Penn State?s
athletic culttue was laudable, not cnltish, md did not support or obsctu'e the actions of a
pedoPhile. Our conclusions are supported by extensive data yielded in Freeh?s investigation --

clata that Freeh disregarded and Withheld.

Eid Sprinter, Schultz, Carley and Patterns hide misconduct? The Freeh Report
conclusions rely on the worst possible inteipretation of vaguely worded entrails. Freeh rejects the
explanation provided by Penn State of?cials that they carefully and responsibly assessed the best
way to handle vague allegations about and that they were good people trying to do

their best to make the right decision. Our analysis identi?ed the following sources of support for

this explanation that Freeh rejected:

A Federal high security clearance investigation of Spanier, conducted at the same
time as the Freeh investigation, concluded that Speci?er did not conceal information
indicating m?ongdoing by Spanier?s clearance was renewed. The rigor of
this investigation surpasses that of the Freeh investigation Spanier testi?ed under
oath for this investigation and Schultz and Carley were also interviewed. John
Snedden, the Federal investigaton called the Freeh Report ?an embarrassment to law
enforcement.?

Information gained through interviews of hundreds of members of the Penn State

community revealed that:

87
CONFDDENTLAL

 

 





McQueary told others he was vague in his report of the shower incident.

0 There were no reports of anyone having heard from Spanier, Schultz, Carley
or Paterno about anything more serious than horseplay in the 2001 incident or
at any other time.

There were 110 credible rumors about Sanduslcy circulating Within the
comer?ty. No one suspected Sanduslry.

No reports were made that Spaniel; Schultz, Carley or Patemo had ever asked
anyone to conceal information about Sandoslqr.

Overwhehningly, interviewees praised the characters of Spanier, Schultz,
Carley and Paterno; they were described as ethical and acting with integrity in
all aspects of their professional and personal lives.

0 Paterno met his reporting obligation in 2001 by following the procedures
speci?ed in an NCAA policy implemented in 2014, Where a report is to be

made to a superior and there is to be no followup by the person reporting.

The Freeh Report suggests that because Sandasky was hivestigated in 1998, this
indicated that Perm State officials understood Sandusky was harming children. The
Report does not Consider the very liltely possibility that since was cleared,
the oil?cials may have reasonably concluded Sandusky was vindicated and should
subsequently be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The Fresh Report suggests that Schultz concealed documents. Investigators
disregarded Schultz?s grand jury testimony - which they reviewed Where he stated
that he believed such documents might be in his of?ce. Notably, this testimorry was
made in the presence of Penn State General Counsel Baldwin, who could
have searched for these documents had She believed they were important. The Freeh
investigators seen: unsurprised an individual engaged in a cover up did aot destroy
potentially incrirninathig documents. Schultz had ample opportunity; he did not
destroy the documents.

The Freeh Group appeared to disregard hiformation provided in a full day h'ainieg
provided by expert protiler Ken Lapping which showed that pedophiles may

Operate in ways that make detection very difficult, even for law enforcement

88
CONFBDENTLAL

 

:a?nm - 

personnel, and eSpecially for members of the community whose impressions are
shaped by an extremely positive public pro?le of the offender.

The Freeh Group appeared to disregard the fact that many professionals evaluated
in regard to his ?tness to adopt, foster, md work with children. At the time
of the 2001 investigation, Sandoslcy was retired from the University and was working
With children at his charity, The Second Mile, which was run by a licensed child
None of these professionals detected that Sandus {y was beaming
children. Why would University administrator?s be expected to recognize a problem

that trained professionals were unable to discern?

Spaniel; Schultz and Carley stand convicted of misdemeanor offenses of child endangerment363
Pa?teino was never charged with a crime md Spanier?s conviction is under appeal?? Conspiracy
charges were dropped for Carley and Schultz while Spanier was found not guilty of this charge 
removing any idea of a cover up. Although these convictions may be interpreted to reinforce the
acetiracy of the Fresh Report, we note that a prominent jury consultant?s survey found it
impossible for these individuals to get a. fair trial anywhere in due to distorted
media coverage and the Freeh Report. A majority of citizens surveyed decided these men were
guilty; more than 70% believed the Freeh Report?s conclusions meant that the of?cials were
guilty of a crime.365 Freeh?s Opinions and scepect conclusions may have suf?ciently tainted the

jtny pool to cause the convictions of Spaniel; Schultz, and Carley.

Why did the Fresh Report include motivations and causes? It is implausible to think that
experienced administrators of a niaj or public University individuals with spotless professional
records and the highest levels of integrity, and leaders of a University renowned for high
academic and ethical standards would losowingly permit children to be banned by allowing a
pedophile to roam li'eely about the campus. The Fresh investigation yielded no compelling
support for this absurd premise, and in fact yielded extensive information that this
idea. It appears that, to strengthen the appearance of support, the Fresh Gronp included
motivations and causes for the alleged failrn?e ofPenn State o?dcials to stop Sanduslty? Oar
review of emails exchanged among the investigators revealed their search for what they called
?the factors as they were writing the report, after the investigation was largely
concluded; it is notable that several members of the group expressed misgivings about adding

89
CONFHDENTIAL

 

na?wa. 

 

causal factors because they acloiowledged that they could only Speculate about these due to lack

of any real sapponing evidence.



?i?e avoid the consequences of had pnhiicity. The very weak support for this idea
comes from statements atnibuted to Spanier and Carley which indicate their
understandhig of the situation in 200}. that did not realize it was inappropriate
to shower with children and that his showering with children made others uncomfortable,
and thus they believed that although Sandusky?s behatdor didn?t cross the line, it didn?t
?look good.? In their roles as University President and Athletic Director, Spanier and
Carley had extensive experience in handling bad publicity; the idea thatthey would
knowingly cover up for a pedophile, rather than manage the fallout ti'ont publicity
smronnding a employee, is preposterous. That the Fresh Report would stake its
conclusions on such a weakly supported theory is clear indication of bias.

as cultural reverence for toothall.? Fresh himself aolorowledged in an email to his
investigators that they had never seen any indication that anyone was motivated to protect
Pateino or the football program. In fact, abundant information gained lions the
investigation indicated that the culnu-e of athletics at Penn State had long been pristine.
To support this ?causal? factor, the Free]: Report disregarded and misrepresented
extensive information from hundreds of interviewees indicating that (1) Pat-cine did not
Wield undue in?uence in the University beyond his role as head football coach; (2)
student athletes were not given Special treatment in academic and disciplinary matters;
(3) Lasch Building janitors were not afraid of losing their jobs. Freeh recognized that
Penn State?s athletic culture was not de?cient; Why did he highlight this false conclusion
in his Report? We believe we found the answer to this qaestion and we elaborate below.
Saadaslry?s retirement. The Fresh Report states clearly that there was no association
found between the 1998 allegations oi? misconduct (which were deemed meocnded) and
Sandasky?s retirement timing or arrangements. Our docranent review con?rms this.
Why, then, was it necessary to include an entire chapter on this matter? Despite the
disclaimer that settlement was not suspicious, the Fresh Report includes an
incendiary passage criticizing Penn State of?cials for allowing to retire ?not as

a suspected child predator essentially granting him license to bring boys to campus

90
CONFBDENTM

 

 

 

facilities for grooming? as targets for his assaults.??366 This blatant indication of bias
undercuts the integrity of the entire Report.

?a striking lack of empathy for child abuse victim.? This in?ammatory and
gratuitous ?cause? is based on the lack of actions taken to protect children; the point is, of

course, moot if Penn State of?cials did not have information that they believed indicated

that children had been harmed.
1.2. ladepeedenee ot? h?reeh Report tatally eonsprotnised

Multiple factors appear to have influenced the enscharaoterization of the investigative data in the
Freeh Report. Most notably, the independence of the investigation appears to have been
sacri?ced by Louis Fresh due to pursuit ofhis own con?icts of interest. Other petites appeared
to have conflicts of interest and to have pursued them opportunistically in a highly charged
situation Where logic gave way to emotion. Collaboration between Fresh and these parties

resulted in a Report with unsubstantiated conclusions.

NCAA. NCAA leaders knew that the Sanduslqr allegations were a matter of criminality and
therefore they could not sanction Penn State Within their own guidelines. Nevertheless, they
decided that disciplining Penn State would improve the reputation, and provided a

blueprint to the Fresh Group for the one avenue that would pennit them to act: a ?nding of loss

of institutional control.

Fresh had been openly pursuing a business relationship with the NCAA for almost two years,
hoping to become the ?go?to investigators.? This effort continued during the time he
was investigating Penn State an investigation that Fresh knew would be used by the NCAA.
Contrary to his own public statements that no infonnation was shared outside his group, Fresh
regularly briefed NCAA of?cials during the investigation, and shared the Report with the NCAA
prior to its public release. In the Report, Freeh delivered the ?loss of histinrtional control?
conclusion a statement that the Penn State community mast ?transform the that
permitted behavior? despite privately acknowledging that their investigative
Edings did not support this idea. After the NCAA annomaced its unprecedented sanctions
against Penn State, Freeh?s Group noted, ?This has opened up an opportunity to have the

9 1
CONFIDENTIAL

 

umb- 

.22. mm. 

dialogue with President] Brmnert about possibly being the go to external investigator for

the NCAA. It appears we have Emmeit?s attention now.?

Governor Corbett and the Cities of Attorney General. Governor Corbett
closely oversaw Freeh?s hire as Penn State?s independent investigator and Sanduslty
prosecutors to share information with Fresh. Prosecutors, especially Frank Fina, provided
regular updates about their criminal investigation, some likely improper. Fresh was indebted to
Corbett for his hire and was motivated not to be ?scooped by law enforcement? in order to
enhance his over reputation as an investigator; he therefore eollnded with the GAG to produce a
somcalled ?hadependent? report that was entirely consistent with the criminal case against
As a Tinstee, Corbett withheld material information related to horn the
Board (as legm experts, including Fresh and his ?socia?te lodge Sullivan, believed he should
have done), and exerted an outsize influence on the Board?s decision to dismiss Paterno and
Carley. Some suggest he may have been motivated by political agendas rather than in pursuing

the interests of Penn State.

Penn State Board of ?l?rnstees. The Board?s early reaponse to the crisis was to quickly assign
blame to Spanier, Schultz, Carley and Paterno. Sonic Trustees may have been iin?lnenced by
Governor Corbett?s threat to reduce state ?tnding for the University if Pateino and Spanier were
not dismissed hardly an idle threat, given that he had recently done just that. Other Trustees
may have been motivated by personal agendas underlying a desire to remove Paterno end/or
Spanier. The public reason given for their decision was a common corporate approach as
expressed by 2012 Board chair Karen Peetz, ?we needed to take our and wait for
time to pass, trusting that ?by 2014 it will just be a distant memory.?368 Regardless of
motivation, it was in the Board3 interest for the ?ndings of the Fresh investigation to validate
their hasty actions to sacrifice due process and to scapegoat University o?cials in an attempt to
demonstrate connol over the crisis. Contrary to public statements by all parties, Freeh provided
reg-alm- brie?ngs to Trustees on developments throughout the investigation, and gave previews of
report conclusions to Penn State leaders. Our review showed that Freeh adopted the ?iconic
coac narrative after Task Force Chairth?razier forwarded a media piece, and that Fresh likewise
adopted the ?coveinp? narrative following Board Vice Chair Masser?s statements to the press.

To What extent did Penn State Trustees attempt to actively in?uence Freeh?s conclusions?


CONFIDENTIAL



 

'Ehe Second Mile. The Freeh Group laid out a comprehensive plan for investigating the role of
Sandusky?s charity, The Second Mile, in his abuse of children. An early draft of the Fresh
Report included results from this investigation, detailing extensive connections between The
Second Mile and Penn State, especially the Board of Trustees. Why was The Second Mile
completely removed from the ?nal Fresh Report? At the time of his hire, Fresh failed to disclose
a possible con?ict of interest his connection to Rio Sir-others, a close business associate who
was a prominent donor to Penn State and a Director for The Second Mile. had agreed
to advocate for Freeh?s hire with Penn State Trustees. Did this association ud?r a member of the
Board of Directors for Sanduslty?s charity play any role in Freeh?s decision to omit all mention

of the investigation of The Second Mile?
t3. ieyestigatise and r'egsortiag tiaees

The Fresh Group?s investigative and reporting methodology were characterized by ?awed tactics

that impaired the quality of the work:

Interview methodology was prone to error, subject to conscious and unconscious bias of
hivestigators, and involved coercion of interviewees.

hivestigators failed to inter?rdew those having direct experience with the matters under
investigation, and failed to quality conclusions accordingly.

No systematic analysis strategy was used to evaluate interview material.

Deepite claiming to use a ?more reasonable to conclude? standard, the Fresh Report?s
conclusions were not supported by a majority of the information yielded by the
investigation.

Release of the Report was done at a press conference Where conclusions were
communicated in an masher, wider circumstances that prevented reporters

from fully evaluating the material in the Freeh Report.

93
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

La. Pena diate Board is too large

A consistent message from Trustees haterviewed by the Freeh Group was concern over the
negative impact of their large Board power held by a group of insiders Who made roost of the
decisions, other trustees feeling excluded and disengaged, lack of transparency, and
communication ledrs. Why did rhe Freeh Report fail to include a recommendaiiori ?co decrease

the size of the board is its focus on improving Penn State?s governance?

The handling of {he Sanduslry crisis appears to be a case siudy illustration of ways a large board
may be too cumbersome for effeciive decisicn~mal<ing, especially under crisis conditions.
Trustees who were present described a situation where a minority of insider hastees rushed a
decision Wlnle stilling discussion and discouraging dissenting voices. Regrets were expressed by

some Trustees who later believed some of their hasty decisions were wrong.

Penn Staie?s Board must be decreased in size in order to creare a calorie where all Trustees are
informed and engaged, {he work of the Board is transparent, and a diversity of opinions is

welcome as a valued element in high quality decision?making.
Need i?or pablie edseation aboai aeonaini?asee ahosers

The Board adopted a corporate solation to the Sanduslry crisis, apparently believing that
sacri?cing a few individuals and expressing remorse would allow the University io recover
quickly from the scandal. Such a hasty and miexamined approach was unworthy of any
hisiitntion of higher learning. We believe it is our obligation to fully and accurately understand
the circumstances Sturounding Sandusky?s actions so that we can learn the apprOpriate lessons in

order to prevent future abuse. To do otherwise is to dishonor victims and survivors of sexual

abuse.

Our did not know enough abour': acquaintance offenders who ?hide in plain sight?
behind an established reputaiion for compassionate service to youth. The longstanding sexual
abuse recently disclosed ai Mchigan State University and the University of Soaihem California

ampli?es the need for improved rmderstanding and public education.

94-
CONFIDENTM

Mu hm? . "In-horm-

.. 

 

 

Penn State has taken on a leadership role in research into the causes and treatments of abuse, as
well as academic pro gramming to main child protection professionals. We hope that Penn State
Will add to this a commitment to public education, johring with organizations such as the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the effort to prevent abuse through
informing parents, children, and youth service organization about effective ways of protecting

young people}69

he, Final easements

The lireeh Report does not acctu'ately or fairly characterize the Source Material upon which it
was purportedly based. Even worse, it was the product of eateinal in?uences and was not by any
measure objective or the result of independence. In short, it is both unreliable and misleading.
Our University paid $8.3 million for an ?independent investigation? that am neither independent
nor a fair and thorough investigation.

Entities charged with promoting the University?s interests "failed, instead pursuing their om
interests.

The NCAA acted to enhance its own reputation and in so doing, sacri?ced the well-being
of Penn State?s student athletes, and dishonestly impugned our University?s stellar
athletic culture, contrary to its own mission.

Governor Corb ett slashed the University?s funding and then actively in?uenced the
handling of the Sanduslcy crisis in ways that harmed the Comouwealth?s land grant
University, an histitution he was obligated to support both as Governor and as a Trustee.
Penn State?s Board scapegoated some of the University?s most loyal, honorable, and
longstanding servants in a misguided attempt to quickly put the crisis behind them.

Louis Fresh produced a report with conclusions that were not supported by his own
investigation, contrary to the terms of his engagement Wi?i the University, in order to
promote his own business opeoruinities.

As Trustees, our highest resIJonsibilitv is our charge to protect and support the University?s

mission and reputation. As a result of our tall, as, and thorough review of the Fresh

investigation Source Materials, we repudiate the conclusions of the Fresh Report.

95
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

 

 

3 Barron, E. ?Statement ?'om Penn State President Erie 131111011.? Penn State University,
November 15, 2014-. 
om-etatehoresideet?erie-berroe
2 A1a11jo,A ?Pedeml Agent: No Se)- 1' Scandal At Penn State, Just A cPolitical 1-111 1 ob Big
T1 11:11, April 10, 2017 11m
3 Wolvertoo, ?Freeh group member criticizes NCAA 3 use of investigative report.?
C111 oniole of Higher Education, 1113/? 2?7, 2012.
bites. 01111111117. ohroniele. 
Tl1oreb111g11, D. ?Review of the Preeh Repo1 Concerning Joseph 13111131110. February 6, 2013.
111111: Harrow. oatemo. eomfre?souroesfdoesfthoroboreb 1:11:31 re?oort 2 53-2013 .odt'
5 ?Siatemerrt by a Group of Past Chairs of The State University Faculty Senate
Regarding the Freeb. Report, the NCAA Consent Decree, and Their Academic Implications.?
A11g113128, 2012. 
5 ?Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship Review of the Preeh Report.? September 13, 2012.

7 The Cormnoeweeltb Court of ?Eelre (31111111113 1111-113 Of?cial Capacity as Senator
1.10111 the 311th Senatorial District of and Chair of the Senate or).
Appropriations; and Robert M. MoCord, 1111-113 Of?cial Capacity es Treasurer oftbe
Commonwealth of Plaintiffs against National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, agaiost Penesylvaoia State Univereiiy, Defendant.? December 15, 201A,

3 Miller, .1. ?Peer: State Board Trustee Al Ciemees resigns; Altonni criticize Board for Freeh
Repose? response.? StateCollege.coo1, March 7, 2014. 
oeWSIoeorostere? 
mangaraeeraet
9 Wler, l. ?Peon State Road Trustee Al Clemens resigns; Alumni criticize Board for Freeh
Report response.? StateCollege.con1, March 2014. 
oewe/oem?stetee 
he?ome 14158230]
10 Van Natta, D. ?Court documents indicate NCAA and Freeh inves?gators worked together 011
Penn State Nittany Lions investigation.? ESPN, November 12, 2014
11tto: 0111111111. esonoom/esonfotl/storvl {1111?1 
2216011
11 Popovio, 1. ?Bob Costas Revises Opimon 011 Scandal.? YoraTube, March 12, 2013.

12 SenateDemPressPA. on. 101111 Yudiohak Discusses Hie Coocertoa With Incomplete Preeh
Report.? 1?0er 116e, March A, 2013. 
33 Smeltz, A, and Bumsted, E. ?Attorney Finds Misstepe in Former FBI Director Freeb?s Perm
State Report.? 211M073. com, 1111113 30 2014. 
?Af?e?eh?reoo?? Estate
141311213, .1. ?Outside the Lines.? ESPN. 1211111er 22, 2018.
15 Freeh, Sporkie, 62: Sullivan (P SS), LLC. Engagement to Perform Legal Services Eetter to

Steve A. Garban and Paula R. Ammemeor]. The State University, University Park,

November 18, 2011.

96
CONFEDENTIAL

.. 

 

 

15 Fresh, Sporlein, Sullivan, LLP. ?Repozt of the Special Investigative Counsel regarding the
actions of The State University related to the child sexual abuse committed by

Gerald A. Sanduslqr. July 12, 2012.
hitns. ffare?e. nvtimes eonsf?aregsv. con?interaetiseiit? 12/02?! i 3oen



3" Erickson, R. dc Emmett, M. ?Binding Consent Decree Imposed by the National Collegiate
Athletic Association and Accepted by the State Univeisity. 1on 23, 2012.

bites z/Iessvea nose 

13 Van Natta I1. D. ?Unprecedented to. Every Way. ESPN, ESPN hatetnetVentuiwes July 24,
2012. titer/feeds. esoeeomfesonfotifstotv! Kid/SiSEENease-oennm 


19 Van atta Ira, D. ?Measured, but No Less Dawning.? ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures,
February 10, 2013. 


2? Damion, M. ?Sen. Jake Connan Sues NCAA to Keep Penn State Fine Money in
Centre Daily Times, January 5, 2013.
i. 93 Elm

2.1 Thompson, C. ?Comma Suit Settlement on NCAA Sanctions against Penn State Was
Apparently a Handshake in Lien of a Slug.? PennLive.com, PennLivecom, February 12, 2015.
suit settiement on swam

22 In the Conn: of Common Pleas of Cenn'e County, Civil Action?Law. ?The Estate
ofloseph Paterno, Et Al Plainttiff. vs. No. 2013 2082 National Collegiate Athletic Association?
EEAZ Defendant December 8, 2014. hnosjfoS?irs?ies ."eiordoress com?0l?f04fms~


9'3 Van Natia 11. D. ?Docs: NCAA, Fieeh Worked Togethe: ESPN ESPN Internet Ventnles,
Novembei 12, 2014. assess esoacomfesonfodfsiervi Adi 118e3293feo1et doee?rr?zenie?dodieate-
neaa-?eeh? 

24 Home, K. ?New Emails Show NCAA Helped F1681. In Investigation. 022141.51; (Z State, Onward
State, Novembei 12, 2014. hti?os: ffonwardsiete. comf20i4/l lIiEIneW-emaiis showmcaanheinedn
?eeh~in~inves?ga?onf

25 Ketchen In, D. ?Hovvr Penn State Turned a Into a Disaster: An Inteiview With Crisis
Management Pioneer Steven Fink. Hot 1&2de Business Review. September 15, 2014.

bites- Ifhbr. 


2?5 Wagner, I. A Special 1epo1t:Recon1mendetions for governance refomz at The 

State University after the child sea abuse scandal. November, 2012.

27 Thompson, C. ?Penn State Is Back to Helium Alumni Trustee Elections, and The. ?s
Amazing.? PerenLive. com, PennLive.con1, March 3, 2015.

.oennlive. eomfrnidSiatefindes. ss?20l?f03loenn state is basis. to its?hon: atom}.

23 Eerkman, B. ?dlniversity Senses Down Trustees Request Of E1 eels Report Docunents.?
?ower (Z State, Onwaid State, Apiil 20, 2015. bites: ffonwards tote. comi2013f04/201noiversity~


29 In, M. ?Right of Directors to Insgject Corporate Books and Records.? 11 Vill. L.
Rev. 578. 1966. 

30 Legislativate Data Processing Center. ?Title 15 The O??icz?ol Websitefor the 

General Assemey. 

97
CONFEDENTIAL

 

 

 


sotn=12desnbsetn=0

33 Thompson, C. ?Penn State Almnni Trustees Win Battle to Review Freeh Report
Files.?PennLive.com, PemrLivenorn, November 19, 2015.
llfreeh oeon state trusteeshm

32 Gneguen, N. ?Commonwealth Court Reverses Decision on Rehnbursernent ofAttozneys Fees
Related to Freeh Report.? Record, March 22, 2017.
169453 


33 American Bar Association. ?The regional center for hiveetigation and adjudication: A
proposed solution to the challenges of Title IX htvestigations in higher education.? Dispute
Resolution Magazine, Spring 2016. htto: eemjoeb?eetionefthe-

edoee?oe??lo 0523?

3313mm Starters roi Resoonsible Stewardship. ?Perm Steters for Resoonsible Stewardship review
ofthe Freeh report.? September 13, 2012. 


35 Thornborgh, D. ?Review of the Freeh Report concerning .1 oseph Petemo.? February 6, 2013.
met. REPCRT 2u?7-2013odf

36 Bleher, 80%an Report 2: The case for repealing the NCAA. sanctions levied
against Fern; State University.? February 26, 2013.
2 eeoetioos fulhodf

37 Freeh group diary.

33 Silverglate, H. ?Constructing Truth: the (non?eeording pohcy 3? Forbes, July 27, 2011.
tattoo methio?


39 Sullivan, T. compendium of law relating to the electronic recording of custodial
interrogations Judicature, 95.5 (March/April, 2012): 212?215.

?30 Silverglate, H. ?Constructing Truth: the (non)recording policy.? Forbes, July 27, 2011.

nonrewrdine?ooliov?ldB 53726e14e35

?13 Cole, .1 ?Deputy Attorney General Memo. Policy regarding electronic recording of
statements May 12, 2014, Washington DC

42 Interview, April 12, 2012.

3?3 Freeh group diary.

4? Intendew, July 6, 2012.

?15 Freeh Report, p. 73.

45 Int emew, July 6, 2012.

43 Freeh gloup 

33 Freeh group diary.

49 Freeh Report, p. 12.

5? Freeh, L. enete Democrats and 9/ 11 Amnesia.? Wall Street .1 omnel, April 4, 2018.
1-emnesieda??13259652

98
CONFIDENTIAL

?va

 

 

 

 

51 Freeh, McNeill, MoChesney, K. ?Re: FW: Saoduslcy.? June 26, 2012. Email

exchanges

52 Freelz group diary.

53 Freeli Report, p. 12.

Freeh Report, p. 75.

55 Inierview, April. 12, 2012.

55 Frazier, 13:. ?Re: Investigation Counsel.? To: Baldwio, Samoa, Gerber}, Tomalis,
Aiomemian. November 18, 2011. Email.


5? DiS'fefario. I. ?Penn State investigator is at 131332 with PSU ties.? Philadelphia
Inquirer, November 21 2011. 


53 Freeb, L. ?Re: Second Mile.? To: Buolmara, MoNeill, Del Raso, Besoiipi. November 7,
2011. Email.

59 Tomalia, R. ?Re: Gov.? To: Frazier. November 11, 2011. Email.


69 Serbmari, R. ?Re: AG call.? To: Deoember22, 2011. Email.

6" Freeh group diary.
62 Paw. G. ?Re: Paremos? Knowledge NEW To: Setlman, MoChesney, O?Neill.

May 24-, 2012.
53 Paw, G. ?Re: CLOSE HOLD lrnpozdan?t.? To: Freeh, MoNeill, Mather, Baughman, Del
Raso. Ooiober 31, 2012. Brad.

6413M G. ?Re: Fina.? To: MoChesrzey. lune 26, 2012.

55 Freeli group diary.

55 Paw, G. ?Re: Good News!? To: MoNeill, Maiber. June 28, 2012. Email.

5? Paw, G. ?Re: Fina important.? To: MoNeill, MoChesney, Mather, Domes, Se?amarr, Cloud.
April 30, 2012. Email.

58 Freeli group diary.

69 email 5/26/12

70 Paw, G. ?Re: Fina.? To: MoNeill. Oorober 3, 2012. Email.

72 Paw, G. ?Re: Fina important.? To: McNeill, MoChesney, Mather, Downes, Se?nnan, Cloud.

April 30, 2012. Email.
77? Fresh group diary.

73 Domes, G. ?Re: PA AG Conraor.? To: Paw, Ogden. October 16, 2012. Email.
74' Freeli group diary. 

75 Freeli group diaxy.

3?15 Freeli group diary.

77 Freeli group diary.

73 Freeh group diary.

79 Freeh group diary.

8? Free]; group diary.

3} Freeh group diary.

33 Free}: group diary.

83 Freeli group diary.

34? Free]: group diary.

35 Freak group diary.

99
CONFEENTIAL

 

. 

qua? . ?Marian-w . ..

run-:22 47;:



 

35 Freeh group diary.

37 Freeli group diary.

88 O?iee of Attorney General. Interview of Joseph V. Pareruo, October 24, 2011.
89 Few, G. ?Re: Fine? To: MoChesuey. lune 26, 2012. Email.

9?3 Domes, G. ?Re: To: Paw. October 16, 2012. Email. ?Kim is still lying to them? p. 3
Rele?iiyi?ty notes

91 Few, G. ?Re: CLOSE HOLD Important.? To: Freeh, McNeill, Me?ler, Baugbmen, Del
Rose. Ocrober 31, 2012. Email.

92 Few, G. do Beugbruan, M. ?Re: Pa. AG Office Conrad.? October 2, 2011. Email exchange.
93 Pew, G. ?Re: Stare AG To: MoNeill, F13oir1, Mather. November 30, 2011.
Email.

Freeb, L. ?Re: PSU Federal GI Subpoena.? February 2, 2012. To: Paw, McNeil], Meiber,
Meresuey, Email.

95 MoNeill, 0. ?Re: FW: Grand Jury Morions.? To: Mchesuey, Paw. February 8, 2012. Email.

9?3 Fine, F. Pew, G. ?Re: Croiey~8 (3111er all.? To: MoNeill, Mere-srrey, Meier. April 2,
2012. Email exchange.

93" Pew, G. ?Re: Paiemos? Knowledge NEW To: Serbmeu. May 24, 2012. Email.
93 Few, G. ?Re: 131113.? To: Meresuey. June 26, 2012. Email.

99 McNeill, 0. ?Re: Fever.? To: Pew, G. October 21, 2012. Email.

100 Freeb group diary.

101 Freeb group diary.

202 Freeh group diary.

103 Freeb group diary.

roe Freeb group diary.

305 Freeb group diary.

106 Freeb group diary.

10? Freeb group diary.

mg Freeh group diary.

?39 Freeh group diary.

110 Freell group diary.

211Freeh group diary.

?2 Freeh, L. ?Re: Emails.? To: Pew, MoNeill, Mather, Delete, Buelcuam, Sullivan,
McCuskey, Austin, Del Raso. March 11, 2013. Email. -

?3 Frazier, K, Freeb, L., Emmert, M. ?Re: Corrieor.? November 28, 2011. Email exchange.
?4 Frazier, K, Freeb, L., Emmeri, M. ?Re: Contact? November 28, 2011. Email exchange.
115 McNeill, 0. ?Re: Ten.? To: Frazier, Tomalis, Freeb. December 2, 2011.
?6 Frazier, K. ?Re: FW: Tee.? To: December 2, 2011.

117 MoNeill, 0. ?Re: To: Frazier, Free-.11. December 18, 2011.

?3 MoNeill, 0. ?Re: FW: Preseureriou documeurs.? To: [17 members of die Freeb group].
Jammy 5, 2012. Email.

?9 MoNeill, 0. ?Re: FW: Presenraiior; documents.? To: [17 members of?be Freeh group].
January 5, 2012. Email

120 Chisholm, A. ?Re: Athletic Dieoussiou Points.? To: MoNeill. January 1, 2012. Email.
121 Pareruo, l. ?Pereruo legacy.? 2014. Towel-.111 Publishing.

1 0 0
CONFIDENTIAL

noon?. 

m: .Wrm:

 

 

 

 

 

122 Remy, D. ?Re: draft letter.? To: McNeill. December 19 20, 2011. Email exchange.
123 Remy, D. ?Fw: Presentation documents.? To: McNeill, Roe, Walker, Walls. January 5,
2012. Email.

12? McNeill, athletic Discussion Points." Te: Chisholm. January 1, 2012. Email.
3?25 Associared Press. ?Tes?rimoay at Sauduslcy trial missed chances.? June 16, 2012.


airspeciedhe?l

12? Boston, 91. ?Vice chairman Keith Masser apologizes re Perm Sia?i?e board of 'Ezrusrees for
cover-12p comments.? Cerrtre Daily Times, June 20, 2012.
em
sae?eala?yfariielee2308980hm1

12? Membership, Perm Sia?r?e Board of Trustees. 
12? McNeill, 0. ?Re: To: Freeh, McChesney, Shechaa, Mather, Sullivan, Dolae, Paw.

June 16, 2012.
129 Freeh, L. To: McNeill, McChesney, Sheeharz, Mather, Sulliyaa, Dolarz, Paw. June

16, 2012.

130 Coserriino, D. ?What Did lee Referee Knew Ahour Jerry Smduslry In 1998? Esquire
Unearihs Curious New Details Pram Papers.? Deadsphi, May 23, 2012.
himsr?de?adaein.eeraf59125 ear~whai-iee-eaieme~eii aha-
eui-?ierryn-s aedasky?ral 0%

131 Guadagniho, F. ?Re: Paremos? Knowledge WNEW To: McChesney. May 211-,
2012. Email.

132 Magary, D. ?Joe Paierno wants us a) believe he has never heard of ?rape and. a man.? lee
Paierno is full of Shir.? Deeds-pin, January 16, 2012. 


133 Bryant H. ?Jerry Saeclusky, Perm State?s shame.? ESPN, Julie 23, 2012.





134 Frazier, K. ?Re: Sandusky.? To Amme?nan. lune 23, 2012. Email.

135 Freeh, McNeill, McChesney,K. ?Re: Fw: Saudasky.? June 26, 2012. Email exchanges.
i3? Freeh, MoNeill, McChesney, K. ?Re: FW: Sanduslry.? lune 26, 2012. Email exchanges.
13? Freeh, McNeill, McChesney, K. ?Re: Fw: Sandeslgr.? June 26, 2012. Email exchanges.
133 Freeh, McNeill, MoChesney, K. ?Re: FW: Saudasky.? June 26, 2012. Email exchanges.

139 Freeh Report, p. 17.
Freeh group diary.
141 Freeh group diary.
142 Freeh group diary.
14'3 Freeh group diary.
Freeh group diary.
1:15 Freeh group diary.
Frazier, K. ?Re: Fw: Please see up a call for all ?misrees on Monday, April 9 a'15:30 pm.? To:
Freeh, O?Neill, Teraalis. April 6, 2012. Era?.
McNeill, 0. ?Re: Fear: Please see up a call for all imaiees on Moaday, April 9 at 5:30 pm.? To:
Freeh. April 6, 2012. Email.
143 Freeh group diary.
Freeh, L. ?Re: Ten.? To: Frazier. December 2, 2011. Email.
101


 

 

 

15? Freeh group diary.

151 Freeh group diary.

152 Freeh group diary.

153 Dawson, M. ?Penn State hired Louis Freeli over former Homeland Security chief Michael
Cheriof Center Daily Times, March 19, 2014.

sapdusiryfer?eie?ggii?m?hm?

154 Freeh group diary.

155 Burke, T. ?The Freeh Report Will Conclude Paremo?e Firing Wee Weirenred, According To
These Pi?eperarioe Documents.? Deadspin, July 12, 2012. h?oe?deMeomi5?Z?339f?ie~

documents I

156 ?Remake of Loois Freeh in conjunction with aorrormeemeor of publication ofreporr
regarding the Srare University.? July 12, 2012.
Press Release 07 3.2 

15? Penn Siare News. ?Universiiy leaders answer questions on Freeh report.? July 13, 2012.
1470362013021? 
?53 Freeh Reporr, pp. 15?16.

159 Freeh Report, p. 16.

1?50 Freeh Repori, p. 16.

151 Freeh Report, p. 17.

152 Free-h Repo?, p. 17.

153 Freeh Report, p. 73.

15?3? Freeh Report, p. ?74.

3?65 Freeh Report, p. 74.

165 Freeh Report, p. 75.

157 Freeh Report, p. 75.

168 Freeh Report, p. 75.

169 Freeh Report, p. 76.

270 Freeh Report, p. 76.

Freeh Report, p. 72

?2 Freeh group diary.

?3 Interview, July 6, 2012.

?4 Freeh group diary.

?5 Freeh group diary.

3?75 Freeh group diary.

Free]; group diary.

?3 Freeh group diary.

?9 Snedderi, I. High securiiy clearance invesiigaiiorl report Gre?iaoi Spanier. Deparimeni of
Defense, Defense Indusirial Security Clearance O??ice, May 8, 2012. .

Redactedeg 

13? Cipiiario, R. ?Special who Speeier blows up ease.? BigTIial.ner,
March 28, 2017. 


131 Interview, February 22, 2012.

I 02
CONFBDENTIAL

h. .4 

 

 

182 biterview, Aplil 26, 2012.

133 Intewiew, January 18, 2012.
184 Interview, February 16, 2012.
135 Interview, March 12, 2012.
386 Interview, March 8, 2012.

137 Interview, April 16, 2012.

183 Interview, April 11, 2012.

139 Interview, lenoeijr 18, 2012.

190 Freeh Report, p. 4?7.
?91 Harmon, T. ?Re: Con?dential.? To: Schultz. June 9, 1998. Email.

192 Schultz, G. ?Re: Jelly.? To: Curley, Spenier, l-leitmoo. June 9, 1998. Email.

193 Appendix 2.1, Intemriew Analysis and Summary: 1998 hivestigetion of Saiiduslcy.

394? ereb group diary.

195 Genim, 8. ?Penn State eoeob Patemo praised for acting appi'olaziately in reporting Jerry
Sendusliy sex abuse suspicions.? The Pe?ixiothews, November 5, 2011.
lieetemo ozeised for some 

196 ?Sexual assault protocol.? State University, University Perl: Campus, Fall 1995.

19? V2211 Natte, D. igbt on State.? June 13, 2012. ESPN.



193 Gilbert, T. mles athletic departments should act handle semial assault
investigations.? Onward State, September 5, 2014.



199 Goldman, ?Joe Petemo: ?Wi'ill the benefit of hindsight, 1 Wish 1 had done more.?
Business Insider, November 9, 2011. 
2131 lull

200 Free]: group notes.

201 Freeh group diary.

202 Free]: group working notes.

203 Seesoclc, J. ?Reneissanee Corporation Sewice Evaluation.? May 8, 1998.
201? Associated Press. ?Second Mile board members say CEO kept them in the dark about Jerry
Seoduslqr.? Hem'sburg Patriot-?News. December 20, 2011.
mile bboei'd membez's sash-E331
205 Erdley, 13. ?Adoption, foster circles reeling over Seoduslcy poztreit.? Pittsburgh Tribune,
November 27, 2011. 269222.bm1

205 Freeb Repozt, p. 20.
Freeli Report, p. 64, 79.

203 Freeli Repoit, p. 26-27, 80, 85?86.
209 Horton, William W. ?Legal ethics: What Penn State md Lehman Brothers can teach

heeltbeaxe and entities?: lawyers about con?icts of iizterest.? April, 2016. Amelieaobererg.
legal. e?tbies What :3
ems state eed lebmao. brotbesseotbebeekdemedf
210 Pew, G. ?Re: Grand Jury Secrecy under low.? To: Freeb, MoNeill, 
Mather, Bougbmao, Zeal-.1, Meresziey. January 19, 2012. Email.
211 Interview, March 15, 2012.
103
CONFDDENTLAL

 

 

223?- Interview, April 23, 2012.

213 Interview, July 6, 2012.

21"'I'Freeh Report, pp. 87-95.

215 Brown, S. ?Corbett sidesteps blame for zoot alerting Penn State about investigation.? Orange
Daily Tones. State College, PA. November 23, 2011.

1/1 11231299 
Hothmmemt??t

215 Sullivan, E. ?Re: Corbett sidesteps blame for not alelting Penn State about investigation.?

Message to: Fteeh. November 23, 2011. Email.
217 Freeh, L. ?Re: Corbett sidesteps blame for not alertmg Penn State about mvestigetion.?

Message to: Mather, MoNeill, Pew, DelRoeo, Buololam, Sullivan, Bescript. November 23, 2011.

Email.

2Z8 Freeh Report, p. 119.

219 Freeh Report, p. 51.

?20 Freeh Report, p. 49.

221 Interview, April 4., 2012.

232 Free]; Report, p. 49.

223 Interview, January 27, 2012.

?24 Freeh Report, p. 51.

225 Freeh Report, p. 15.

235 11.8. Department of Education. ?The handbook for campus safety and seetu'ity 
Febmary, 2011.

227 Free}: Report, p. 73.

228 Freeh Report, p. 78.

229 Interview, April 12, 2012.

230 Freeh Report, p. 73.

231 Freeh Report, p. 78.

232 MoNeill, Few, MoChesz1ey,K. ?Re: PSU Outstaudings.? July 7, 2012. Email
exchange.

233 McNe?l, Pew, (3., MoChesney, K. ?Re: PSU Outstandings.? July 7, 2012. Email
exchahge. .

234 McNeill, Few, MoChesney, K. ?Re: PSU Outstandings.? July 2012. Email
exchange.

235 MoNeill, Paw, MoChesney, K. ?Re: PSU Outstandings.? July 7, 2012. Email
exchange.

23? Freeh Report, pp. 61 ?5 72.

23? Freeh Report, pp. 14-, 29, ?71, 77.

238 Freeh Report, p. 15.

239 Freeh Repett, p. 79.

240 Meet; group notes.

Interview, July 6, 2012.

2?12 Freeh Report, p. 55.

243 Free]: Report, p. 55.

2?24 Freeh Report, p. 61.

245 Spaniez', G. ?Re: Saodusky update.? To: Curley, Schultz. February 10, 1998. Email.
2?46 Cloud, T. ?Re: Ie?lement 11? notes.? To: PSU Investigators. March 9, 2012. Email.

1 04-
CONFIDENTIAL



ha. .2 

. -: Maw:

.



?~21?me meow . 

 

 

 

 

247 Freeh Report, p. 65.

243 Freeh Report, p. 75.

Fl'eeh Report, p. 51.

259 Freeh Report, pp. 6566.

?51 Freeh Report, p. 17.

252 Freeh, MoNeill, McChesaey, K. ?Re: Fw: Sanduslcy.? June 26, 2012. Email
exchange.

253 Free Report Con?dential Draft Nineteen, May 21, 2012.

25? Freeh Repozt, p. 1?7.

255 Fl'eeh Report, p. 18.

255 Freeh Report, p. 65.

?57 Prestia, C. ?TJistriot Judge: ?Never once? my Sign Patemo "tampered in justice system.?
StateCollegeeouz, January 24, 2012. 


?52 Freeh Report, p. 17.

259 Fi'eeh Report, p. 1 16.

2?50 Fl?eeh Report, p. 17.

253 Freeh group diary.
263 Mexican Bar Associa?ou. ?The regional center for investigation and adjudication: A

proposed solution to the challenges of Title IX investigations 121 higher education.? DiSpote
Resolution Magazine, Spring 2016.?
eesele?oa 
2016/? R?leaiuheheeltdame?f

263 MeChesoey, K. ?Re: From Kathleen MoCheseey.? November 21, 2011. To: Freeh. Email.
264? Mather, B. ?Re: Kathleen MoChesuey.? December 6, 2011. To: Baughmau. Email.

253 Freely. group diary.

25? Freeh group diary.

26? ?Con?dential Draft Nineteen 5.21.12.?

2?58 Free]: group diary.

259 Paw, McChesney, K. ?Re: Washington Post oped by James Martin, 81 November

2011.? May 31, 2012. Email exchange.

37? Soolforo, M. ?Penn State lawyer, prosecutor accused of ethical lapses in Sanduslcy
investigation.? Patriot-?News, March 26, 2018.

Si03/1awvers aeoused "of ethical laohezal

2'11 Van Nettie, D. NCAA, Freeh Worked Together.? ESPN, November 12, 2014.

1 1 16526.22 .
272 McNeill, 0. ?Re: Business Development Effolts Traolo?ng.? January 10, 2010. To: Veale,

Esposi?to, Si?livem, l-lemaaclez, Bescript. Email.
273 Freeh, L. ?Re: NCAA Plan.? September 16, 2010. To: Buclooam, Esposito, MeNeill,

Scotti, Sullivan, Souther. Email.
27? Freeh Sporliiu (E: Sullivan/Freeh Group International Solutions. ?University Compliauce and

Investigative Services.?
275 Freeh Sporlain 65 Sullivan/Freeh Group lutematiooal Solutions. ?University Compliance and
luvestiga?ve Sewiees.?

276 MoNeiil, 0. ?Sports programmrelated services.? 
277 Sample, S. ?Re: NCAA Releases Findihgs.? June 10, 2010. To: Board of Trustees. Letter.

1 05
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

 

 

233 Fieeh, L. ?Re: February 28, 2010. To: Esposiio, Roselle, MoNeill,
Young, Veale. Email.

279 Scoi?,B. ?Re: Miami.? August 20, 2011. To: McNeill. Email.

230 Fi'eeh, L. ?Re: NCAA WP Article.? To: August 23, 2010. Beseiipi, MoNeill. Email.
281Friedman, J. ?Re: Adeched Image.? Angus? 24, 2011. To: MoNeill, Soo?i, Sullivan,
Buelmero, Eesei?ipi?, Freeh. Email.

282 MoNeill, 0. ?Re: Dewey (is: Leboeuf to enter University Compliance ?eld.? September 10,
2011. To: 13130113323311, Sullivae, Sco??i. Email.

283 Chisholm, A. ?Re: Prive?ie hives?geiors.? February 15, 2012. To: Roe. Email.

234 Roe, J. ?Re: Private Investigators.? March 22, 2012. To: Chisholm. Email.

235 Roe, J. ?Re: FW: Pi?i?veie hivestigmors.? March 23, 2012. To: Newman. Email.

23? MoNeill, 0. ?Re: PSU July 21, 2012. To: Sullivan, Fi?eeli, Buolioem.

Email.
?37 Freeh, L. ?Re: PSU July 21, 2012. To: Sulliveii, MoNeill, 130.014.213.831}.

Email.

233 Pew, G. ?Re: Good News!? to: MoNeill, Mather. 3133133 28, 2012. Email.

239 Fi?eeh group diary.

9'90 Thompson, C. ?Expert: 1303331333 Penn Siel?e Counsel Cyn?iie Baldwin failed he:- 113

on Sandosky 133obe. May 22, 2018 

133333: former 33mm sieie eouushiml

291 O?Nell, A. ?The womeii who stood up io Joe Peiemo. CNN, July 20,2012.
hu?ezfi?eiwweuneom?? 32.30211 dimmooeeymeiemomeuoe?ef

7?9" hi?? eiview, January 3, 

293 hue. {fe?eum?ol??meiy?ie ieofoi?i

29? hiierview, Apiil 16, 2012.

295 Fieeh group (133332?.

395 MoNeill, 0. ?Re: Ouis?zendinge. July 3, 2012. To: Fieeli Buclcoem, 3011311331, Pew,
MeChesney. Email.

297 ?Con?dential Draft Niuei'een 5.21.12.?

298 Interview, 8, 2012.

299 MeChesuey, K. ?Re: Thank you leiirer from Vichy Tripouey.? July 12, 2012. To: Freeh
group. Email.

30? McNeill, 0. ?Re: PSU July 3, 2012. To: Freeh, 3333mm, Soother, Paw,
McChesney. Email.

3? B. ?The growing Trojan family.? The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 20,
201 0.

302 MoNeill, 0. ?Re: ariiele.? July 20, 2010. To: Freeh, Esposiio, Roselle, Chisolm,

Youiig, 800313.. Email.
303 Freeh, L. ?Re: article.? July 20, 2010. To: MoNeill, Esposiio, Roselle, Chisolui,
Young, Sco?i. Email.
L. ?Re: PSU Federal GJ Subpoena.? February 2, 2012. To: McNeil], Me'llier,
MoChesney, Email. 
?Re: July 5,2012. To: Eieeh group Email.
30? MoChesuey, K. ?Re: PSU July 3, 2012. To: Freeh, Bueloieru, Sou?iliez,
Pew, O?Neill. Email.
307 Ereeh Report, pp. 65?66.

106



 

 

 

 

303 McNeill, 0. ?Re: My open issue list.? July 1, 2012. To: Paw, MoChesney. Email.

309 MoChesney, K. ?Re: My open issue list.? July 2, 2012.

31? Wagner, .1. special report: Recommendations for reform at ?le 
State Ueiversity after the child sex abuse scandal.? November, 2012. Office of the 
Auditor General.

3? Sneclclen, 1. High security clearance investigeiion report: Graham Spaniel?. Interview notes
for Tom Poole. Department of Defense, Defense lndusiriel Security Clem?anee O?ioe, May 8,
2012. 


313 Becker, 1. ?Abuse inquiry see irieky path for a govemor.? November 10, 201 1. New York
Times. Eerie/femeevMeseem??i 1/1 1/ 1 Nee 


3?13 Becker, 1. ?Abuse inqeiiy set iriel-{y paih for a governor.? November 10, 2011. New York.
Times. 1/1 11" 1 


314 Aiehele, S. ?axe: FW: Ai?iomey Reoommeecloiions.? November 8, 2011. Tomelis,
Sohohz.?kn?l

315 Tomalis, R. ?Re: hivesriga?tion Counsel.? November 17, 2011. To: Frazier. Email.

3?6 Tomelis, R. ?Re: Investige'iion Counsel.? November 17, 2011. To: Frazier. Email.

317 Becker, .1. ?Abese inquiry set tricky peih for e. governor.? November 10, 2011. New York
Times. 11? 1 


313 V8.11 Netta, 13. ?Fight ore see.? ram 13, 2012. ESPN.



319 Ciprierro, R. ?Federal agent: No sex scandal Ar Perm State, jusr a ?political hi1 job.? April
10, 2017. BigTrial.nei. 


320 Inierview, March 5, 2012.

321 Intelview, April 16, 2012.

322 Interview, March 9, 2012.

323 Interview, April 23, 2012.

32? Interview, April 5, 2012.

325 Inteiview, March 7, 2012.

326 Free]: Report, p. 95.

327 ?Con?den?iiel Draft Nioe?teen 3.21.12.?

328 Molnar, C. February 12, 2007. ?Re: Slop if already.? To: Venieririo. Email.

329 Sarina, V. November 6, 2011. To: Genier. Email.

330 Some, V. November 10, 2011. ?Re: thanks.? To: Gamer. Email.

331 Interview, April 23, 2012.

332 ?lovesiigeiive sireiegy: The Second Mile 

333 ?Com?idemiel Draft 55.21.12.?

334 Freeh Repor?', p. 129.

335 Literview, April 20, 2012.

335 hireiview, April 12, 2012.

3?37 lilierview, March 15, 2012.

07
CONFIDENTIAL

 

 

333 Intendew, May 30, 2012.

339 Interview, March 15, 2012.

340 Interview, March 12, 2012.

Interview, April 6, 2012.

343 Interview, June 4-, 2012.

343 hirerview, March 8, 2012.

3% Interview, March 15, 2012.

345 Interview, March 15, 2012.

345 Interview, March 13, 2012.

Interview, March 7, 2012.

l111e1view,April 11, 2012.

3?19 lnierview, March 8, 2012.

350 Interview, 21,3111 16, 2012.

35? hirerview, May 22, 2012.

352 Interview, June 13, 2012.

353 Interview, April 10. 2012.

35?11111e1'view, March 15, 2012.

355 hirerview, March. 15, 2012.

356 lir?terview, March 7, 2012.

357 lnierview, May 19, 2012.

353 Interview, March :15, 2012.

359 Interview, Februru'y 22, 2012.

350 Wagner, Special report: Reeommenda?ons for refomi at ?re 
Stare Ueiversi?ly after the child sex abuse scandal.? November, 2012. Office of ihe 
Auditor General. . -

3?51 DePasquale, 1-3.. ?Aucliior General DePesquale Favors College Transioareney, Aeoormiebiliiy.?
March 14-, 2018. Of?ce of'lhe Auditor General. More:ffW.eaaudiier.aovferese


362 Special Committee on University Govemance. ?Improving the Govemauoe of Penn Siai'e,
Revising the Structure of its Board of Trustees, and Furthering the Academic Mission of ?re
University: Report and Recommendations of the Special Cozmnittee 031 University Governance.?
March 12, 2013. The State University Faculty Senate.



3?53 Thompson, C. ?Tim Carley, Gary Schultz plead guilty in Sandusky coverup case.? March
13, 2017. eurle? ?les elea in $211111th

35?; 11118111012, G. ?Judges Hear ?rmems in SpaJAier Appeal.? February 2018.
SiaieCollegeeom.



355 ?Affaclavi?t of Aiihur I-l. Pari'er?son, 1311.13,, 111 support of defendants? 11201101110 request
supplemenral voir dire measures.? November 1, 2012. Exhibit G, Omnibus Prem'l?rial Motion,
clefeedam?: Gary Charles 80111110: V. CommonWeel?i of Court of Common Pleas,
Criminal Division.

355 Freeh Report, p. 17.

08
CONFBDENTIAL

.

 

 

 

 

357 Peeiz K. ?Restoring trust Fequaly 13 2013 Presentation at Leaders and Legends Series,
The 1011113 1-1013111113 Ca1ey Business School 110111111313. cemlwatehh=Tb6thOi HE
363 Associated P1ess. ?Penn State frusfees appleve plesideni' 31131011 p1oeese athletics cede
dl?WS 11111111111 criticism. Novembel 16 2012. Fox News

11111117 we; 101111131113. cam/319911512111 2/1 
19111111113 eede 

369 Allen B. ?Tieeping ehildzen safe: 1111610110 and 168111} May, 1998 Juvenile Justice
1011111111 V01. No.1 1111115: 11111111191. 0111111 gev?g1emna?1iieuma1?9?sefehm?

 

 

 

1 09 i1
CONFIDENTIAL

  

6.5.5, ..

 

 

 

 

AFFENEK 
leves?ge?i'ive Metho clology for our Review oflntemriews

The mtewiew nen?elives were analyzed using established memociology for queli'i?a?ve social
?d"dd l'cl cl c'd
science leseazc . Lendews wele 1V1 across 33h zevzewere W10 lee an 

13231112111? coniene info These notes were used to moj or ?themes relei?ecl io the

conelusioes of The Free]; report:

Rumors were Widespreecl in ihe communiiy enclihe fooibail program indiceiing lmowledge
of Sanduslcy?s echoes prior ?to Central Mountain incident

0 Seedosley wee given a special retirement deal indico?ng he was ?hough't ofi? to. order in
sepereie him from the universiiy, due ?io knowledge of his peciophilie.

0 Characters of Speeiezz/SchulteJCurley/Peiemo were coesisieei Wiifh a decision io cover up for
pedophile in order promo? the repu?ie'iion of the f0 oiball pro gram.

0 Football players were givee special with disciplinary meiiers, indicating
iee?m?tional misconduct and inappropriate emphasis on football.

0 Coach Pe'iemo was powerful beyond his role as head fooi?ball coach, inappropriate
emphasis on football over academics.

heifers in Les ch 13111363533 were ?fearful of losing their jobs if they were ?to report Sendeslq?s

misconduct, indioe?ng inappropriaie value attached to football over ethical coeduc?t.

These six themes were then used by reviewers fo analyze ?i?he iniewiew data. When a theme was
present in an interview narrative, reviewers coded as yes/no To indicate pxesence versus absence
of supp or? for The? theme. Approximately 5?1 0% of l?leri?WS were iridependen?y recoded to
increase ?the eeliebili?iy and validity of coding; very few discrepancies emerged, and Those were

resolved ?through conferencieg.

APP 01

arm-n -

 



 

 

 

 

The thematic cc des were transferred to an Excel spreadsheet along Wi??a infonnation on each
interviewee (cg, job title at time ofFIeeh interview) and categories we developed to describe
ioterviewees? positions in relation to die university (see table below). Brief content summaries

and relevant quotes from interviews were also included.

The data in the Excel spreadsheet were analyzed to provide smiley information about number
and categories of interviewees responding as support being present/absent for each theme.
Content anomalies and quotes were used to broaden the of interviewees?

reap crises. The foil test of haterviews was ?eqoen?y retdewed to shame that context was
adequately considered in ?the accto'aie use of the quoted material. or each theme, 
was provided monber oiioterviewees whose responses did or did not support
ihat meme). In addition, relative weighting of the evidence eras considered; this involved so
assessmerii ofthe credibility of information provided, according to factors includiog the
likelihood that the interviewee was is a. position to have dire c? knowledge of {be material
reported. Citatioes for speci?c interviewees were iocloded in the analysis of each moose to
demonstrate the source for the information that was included, but individual identities were not
revealed. Exceptions to this were made only for a. few individuals Whose positions were
singularly in?oeotial sod heporta?ot izo understandiog their intewiew material: Re doey Erickson,
President ofthe university; Cyndiia Baldwid General Counsel for the aoiversit? lien Frazier:
chair of the Special Investigative Task Force; lendiony Sassaoo, agent for the Pesosylvacia
Attomey General; and Vicky Tripoeey, former waiversity Vice President for Student Affairs,

who made public claims about Patemo and the uoiversity?s football program after Saodosley?s

arrest.

In addition to the six thematic areas, aoalysis was conducted for two topics offocus by the Freeh
group: the integrity of the investigation ofi'he 1998 Sahduslqr incideot, and the credibility of
Vicky Triponey. These amalyses were ccoducted 3?11 essentially the some menisci as the sir:
themes. In the analysis 5mm of the 1998 oscideot, names of law eoforcemeot and child
services professionals were included due to the importance ofuoderstandiog the speci?c roles of

these interviewees ir1 the credibility of their statements

APP 02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Numb er "Percentage of Toial
Athletics 150 34%
Adn?zzisira?on 80 1 8%
BOT 55 13%
Comonwesl?l Campus 48 1 1%
Law E?forcema?t 27 6%
Acaciemics 16 4%
Operations 12 3%
$13.13 College 10 2%
Camps 9 2%
83002161 Mile 9 2%
NFL 5 1%
Legisla?im?? 5 1%
Freak Group 3 1%
811151631: 2- 0%
Council 2 0%
Patemo family 2 0%
Alumni Associa?on 2 0%
Email 1 0%

 

 

 

3 Cremwell, 1. 32: C. ?in31311
approaches, 43" ed.? Sage, 2018.

311% inquiry and research. c1831 gm: Chewing mezzg ? 

 

APPENBK 2.1

interview Analysis ago Summary: 1998 investigation of allegations of sex abuse ageiose
Seedusky

eleelysis of io?ereiews memes ?lm; aloe ti'o ?le look of evicienee fooeol in ?ee E98
ioees?go?oe, in. oomlaiee?oe Wife See?esky?s es omee?e?eo
?ed?ee?ed to improving ?le lives of voleerelole Penn Sie?te of?cials ooel?
one; reasonable be gems-gage to as ?sumac-feel seize 

The Free}; group inferviewecl several key individuals involved in the investigation of ?le 1998
iooideot These include Ron Sohre?ler, Deieo?ve for the Uoiversiiy Police Bop mm? 2 3
low}? Leora, lovee?gator for PA Deporimem of Child Welfol?ef? Siephen Sloane, Assistant
Diehiot A?omey fox: Ceme?e Comer? None of ?these low eol?oroemee'i profe?siooels z'epoz'iecl
beieg aware of 81137 credible evidence of illegal misooncluei' by Seorlesliy. Schef?er and Sloane

said, That Dim'iot Astiomey Rey Griear heel miegriiy.

l?ei?i'h Robb, Deieo?ve for Slate College Police Deperimeo?ta was interviewed alihough not
involved Wi?ih ?the Sancluslgr imies?ge?iion} and said ?the? Assie?iom DA Koren Amold was Room
?to be an aggressive prosecutor of sexual assault oases md would have proceeded if 

evidence existed in ?the 1998 Sendesliy iooiclesoi.6

James Nelmeo was 3 police of?oer ?for ihe Uolversiiy Police Deparonenf E21 1998. He was not
involved in ?ne Saoduslw mvesi?lgei'ioo but slated ?tlzoi' if Diofxioi' A?omey Rey Gzioal' believed
there was insuf?cient evidence ?to proseou?e Sooduslcy, then This judgmen?i could be relied upon

to be ?true?

The Freeh Report: suggests mishandling of?ais incident by ?the wivers?y, referencing a. statement
from Sobre??er ?lei ?the Sendosky invesiige?oe Wes not referred to Human Resources, as would
be 1?ouii13e.g However, reporl does 11o? inolucle Schro??er?s qual??yiog Salomon? ?He said
the referral being made would depend 033 ?the o?oumsienoe of the incident Since 821116111le
weso?i: arrested iheze?s 2: good oheooe a referral ween?? clone.?9 Sobre?ler also said 1113i ?no 

?'om ?lo Uoiversi'iy Admioise'e?oe or Chief Home}: iniezfered Will ?the 

APP G4

. .n (A

 

 

.u-ka .

- mw?\ 

 

 

Conclusion: The Centre County DA derelmined ?there was insuf?cient evidence to bring

charges againsi Sanduslcy for the 1998 shower incident. All interviewees concur The?: DA Gricsr

and ADA Arnold. were ethical and professional. None of the law enforcement or child services
idence of illegal misconduct by Sendusky. There

professionals were aware of any credible er
wins The investigation in any way, or is ok.

was no icdicsricn ?filer any ceiversiry of?cial interfered

any action so hide or suppress The existence ofrbe or is Once ?the

invesiigs?on was complete, and. charges were no? ?ed, ?rere was no reason for enyoee ?to

consider Seedusky? to be ?seep eered cbilci precision?

 

1 bierview, February :27, 2012.
2 In'ierview, March 24, 2012.

3 Inferiiewg April 4.3 2012.

4 Brierview, January 31, 

5 Interview, March 21, 2012.

?5 Interview. December 14, 2012.
7 lures-view, February 1, 20112.

3 Freeb. Report, p. 4-9.

9 Interview. April 4-, 2012.

Inferview, January 27, 2012.

APP O5

 

APPENBEQ 2.2

interview Aealysis end Summary: Were the characters of Speeier, Schultz, Surley, and
Peteme consistent Witt; covering toga to garoteet pedophiie??

deeiysis of ietewiee's iedieetes ?diet Speeder? Seistdite ?otiey eed iietemo
demoeetxeted eoesiste?et ietegeity in their livee; their we got;
consistent with covering up Seedesley?s ectioos.

Ofthose who cemented on ?le characters of any of these four men, only 9 provided any

negative descriptions; 123 provided positive commentary all the four.

333881 2 3 who offered negative assessments of any of the fees: 211611 were sweet or former
onslees. They described Speeier as e. and ?steedo??is 3? and one
said he was eot edth the Board of One? said that because Spam-er did not
ask who had Sendusley in the shower, it was fair to conclude ?that Speniet wanted to
avoid the situation. One5 said that SpMei? must have known about the l998 incident because be
was so ?hands on? and suggested that because Petemo conveyed McQueaiy?s statements to
Cutley and some it Was 2211 indication d1etbe?didn?tweottbe iooident handled.? Two? 7 said
that they did not perceive es fordzooming Willi! the Board; one8 said he believed Schultz
lied once lied to the Board. TW09 3? suggested that covetmg 1113 1?03: Sendoslty could have been

motivated by the desire to avoid adverse publicity and reputatiood damage.

President Ei'icksoo described Cmdey as Petemo?s ?amend boy.? A staffer in Football? desciibed
Curley as a ?puppet? for Petemo and said Patemo would have been motivated to protect the
football program. An in Athletics (outside Football) 12 said Curiey avoided

oon?oetatioo and ?could not say no? to footbeli coaches.

A high level questioned Petemo?s honesty in regard to statements he 123d :10 prior

knowledge of Seedeslq?s meloeatmeot of ebildfeo, but provided 31o specifics.

A11 emeritus professor? said that he could not believe Carley and Petemo were unaware of

Seodueity?s actions because ?they knew everytbiog about the football program.?

APP 06

 

 

 

 

One former foothall lzlleyerl5 stated that Petezoo ?called the shots? and Culley and Schultz would

havevdone What he said.

Those providing positive assessments of the characters of Spenier, Schultz, Carley, and Petemo

Were cement or former trustees, seeior edeahlisttetors, staff, and coaches in
Athletics, and faculty.

Baldwin, fomer chair of the Board of Trustees and theh~ctmeot General Counsel, said
about Curley and Schultz, had no reason to believe they Weren?t telling the ml?l.?

faculty zutiehioeti 6 said he lozew the four men Very well and stated, know people, I
know this metitotioh, I cannot be ooeviooecl that them wee a cover op.? He added, ?a lot of

smelt, ethical people? did not reoogoize Seocloeky?e echoes for whet they were.

Multiple interviewees in high?level positions within Athletics I?epoz?tecl that compliance with
NCAA ehd other ethletiee rules was strongly emphasized from the top, With Spaniei? attending
enamel meetings of athletics staff and hoth Beanie}: and Cozley threetehihg role with
inunediate temtihetioe. 17 13 19 20 21 Several noted that Penn State rules were more S?t?ehigeot than
those the maivereity is required to uphold NCAA, Big Ten) and that Penn State?s sincere
adherence to rules was greater than they had experienced when working at other universities}; 2"
24 One head coach said he hover felt any pressure to win because the athletic culture was so
pOSiliV&.25 Other coaches said that Speniez and leey were in stressing the need to
?do the right ?ling? and embrace ?success with hcmor.?26 27 A member ofthe football academic

stall? said, ?integtity and honor are impoi'i'eet behehmel?ks? for Athletioe.28

Specie}: was described by current?forzoer trustees 811d seoior edmh?sttetors es 311 effective leader
who was Open and accessible erect well-liked by the ohiversity community.? 3? 31 One tmstee
noted Spanier?s loyalty to Pete; State, as evidenced by his refusal to accept the offer of a. highly-
paid position at the NCAA.32 A longstanding hostee who woeleect closely with Spengler described
him as ?an. etljic? person with lines you clidn?t cross.?33 mothex with a history of
hoporteot leadership roles or: the home said. he did not believe Speeier would cover up

infometion about A senior administrator desceibed Spanie: es ?the most morally

2:3 3

upstanding men I have eve: met.

APP 07

 

Schultz was praised by seven curreot/former ?oustees, who des oribed his professionalism,
dedication, and ethics?6 37 33 39 4? 43 They said Schultz was ?a team player who is very straight
and respectable?? ?a straight arrow who always to olc the right 10343le and who ?took things
seriously and was reoponsive to inqoiries and issues?? A female): tenstee who had worked
closely with Schultz vie several bees-d leadership positions said he found it ?very dif?cult to
believe? d1et Schultz would have covered up Seoduslcy?s ectioosiis Anodiei? oustee who lozew
Schul? very well said Schultz was ?one of the ?nest men he?s ever been 21330 oieted with??15 A
seoior administrator described Schultz and Code}; ee ?incredible mom of 
Curley was described by Wide range of hidividuale as pexson ed?lh greet integrity. ?l?mstees
said Curley Wes ?thought?zl, coring, holiest end foz?ditight,?43 ?Weiy well prepared, a
great public Speaker areal an eifective odminieiretor,??l9 and ?one of the most honest people you
could ever A foimer choir of the board said he did not believe diet Cm?ley would
mentioned}? cover up the Sendosley issue to protect the university.? Administrators Widen
Athletics seid Carley is a men ofhigh integtity and character who never acted in an unethical
insiszuetf2 53 ode said Cui?ley?s leadership ofAthletice involved the values of strong work ethic,
loyalty, 211d a desire for the best outcome for the uoiversity.? Mother high-?rwdeg
administrator Within Athletics said it was ?iierd to believe? that Corley wozdd have euppzeseed
information about Sandushy.55 A fender football player said that his job requires him to work
with Ad?e?iie Directors across the oeti on eocl ?no one has a higher level of hxtegtity than Tim
Curleyf?sg another former player said Curley ?would not knowingly lie or directly mislead
anybody?? Senior admioiso?etors outside Athletics said Culley ?always wanted to do what was

best for PSU, not just football?? and ?Cu?ey?s word was his bond.?59 A faculty member

described Carley as ?a decent, moral men??

Multiple interviewees described Patemo as person ofhigh standards who promoted ethical
conduct. A11 assisteot football coach described Petemo es true Visionary? who held everyone
to a code of conduct, cooeludiog ?God doesn?t make many ofthose moo?? A faculty membei?
who worked closely with Adoletics said ?the ?Petemo Way? ioeloded ethics, hitegrity, public
service, eod academics.?2 A member of the football staff desotibed Petemo?s consistent
enforcement of high standards of behavior for his players: ?a tough 

would cross 30 e, we}? were more afraid of Joe than the lawf?a A fonner player echoed this,

APP 08



a . - ?mun. 



 

saying, ??etemo believed there was a ?ght way and a wrong way to do ?xings, as teeth football

and in life. Patemo would challenge you to do it the 1?1 way?? An administrator in Athletics
the university, recalling Patemo stendin 

emphasized Patemo?s academic leadership throughout
?be as good as this footballteam? in

up dot-122g 21 Faculty Senate meeting and challebg?lg ?aem to
challenge anyene to Show me a

terms of acetleboics.65 A prominent community member said,
2366

person who has done more ?for the University or the community than .Toe Patemo.

Very few interviewees provided negative assessments of the characters of Speeier,

and Patemo, aed their 001m1ents were 133ge1y based on speculation and
hm might;
the high

Schultz, Outlay,
supposition, imluding the notice voiced by two trustees that avoiding reputationel

have been a motivetioe to; pretee?eg Seedueky. Marty more mtel?viewees spoke about

jetegrity of the four men, and made their assessments on the basis. of extensive direct lmowledge

oftbem.

 

1 latenriew, March 12, 2012.

2 interview, April 12, 2015.

3 Interview, May 3, 2012.

4 Interview, Aptil 12,1 2015.

5 Interview, Match 12, 2012.

?5 Interview, April 12, 2015.

7 Inteztdew, May 3, 2012.

3 Interview, April 12, 2015.

9 Interview, May 3, 2012.

10 Interview, Ap?l 12, 2015.

11 Intewiew, February 23, 2012.
12 Interview, February 7, 2012.
13 lutewiew, Ap?l 10, 2012.

Intewiew, Febmary 16, 2012.
15 Interwiew, May 1, 2012.

35 Interview, February 21, 2012.
?7 htewiew, Janeery 13, 2012.
13 Interview, March 12, 2012.

19 Leterxdew, January 11, 2012.
29 Imemiew, January 10, 2012.
3? laterview, lmuery 10, 2012.
22 Interweave, Febmery 15, 2012.
23 Interview, January 11, 2012.
interview, 53311.1er 13, 2012.

APP 09

 

 

25 Interview, January 11, 2012.
2?5 Intarview, Jaguar)! 13, 2012.
27 Interview, January 11, 2012.
23 Infewiaw, Febmazy 28, 2012.
29 Intel-view, Mach 22, 2012.
3? miewia?w, March 15, 2012.
31 Interview, 111118 5, 2012.

32 1111612716135, March 15, 2012.
33 lniendew, April 16, 2012.
31? March 15, 2012.
35 Iniewiew, April 19, 2012.
36 interview, April 16, 2012.

37 Interview, 11313.3 5, 2012.

33 bigrview, l?z?larcll 15, 2012.
39 Interview, March 15, 2012.
4? Interview, April 5, 2012.

?11 Izl'im'view, April 19, 2012.
?12 In?tewiew, June 5, 2012.

"3 Inierview, March 15, 2012.
4?3 Inferview, April 16, 2012.

?15 Inferviaw, Max:311 15, 2012.
?15 Interview, June 5, 2012.

4" Infarview, March 22, 2.012.
43 Interview, April 16, 2012.

49 Interview, 11m 5, 2012.

50 Emmi-18W, May 2, 2012.,

51 Ini?l?view, M81011 15, 2012.
5?2 Inferview, Fabmary 8 ,2012.
53 Inferviaw, February 6, 2012.
54 hismdew, Febmary 6, 2012.
55 January 24?, 2012.
55 Interview, May 2, 2012.

57 hier?ew, April 26, 2012.

58 hiewiew, April 17, 2012.

59 Interview, April 19, 2012.

58 Interview, July 3, 2012.

51 Interview, December 12, 2011.

?52 hiemiew, July 3, 2012.

53 Inier?view, December 6, 2011.
Brierview, April 25, 2012.

55 Interviaw, February 15, 2.012.
5?5 Intervi?w, May 16, 2012.

APP ?10

 



 

 

lefewiew Analysis end Summary: Were memhees of the E?ene sea-e community aware of

rumors ehoee Seedeehy?

meeiigr



of iodieei'ee fleet membees e53 ehe {tom
were 953 aware of emers ebo?ee Seedeshy.

eomxoeo?ng on Whether they bed heard rumors concerning Senduslcy, 34

Of inlerviewee
ll is imporieet to hole The?:

mmors and 24-5 reported not having heard annexe.

all of he 21 interviewees who worked at Commonwealth where Seedusliy had held

reporfed hee?n

eboui

 

summer fooiball programs stated ?ihey had never seen or heard of en?hi?

Senduslsy?e behavior with ehildren; e31 eddi'iional 37 Commonwealth 02233213133 employees were

runwm 

apparently not asked abou?t ibis 'topio. .

To ?lly unders?tehd ?the reports of hearing minors, ii is important "lo minors

that are reasonably h'eoed heel: "to any direct knowledge of Sanduelzy?s ?eepprop?ete behavior as

opposed to public knowledge stemming from two incidents: (1) en ineldee'i hwolving Sindee?
Central l-hgh School; Where Seedeslqr worked as an assistant coach which wee
reported Children and Youth Services and which resulted in Seedus
Second Mile 1:11 Sepiember of .2010; (2) a report in wthe Harrisburg Pee-lo
about Senduslcy being under levesiige?oe ?for alleged child molee?re?oo.

interview narratives xeveeled ?ber the mej orify of those Who reported heaz'ing eboet Smdeslcy?s
ewees

lcy?s resigoe?iion from The
?b?News in March of 2201 1

An examination of

improprie?es children were referencing one offhese ?two incidents, leaving 16 intend

who had heard rumors' ?llet appeared to not have been directly related to this public knowledge.

2 2 3 4 had heard rumors dating back 4 to 5 years prior do their

ie?ie?dews; several of these were aware of the ineldeh?i 233$: Genital Mountain High School, eed 
o?zer of xdoiim from Look Eleven Egh Soho 01 had tallied

the Simmons One player said he did eat believe ?the

5 Moiher former

Four former football players

 

reporied hearing more The?: 

ghoul melding e. lei of money from
?nmblihge? he heard ?Seedusliy was a feiher ?gure "to need?gr kids.

player? said he believed ?that ?seleo?i' people ween the communily lmeef? and men?oeed 'ihat



 

Jack Rayltovitz, former director of The Second Mile, had told him a year prior to the interview

that ?Sanduslcy shouldn?t be around lcids.?

A Penn State who had participated in Second Mile football camps as a teenager said that
he never sew or heard anything ineppropziete regarding Sandusky; however, he was told by e.
former player about allegations of sexual contact with boys by Sendnelcy two years before his

arrest, and stated that he did not believe this as Sendosky was ?t ?1?3 guteheed of the 

A group of four members of the 100% community Who teilgeted together reported heating
tenders.9 ?0 11 12 One of diesel3 is the father of two sons who had worked as football equipment
managers; he said that one son had heard more of Sendnehy in die shower with 3. boy, and the
other had not heard any renters. A retired Centre Cotmty Assistant District Attoineyl?i who
worked with Rey Grioei" on the l998 Sendoeley ineident said he thought there were some tailgate

mmore about the 1998 investigation.

A secreting? in A?iletios? said that she had been told by another secretary that Sendnelgty had
molested children; no time heme was girovided. However, the other was intezviewed

and denied having such knowledge. {Receipt from interview notes]:

[She] said she was es ?shocked? as everyone else when
leery wee attested and alleged all the eeimal
assaults in November 2011. She lmew Sendnelw from
WOEli?l?g with him and the football team earlier in her career.
She described Sendueky as kind of goofy, hinny and one of
the nice guys she worked with on the football team. [She]
knew wife and kids. She never suspected
Senduslcy of ever being involved in this type of criminal
behavior. She said no one has con?ded in her about any
lmowledge of involvement in such behavior.

An administrator in Addenos (outside Fe reported heating rumors ab out Sandoslqr?e
involvement Widi yeong boys around 2007 or .2008, and head that Sendoeky had been
inves?geted but the eheisges were dropped. He heard similar accusations in 2009, hot said he
heard people say, ?Ihetis just leery, he?s always 010mg mound? and ?die hide item the
Second Mlle love him.? He had also heard about the incident witnessed by the jmito: but this
story was dismissed by many as acting like a big hid. He stated that he had heard

APP12

?crane me: w-

6.3. tum-Arr?

 

 from some of the football equipment managers who found the minors hard to believe and
referred. to these incidents as ?messing around.? He described Sendusky as ?a big
goofy guy who was like a sweet uncle.? He noted that ?many people also dismissed more
concerning because of the Duke University lacrosse case and other incidents Where the

victims turned out to be falsely accusing someone or were trying to extort money or falsely
accuse.?

A handful of other interviewees reported hearing second and third hand stories involving vague
notions of inoproprieties, Without mention ofthe timeline (and therefore these stories

could have resulted from either of?ie two publicly loiown situations).

The Freeh Group interviewed a number of football equipment managers. None of
those interrdewed reported hearing rumors about Sendeslry. Appanently interviewers
eel-{ed one? how it was possible the shower hicident wee not hoover by those who worked in the
Laseh Building. He responded the? he had no knowledge of Sendeslgr showering Willi. boys and

would have stopped it had be known. The answer to this question appears to be that Michael

Maneary did not share his story even Willi his closest friends in the football program until after

the news of the grand jury appeared in the Harrisburg newspaper in March of 2011. As

con?rmed by three :?on?eryie?wees,39 3? 23* a sni? group (including Maneary) called themselves

the ?lunch bunch? because they ate lunch together every day. These three interviewees each

described. McQueary occasionally malo?ng about ?something awful? he had seen,

?something that changed my life forever.? McQueen}? did not disclose further details, even when

his friends naede gentle inquiries, and his friends reopeoted his privacy by not pursuing the

matter. Mcheary ?nally told them about testifying before the Grand Jury and said the -
disturbing ?dating he had seen involved Sanduslcy use a boy in the showers, Two of there? 23

said they had seen Sandaslcy Openly showering with boys, and were not concerned, as other

coaches rootinely showered with their oxen sons.

The Freeh group interviewed a Wide range of employees of the football program, including sir.
coaches, four trainers, four equipment managers, info academic advisers, on adm?sirator, a
recmiting coordinator, and two administrative assistants. In addition, 28 employees ofAthletios

were hateryiewed, including nine high ranlo'n-g sdnainishntors, as well as various levels of staff

APP 13

 

 

Outside Athletics, 13 police of?cers (either PSU or State College), two Faculty Athletic
Represenie?ves (fewer/email 8 faculty, 40 ?om?aees, and 26 senior administrators were

else inierviewed were 21 staff and administrators from "the Commonwealth



'menam -.-.-.-. 



composes. NONE OF THESE REPORTED RUMORS ABOUT
SANDUSKY MOLESTWG CHILDREN.

Two highnlevel employees in Football and Aible?iicsg?l 25 said they were unaware of any moment's
or rumors conceming Bonded-?53! prior io news reports. Doe said, ?the Whole is so
zmbelievoble. cm?t go? my ones around i Presideni Rodney End clcsoo noted the: he was
pardoolarly stool: when reading the news accounts because he bed never heard ?onyi?liiog like

this about Seocloslcy.?26

One member of ?size fooi'bell program sie? 27 considered himself a close ?ieod of Sendesky and

described Sendeelq?e successful grooming of foo?iball program e?i? Emma's; from his

w. 5 5?



interview :ooiesz]

Seoclusliy was always very physical with ?die kids, eonsieo?y
bugging ?them from behind, Wiesilieg with 'iliem, or grobbiog
?doom by lLllE nook. This was io?qoe ?to Seodoelgr. Other
coaches were not like ?dais. [lie] said1 ?men you sow Jerry
will). a kid, you fell" lucky for the laid.? [He] said be viewed it
as Senduslqr meoioxing kids 311d giving lode Wiili bod
backgrounds seeood chalice. [l-le] said. Seodosky woe just a
?big kid.? himself. [He] believed file?: The Second Me was
Saodusky?s passion.

[He] said dial the other coaches spoke often about the
Sandusky inves?ge?oo after the publicity, making commits
like ?can you believe ii?? and oilier sieiemeots indioe?ng ?that
they were surpxieed ab om?: ?the allegeiions.

[Hel said. Sexlcloslojr fooled ibe Football Siaff just like be
fooled everyone else and no one bed may lmowledge abomi-
wlioi he was doing"ms;

~mhzmo a

 

Conclusion: The Fresh group attempted to determine Whether the Penn State community,
especially within Athletics and Football, was aware of Sanduslcy?s abuse of children and failed to
act. The vast majority of intewiewees questioned about this 245 - said they had not heard
rumors. Of those who did report having heard rumors, only 16 described stories that were
possibly (not de?nitely) unlinked to public lmowledge about Senduslty that resulted from his
retirement from The Second Mile or ?end newsp apes reports of the grand jury investigation.
Few of the rumors involved anything beyond vague allegations of hnproper behavior with
children; no one reported Wiblessing, or hearing directly about one or more speci?c incidents. It
is striking that those having heard mmoxs tended not to believe they were plausible in View of
Senduslcy?s reputation as a man who cared deeply about the welfare of children. His ?goofy?
and. playful behavior provided a fnnhet level of cover for any inapproptiate boundary erossing
with children. There was no evidence it: the interviews that members of the University

community concealed knowledge about Sanduslcy?s maltreatment of children.

 

1 Interview, May 2, 2012.

2 Intert?ew, May 1, 2012.

3 Lnterview, May 30, 2012.

4 Interview, April 23, 2012.

5 Interview, May 1, 2012.

5 Interview, May 30, 2012.

7 Interview, May 8, 2012.

3 Intendew, April 14, 201:2.

9 Interview, April 4, 2012.

1? Interview, April 2, 2012.

12 Interview, April 3, 2012.

12 interview, April 20, 2012,

13 Interview, April 4-, 2012.

interview, March 21, 2012.

15 ln'tertdew, May 3, 2012..

26 Interview, February 29, 2012.
1? Interview, February 7, 2012.
13 haterview, February 23, 201:2.
19 Interview, February 22, 2012.

APP '15

 

 

 

2? htewiew, February 15, 2012.

23 Interview, December 17, 2011.

32 Inferview, February 22, 2012.
23 Inferview, December 7, 2011.
24 Inielview, December 2011.
35 biez?view, January 4, 2012..
26 Interview, April 12, 2012.

27 Inferview, February 15, 2012.

APP 

- 

 

.. Ah?; . m. -

 

 

sees I 

interview deeiysis and Summary: Was Seedusky given a special eetiremeei? dos] because
PSU of?cials imeei he sees sod weeied so get i?id oi? him?

desiysis oi ietewieyes indiestes thsi Sesdesisyis else moi: suspicious.

These were 42 interviewees who provided iniomaetioe releyeot to this issue; theii? posi?iions
Witidn the Luiivel?sity spanned the entire range of those interviewed. It is eotewoi'dly that the
mejotiiy of these iodivideals would have had no direct knowledge of these evenis sod therefore
their sietemeets must necessarily have based 012 hearsay or Only 8 provided

opinions favoring the idea diet Sendusky?s retirement eitsegemeois may have bees: suspicious.

The Fred; Ropers explains that the State Employees? Retirement System had
offered as one year retirement window allowing members to retire after 38 years (iosieed of the
usual 35) Wi?l ?ill reoremeet bene?ts.1 As desoxibed the Fieeh Repozt, Seodushy seoei?ved 
lump sum payment at his retirement to offset the decreased pension he would receive as a. result
ofretiring st 30, instead of 35, years. Sentinel-9y was also given emeritus "faculty sietos?

something ?typically awarded only to full professors; Senduslcy was 3 teamed essisieot professor.

A high level administrator in Harem Resources2 of the time of Sendusky?s i'etitemeet met ed?i
Sendosky to explain the en?engemeets and processed some ofihe paperwork. She was
interviewed by the Freeh gtoop twice. She stressed that she was zlot asked or pressured to do
anything different for Sendusky these for any other employee, and noted that many employees
with 3 0 years of service were consideliilg teldog advantage of the window. She stated that the

eme?tes status wee sensual but exceptions were sometimes made, and said Sendusky had been

awarded'i'his status due to his many yeeis of successful coaching.

O?lezs interviewed who were e. position to bowledgeebiy comment or: Seoduslcy?s retirement
were consistent in stating that they had no loiowledge of untoward ire regsid to his
reteemeot moogemeots. "i?hose ieterviewees included high renkieg edmioisixstors in Fineeoe

and end in Homee Resources for A'?ile'iies at the time of Sendusky?s 331d

APP ?i7

 

 

 

immediately afterwards} 5 (Shoe6 noted that the emeritus award was sometimes made as an

exception for employees who were ?well thought of.?

A football equipment manager who was a close ?lencl of said that had told
him that lie originally had wanted to coach for three more years, but that it was ?nancially

advantageous to him to retire Within the meow.

Only 3 of ?re 8 providing opinions that the retirement was ?possibly suspicious? were in direct
position to have knowledge ofthis matter, and none related any speci?c: problematic facts about
Senduslty?e retirement; ell merely noted that the arrangements were ?unusual.? These included
Rodney Erickson, President (and Provost at the time of Sendeelq?e retirement) as well as two top
level administrators in limiter: Resources? 9

The remaining 5 interviewees who eonei?ered the retirement potentially suspicions were
individuals who had. had no direct involvement with retirement. Their statements
consisted of speculation wondering why Bandung retired early) or 3?1

12 13 24

Senelneion: Not a single interviewee provided any concrete information niclieeting that

retirement arrangements were roede clue to motivation to hasten his depertrn'e ?rorn

the coaching staff.

 

1 Freeh Report, pp. 55-61.

2 Interview, March 14, 2012.

3 Interview, April l0, 2012.

4 Interview, January 24, 2012.
5 Interview, December 15, 2011.
5 Interview, January 24, 2012.
7 Interview, February 15, 2012.
8 Interview, January 4, 2012.

9 Interview, February 2, 2012.
10 Intendew, May 21, 2012.

3?1 Inten?ew, January 18, 2012.
12 Interview, April 24., 2012.

33 Interview, May 1, 

Interview, eye). 8, 2012.

APP ?18

 

"my. 

 

 

 

 

APPENEK 2.5
lotswicw Analysis and Swami: Wore jooitors fearful to report wrongdoing?
we d?olysis of indomiows iodico??os 3323mm were g3}; feari?ol of mpor?ng wrongdoing.

Of?ihc 10 iotcmdowccs this question 3 iofozola?cn mppo?iog ?lo idea 1112.?
jardi'ors Wcz'o foor?ll, and 7 provided discoojixming hlfomo?on. Rospoodoms imludcd 1

cun?cni'ffoimor 'h'osicc, 1 scoior admhzish'ofor, and 8 jm'tors.

Thig lino of inquiry ccn?icrs around 31:: incident ?that occurred in {he fall of 2000, whom a 3mm:
(idood?od in the Fresh ropori as Janitor A) ohsowcd Sonduslcy 1'13. ?mo Lasch lockcr It: on:
pEEfOlI?ing oral so}: on a boy. This janitor was no?: ioterviowod by "tho Fi?ooh gi'ouy; three jom?iors
pl'cooz? ?tho?: {wooing Wore iniondowcd. Ono of Those (idonii?od in "tho Frcoh :opori: as Janitor Bl)
had an adult and a child in shower (ho could only sco thcir logs) ood, apparently
unconcerned, he waded for ihom {o ?oish so he could clean ?i'ho shower. The Fresh mpori: sfoiod:
?Ho waded for The two to ?nish their showor, 311d Zoe:- saw Icmy Sondool?cy and a. young boy,
around the age of 12, ad? the loohor room holding hoods.? This Moro ?ood ?lo accomi in ?the
illiondcw nodes for Janitor B, which did oo'i: mchidoc the ego of {he child and did not say they
wore holding hands. From $113 ooies for *tho hatcwiow of Janitor 13: ?While he was mimg the
chemicals for The cleaning, he saw The doors 0pm and Somdosky walked out ofihc showor with a
young boy. [Ho] said somcd?ng ?hcllo coach? and Sooduslcy ac?tcd completely normal 
[lanitox 13] did not notice anyming unusual about his demeanor at this point The boy did not say
anydning.? Iaoi?tor sfai'ed that shortly afterward, Janitor A ran out of?lc shower room, very

upset, and said he had scan onduslcy performing oral sex on the boy.

Ammo}: mic: worlciog that wooing was idcn'ii?cd in tho Prcoh rcpoz'? as Janitor Accounts
from Jaoi?iol? and Ioditor agrco that looifor A spoke of oral 36:3, was dish?augh?z over
who? he had soon, and both occoomis indicate ?tho? and urged Jamie: A To ropo? The

maiden? to police or ?to their Both said they o??crod to ossisi Iooi'ior A in molding "aha

mp 011;

APP 19

 

 

Ianitor said he told lard-tor A 10 or 15 times that he should report the incident, but Janitor Av
who was awage and payroll (part time) worker, was afraid he would lose his job. Janitor (a
?Jll time worker) said he felt that he would he ?red if he reported Janitor A?s story. In fact, it
was Janitor 13 who later reported this incident to the of?ce after he read ?die March 2011

newspaper article shoot 

lsnitor C?s account differs ?'orn Janitor B?s, starting (apparently in response to a direet quesrion)
that he had no recollection of any discussion regarding fear eh out losing ?their jobs in retaliation
for reportingv?le incident. Iwitor said that had he witnessed the incident, he would likely have

become Violent with Sendusky and would have reported to the police or his supervisor.

At the time, it seems janitor was skeptical about the veracity of Janitor A?s report. Janitor 
did not know Janitor A well and thought perhaps lenitor A bed a. problem or ?may have
been retaking it up.? Janitor was reluctant to rnske the report himself beesnse the in?ormetion
was second bend, he wee not sure if Janitor A was credible, and he respected Sendoslqr. Janitor
told ?the interviewers he Wes oonoemed about melo?ng false report, citing Proverbs in saying
?rst it is sin. to make "false Witness someone, leoitor also appeared to believe that

university policy required only the person observing problem to report.

Another janitor working that night (Janitor was interviewed by the Freeh group, but his
statements were not included in the Freeh report. Like Janitors md C, lenitor stated that
Janitor A was very upset because he sew ?something inappropriate? hemeen Senduslgr and a
boy, and he immediately urged Janitor A to report the incident to their supervisor. From the
interview notes: ?In response to questions, [Janitor says he has no idea Why [Janitor 
would not repor?r What he saw. [Ianitor advised that wagefsslary employees made about half
What the regular employees made and of course ifyon were someone musing a problem or
creating problems for the bosses then maybe it would affect getting hired hut in this situation,
Uonitor did not think reporting this would he problem in my way.?

Notes from the interview of the jsni'tors? supenrisor 4' indicate that: ?In her opinion there is not an
atmosphere of fear among the jsoi?tors for reporting a. person such as Sentinels}; and no one should

be concerned about losing their job for reporting.?

APP 20

 

 

 

Four other joeitors Who worked in Lasoh Building at the time of this incident Were interviewed.5
5 7 3 None said they would have felt concern over losing their jobs it they made such a
report. All said they would have reported (except one who made he comment either way). The
jaoitor Who was on vacation and was replaced by aoitor A the night of the incident was salted if
heirig Wegefp syroll status would have made him reloetant to report; he resp oodecl that: ?Tfit had

heeo him he would. have chug Sahduslcy outside anal waited for the police to get there??

Two hrtetviewees who were not directly connected to jenitors at Leech Building commentecl on
the likelihood ofj emitters reporting an incident such as the ore involving Sehduslty. A high ievel
outside Athletics? stated his opinion that janitors were likely to report only to e.
sopewieor clue to the hierarchical nature of'iiheir mien; he made no refererice to jenitors being
fesr?rl of losing their jobs. A former trustee12 made note of the failure to report by the janitor as
831 iodieetioo of ?awed culture Within sti?etios, but he eepeerecl to only he referencing the story

rather their conttibutihg any independent information.

Soechisiee: Only one persoe 11min direct involvemerit with the ineicleet, or with the jeoitors
who worked at Leech Buildihg at the time of the incident, described 3. fear of losing ?ieir jobs as
a result of reporting Sehdoslry?s improper behavior with child. The iraterview meteiial
indicates that the jazlitots? failm?e to report was due to footers other than. eonoem about

retribution hem on all?powerful football culture.

 

1 Iotetview, August 2, 2012.
2 Interview, August 2, 2012.

3 Interview, August 9, 2012.
4 Interview, April 5, 2012.

5 Interview, August 3, 2012.

?5 Interview, August 9, 2012.

7 Interview, August 9, 2012.
3 Interview, August 9, 2012.
9 lhtemiew, August 9, 20112..
10 hitertaiew, Agitil 8, 20:12;

1* Interview, March 15, 2012.

APP 21

 

 

 

awe 2.6

Encei?ew Aaalysis axle. Summary: Wee Coach gee Paiemc powei'fal beyoo? his role as
Elem} football coach?

a Analysis of iatewie?ere mam-as flea? Pa?eeao was HGT eowei-fal beyoe? leis a?cle as
.?oeaa feo?i?ball coach.

Among {he imewiewees who provided ini?omla?on relevant ?to ?this questioo, 20 Supported ?the
idea that Coach Paiemo was powerful beyond his role as head ?football coach, and a4 refuted $11713
idea. Malyeis by ca?egcry ofreepoodemi indicaied The followiog breakdown: cmeei'fformer
trusiees (8 yes, '7 110); senior adminisiraiore (1 yes, 7 no); football program emf? (1 yes: 12 no),

laihle?ca Departmeoi (2 yes, a no). 

Most offbeat: who believecl fillet Coach Paiemo was poweafol beyond ?the football pzogz'am
provided generalized comments Wi?lout speci?cs. A fewer trustee chmaciezized Patemo as
?the ?lszjeg? in ?flue moearchical ouliure of iai'ercollegiate another Trustee said Paiereo
~was ?The most power?ll man 511 eveo above the Govemor.?2 Two individuals, a
ima?tee3 and a former football playerf need vulgar meiaphora, saying that ?hobody could fake a
dump? and ?a ioilei' ?ushed? Willow: Potomac lmowiog aboui if. One fewer 'ousjuzee said
that other ims?iees felt chat Patemo Was a god, or were a?'aid of him.5 Iaierview notes for another
former ?ousiee siai'ecl that ?he knows coming abou?i "the collation bu?? opined ?llet Patemo had ?too

much 

A few provided concrete reasoas for their opinions That Paiemo was very powerful.- A foxmer
football player said, ?1 know how things work on campus, Perforce is more powerful ?lan ?the
governor? because ?he to ck the endowment from nc?ajng to Where it is codex?? A fencer
frusiee fel?f ?that Paieroo?s advocacy for academic excellence followiog his ?rst na?cnal
championship indicated the? he felt he was above 'i'he board.8 A faculiy member zeooml?ied ihe
board?s icobiliiy *io coovince Pafemo to re?re as an indloe?on of his power? A senior
said Thai Paiemo?s press conference (following {be of Sacdusky?s
?zdicimen?i) indica?fed ?Elna? the boaxd bad no conical over Paiemo anal ?he haci ?to go?? A former

football tamer said 'i?ha'i some decisions involving O?l?i? sporie ?bad ?to go ?through JoeThe majority of those re?tting the ?all poweitul? description spoke of Patel-no as a highly

e?ective, dedicated, conscientious head coach. Repeatedly, interviewees described him as

disciplined and adhering to high standards for l?nsseli? as well as players and staff; his dedication
to compliance with eateinal regulations as well as to his own code of personal ethics was

emphasized.

al intewiewees directly conh'adicted the idea that Patezno?s power extended beyond the

Setter
ant nitstee stated that the head was not aiind of Patenao.32 A senior

football program. A can

administrator in Addetics said ?people are wrong ii?they believe that Patetno ran the

maintain?? A head coach said, ?He did not not the Athletic Depafonent. When they would
hoot issues, he would constrascal},r refer to the AD and president as other coaches did.

ahead coach would have and

tell: a
Patetno referred to them as the decisionanaltets on any issues

always said they will make the tight call. Patetno claimed to the President and hill) on Athletic

A member of the football coaching staff concuned, saying,

Depaittnent wide decisions.
elf.?15 Another "football coach

?Patenio believed in. the chain of command and followed it hints

said that hone. State was ?not a Joe Patetno?nm Lmivet'sitjd? and. added ?there are no comets cat

with Joe.?16 A. senior administeator in Stodeat Affairs involved in student disciplinary matters

because he made inquiries when his players got in trouble, but.

was ?not a fan of loe Patetno
t13 and a trustee?

stated that his staff operated completely independently.? A senior administrate
both debunked the rumor that Pateino had them Spanner and Carley out of his house when they

Went to discuss his retirement.

Conclusion: A minority of intewiewees believed that Coach Patetno held power in the

university beyond his role as head football coach; most of those individuals expressed

reputations] generalizations moment basing then: in concrete details, and some of those who
provided reasoning for this position retained to Patcmo?s leadership in fondraising and
academics, indications of posi?ve in?uence but not misuse of power. hnportantly, the great
majority of the individuals in direct position to observe incidents Where Pate-Inc could have
overstepped his role head football coach inenab era of the football pro gram, the Athletic

and senior university administtatots stated that Patezno teapected and adhered to

authority within the university. Results of this analysis demonstrate that

the hierarchy of
ale that Patemo was more powerful than a

although there wasted a belief among some individu

APP 23

 

I'm?316$

 

- -

football coach should be, ?those with direct 1mowledge ofPaiamo?s actions viewed him as a
highly effective coach with high standards ofpers onal Ethics who ?followed the rules and
Impacted 'the university?s administa?ve hierarchy.

 

lln?fenriew, March 15, 2012.

2 Infervi?w, March 15, 20 112.

3 ?lterviaw, May 3, 2012.

4 In?terviaw, May 1, 2012.

5 Interview, March 13, 2012.

6 Iniax'view, March 22, 2012.

7 Iniewiew, April 18, 2012.

8 Interview, March 13, 2012.

9 Interview, February 21, 2012.
?3 lutemdaw, April 10, 2012.

*1 Inimvi?w, A931 20, 2012.

12 Imemiew, April 12, 2012.

13 lumrview, 313111313! 7, 2012.
1" Inimviaw, January 13, 2012.
15 Interview, Febmary 28, 2012.
?3 lilieIView, December 20, 2011.
17 Interview, December 6, 2011.
?8 L?i'iarview, February 10, 2.012,
19 hierviaw, March 8, 2012,

APP 24

 



 

 

-- wt. MM 

 

awn 1 a7
Interview Analysis and Summary: Be student athletes receive snecial treatment?

a Analysis of interviews indieatee that athletes do eat receive special tt'eatntent ia
diaciolinaey matters or academies.

Of those who provided infomation related to this question, 9 interviewees said athletes did
receive special treatment, and 79 said they did not. A breakdown circles is important to provide
conteat for those providing a??nnative responses: Penn State law enforcement personnel (2 yes,
5 no); State College law enforcement personnel. (2 yes, 3 no); senior admiinsttators (2 yes, 16
no); Football program employees (l yes, 14- no); nostees (1 yes, 8 no); administrative staff (1

yes, 15 no).

Law enforcement of?cials on and off campus that sometimes eta?? from the football
program advocated for student athletes in ways that they felt were inappropriate} 2 3 ?3 Thie
opinion was shared by two adminian'ators iiom Student 5 One oftbese 
was Vichy Tziponey, foamet Vice President of Student Maire; her time at Penn State was

extremely conn'oversial and is addressed in a separate section of this report which shows that her
credibility is in question.

One intextdewee said that football playets sometimes were given access to athletics facilities in
ways that were against the rules? A said he thought there probably was something to the
allegations that: athletes are given special treatment, but had no concrete loaowledge to repeat.8 A
past president of the Penn State Alumni Association had heard rumors of athletes receiving
special neannent in disciplinary proceedings, but thought that ifthis was true, such incidents had
happened long ago and weze not cmtently oecmting; he noted that Joe Paterno had a reputation

for being very strong about discipline ofhis players, and recalled that Franco Harris was benched

for several games for being in ?Paterno?e do house.?

The great maj ority of respondents said student athletes did not receive special treatment. This
included a adi?ninian?ators in Student anal-3,Several ofthese individuals

had worked in Student Affairs for decades and reported that athletes were never heated

APP 25

 

dtderently than other students in disciplinary matters. One said ?the integrity of the Student
Affairs Of?ce is beyond reproach?? Another was ?adamant? that student athletes were not
given special treatment and emphasized that, at Penn State, ?people have been doing the right

daings for a long time.?20 31

Three faculty having close ongoing relationships with Athletics and student ad?etes, some dating
back several decades, were unanimous in reportinglno interference by Ad?etjcs on behalf of
student athletes22 23 24 25 One said that Spanier and Carley made it clear that anyone violating
NCAA rules would be ?red;35 another noted that Patezno often advocated for more shingent
rules than required by the One stated that ?the was understood, in that student
athletes knew they needed to he students, and coaches did not try to undermine the
academic integrity of student athletes.? Two fonner deans? 3? agreed with these faculty, one
stating that in 50 years, he was never aware of my faculty being asked to give Special treatment

to athletes.31

In contrast to the concerns voiced by a n?notity of law enforcement of?cers, the majority who
were interviewed believed that student athletes did not receive special treatment. A retired
o?cer of the PSU police stated that during his 25 years, he had not seen a pattern of preferential
treatment of football players by campus police; he noted that some of?cers might have been
more lenient While others were ?extra he: on them, and added that he was not aware of any
interference by administration into police matters athletes.32 An of?cer with the State
College Police Department for more than 20 years said that both addetes and coaches had

consistently been helpful when involved with havestigations.33

Anthony Sassano, an agent in the PA Attorney General?s of?ce who was an investigator in the
Sanduslq case, said there was no in?uence from adn?nistration or football coaches in regard to
arrest of students or athletes. He said the police department ?did not Show much mercy? on
football players. He noted that the Penn State Police Department was ?legalistic? and ?would

proceed if someone did something wrong, no matter who it was.?

A senior administrator in Athletics said he was unaware of any disparate treatment: of student

athletes, and said he strongly behaves in the ways that the University has integrated student

APP 26

 

athletes into typical student life, for example, by allowing ihem to have ccnfaetwith intema?cnal

students and nona?fbletes because they do not ?ve in Special cicnni?tmies.3dr

Conclusiee: 90% of respondenis, including ede?nise'atczs in Sindee? Affairs, faculty and cleans
wi'ih lengs?rending Meiery of connections with Athle?cs, and law enforcement of?cers on. 33361 0E

campus, reported no special 'ireeimen?t of em?ezri; aihlei?es regarding disciplinary matters 02?

academics.

 

1 Imewicw, December 21, 2011.
2 lama-View, February 15, 2012.

3 Interview, .1 emery 19, 2012.

?3 Imerview, December 21, 2011.
5 Zuiewiew, March 10, 2012.

5 Lqierview, March 26, 2012.

7 Interview, 1? ebzuery 1, 2012.

3 Interview, March 8, 2012.

9 lam-view, April 19, 201:2. 

?3 Inferview, March 22, 2012.

Interview, December 6, 2011.
12 Interview, December 21, 2011.
13 Interview, March 14, 2012.

Interview, December 27, 2011.
15 Interview, Eebmy 8, 2012.

15 hierv?ew, December 19, 2011.
?lterview, December 19, 2011.
?8 Inferview, April 12, 2012.

19 h?terview, February 8, 2012.
20 Interview, March 22, 2012.

21 hierview, December 6, 2011.
22 Interview, Febmary 6, 2012.

23 Inferview, January 12, 2012.
2? intendew, December 2011.
25 Interview, February 16, 2012.
35 Interview, January 12, 2012.
27 Emerview, February 6, 2012.
33 Infewiew, February 6, 2012.
19 interview, April 10, 2012.

3G hfemzew, Febwery 16, 2012.
31 Iniewiew, Februely 16, 2012.
32? hierview, Febmai?y 1, 2012.

33 hien?ew, December 14, 2011.
3? Zn?ierview, January 4-, 2012.

APP 27

 

 

 

Interview Analysis and Sammy: Vicky Triponey

a analysis of isdioaiss sass Tsigsoaoy is no? a ai'adiijla soarss of
lass as sad aai?ais is. has
agipi?oacii a; disciplias of aad said sass lass: job oasi?oi'soaaca was
msaiisfacioiy and lad io a coaiani?ious sopasa?iioo ?om silo misoi?si?ly.

References ?to Vicky woro fouod in maiorial 13033.1 23 iniowiowaos, primarily irusioos
and high lovol admisisiraiors. Only iwo individuals, boib. ?imsioos, spoke posi?voly about

3 
Trip onoy.1 

Tripoaoy was described in many iaiorviows as oombaiivo, and volaiilo. She

?lashed om?? ai Prosidaai?s Council mosiings.3 Oilaoi's considered bar ?emotionally Lmhoaliliy,?

?too and disliked.?6

were noted regardiag Tripoaoy?s siylo. Formor Provost sod oun'oai?
Prosidom?; Erickson? noted lilo? Triponoy was not well regarded ai? her provious university and.
obsowod that she failad lo develop good relationships with bar senior administrators, who lofi for
other jobs. a. sooior Universiiy administraior reported lha?i: ha a review of complaints
'dla'f ?abused bar staff and used her siaiif for personal going,? ?those reports was-o foLmd ?30

be and Triponoy was subsequently loads

Multiple iniowiowees described con?iois beiwoon Triponey and Joe aiomo in regard to
disoiplioaxy matters involving football players. Both Triponoy and Paiazoo were described as
unyiolding in their posi?ons? ?ioir rela?oosbip was oharao?corizod as ?ooai'oo?oas and
childish?? Erickson indicated that T?poaoy was ?old school siudon't a?fa'us? at a fizaa when
new approaches were coming prao?oo. Football staff believed was aai?aiz To ?their
players? 12 aod did not oadozsiaod Paiomo?s sil?iagom discipline of his players.13 Ono of
Tsipoaay?s soaior adminisoaiors said Tripoaoy ?bad as ?to grind any time Aildo?os was
involved?? A special was so?: up by Spaoior and charged with studying and
boachma?siog Peron Siaio?s judicial affairs process; ?lo adminis?'aior rospoosiblo for ibis work

said that boili Triponsy and Paiomo supp Ofl?d Tho 

APP :28

 

?Mum -.

. -

 

Following the Senduslcy scandal, Trip onejr surfaced in the press, complaining that Petemo had
caused her to be tired.16 17 One interviewee stated that Triporrey was paid $10,000 for her
interview with ESPN.13 A trustee that despite Tripceey?s claim that Paterne was the
source of her dismissal, the trustee believed that complaints made by a number of trustees Who
felt Triponey was ?horrible dealing teeth people? convinced Spengler to remove her. 19 Another
trustee stated that Triporrey ?was the onlyr person he could recall that made the University better

by leaving.?20

Correhrsiee: Tripcney was unprofessioeel and left the ehiversity under duress. She was 
to have hostility towards Perm State Athletics, pautieulerly lee Petemo and the football program,
and seized the opportunity to obtain revenge 813d gain following the Seedeslcy scandal.
Her interview rest?ts are therefore not credible because it is net reeserreble to expect that her

answers would re?ect a fair portrayal of events or situations occurring While she worked at Peer;

State.

 

3 Interview, May 3, 2012.

2 hirerview, March 15, 2012.

3 Interview, April 12, 2012.

?1 Interview, epril 12, 2012.

5 Interview, Apr-1120, 2012.

5 Interview, March 15, 2012.

7 hirerview, April 12, 2012.

3 Interview, February 2, 2012.

9 Interview, April 12, 2012.

1? Interview, April 12, 2012.

31 loterxdew, February 6, 2012.
12 Interview, December 7, 2011.
13 Intendew, December 5, 2011.
3?3" Intendew, April 12, 2012.

15 Intertdew, January 18, 2012.
15 Interview, February 2, 2012.
17 Interview, January 3, 2012.

13 Interview, January 3, 2012.

19 Interview, April 5, 2012.

25 Interview, Apu?l 16, 2012.

APP 29



 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

WEE mm 

E?z?ee? wags confereme: Ma?a circus

Egcami?a? fg'om: S?verwaai?y W. ?Ma??mize yam? message ?le ma?a: Bald 

133mg aemfermce.? .Eanuarzy 1L 3&7. Eaee?bmk Haies, Wamiy S?veaweo?.
@?fm 


   
 
    
   

 

 

 

 

mega: Ra? Em?ag?mgg

 

?ax?mim Ma?a 
Email Press Sam-Emma July 12% 3mg? 

Wk a ?333 ccnfezame? It?s a 1?0 liaise ?51) hold a mess coafereme Wham 011 haw
3" PP 

sigm??cwi' hard it} releases and van? ?to comm? if; 33:; a bread audience.

'Eig: Cma?'a ma?ia~1?r?m??y sat-aw. The satmup should izzcluda a podium 331d,
iypically, a micmphane fer ?le: speakers To use Wham delive?ng 111632: commants.

Depan?ing an you}: venue, yen can 3130 provide Chaim for ?le: 81338152633 deor a?endees.

 

Egg was a; EEW Veiz?mm far E?me? 2233c}. {31% @733. 312% ma Was}; mmr?.

APP 30

 

 

?We heel a huge amount efeme?emlfeelingsfor the vic?ms. Which is (me of?ze
reasons why we did the one press conference we had to do empress conference, but if

ween I wanted 2?0 tell}: about ever again. 



"Why would Freeh consider doing his ?rst ever press conference for Penn Sfa'fe? FSS
could just as easily have presen?ted ?the reperi? e? University Pa?i: before a special session
of ?ne Trm?tees. The Board who held 3. ?tlueiery duty could ?Ellen properly assess and
respond M1: Freeh?s opiniozze edible ?i'hei' repel? This would have been just as
sensi?ive ?to the victims 333d delivered ex: fhe eome?imen?i ??le Board made when ?lmy

engaged Freeh aed his ?edgling ?rm.

Pee Pick ee accessible siee, Yew should be convenient ?for ?le

media to access eed, when possible, releveni 330 ?le news you have ?50 menace.

Oxiginelly, PR ?lm Keks'i :55 Company wenied ?i0 hold the press conference convenien?ily
its. but if was ul?meiely' decided ?the": it should be held in given ibis

Wes e. mere relevant loea?iiee dealing will; ?le sfa?ie?e ?agship universi?w.

The press coefel'enee wee held 311 ?le halite em a? The Wee?u in dewniewe Ph?edeliahle.
Local TV af?liates GEABQ, CBS, Fee; metro DC Li: NYC media eu?efe; end ?the
national TV 511d pee? meclie ou?ilefs eueh as CHE, WSL were in etieedenee.

APP 31

v1. .e'zew-m

- .- 

 

 

e. Timing is very impo?eo?i for press conferences. The

 

Elm Kip: Eolcl 31$: 3% ?le right
?333: choices for coverage are 1"$353513? ?though Thursday; 591 ?le late mowing or

early (between 10 am and 2 pm), so lill?i zeporiere can meet their deadlines.

The Eei?e
The clefe of Thursday, July 12th was special because if was ozoe of 1316 slowesi sports

news Ieporizing days ofl?he yea}: and if you woofed 132mm}: media eegaosm'e for

some??ng ?the?: involves 3. ??761? high pro?le college football pro gram and ifs coach, ?dale is
the clay.

"Elm ?Eimiog
A 9 am release of The prepared remarks planned upload of'the report ?0 The Web with

a 10 am press oonfereooe - allowed reporfers ?to comfortably ?le 331d report a sense?oml

story in time for {be noon ?ows cycle.

The dale and Wing of Freeh?s dremeiio press confereoce 321d release of?le Freeh report
seemed the? more would not be any more meaning?? review of The Free}: repo?. i?i?sel?f by

news ou?e?ts.

APP 32

 

 

 

Bogus factor: the Smomer Olympics Were starting at the end of I 1313! whee many sports
and national repo?ezs wouloi be leaving sho?ly for London and eove?ng the Games.

Thus they would not be inclined to ??ly reviewxep ort.

This reamed even more ?le impact of Freeh?s message:- someihing that shoul?n?t

matter for eon?biased, full, fair and independent inves'eige?ee.

Before ?eke press 
The Freeh report, which was 267 gages md included 702 enemies and 105 pages of
appendices, was be made available Te ?ee media. and 'i?he public exae?y one hour before

his 10 em press conference.
3311i: ?i?hei iide?i' happen.

A11 article peeie? by Deedspie 22:35 am the memieg of filly 12$ comm a ?oeumeei?
with e. point for ??ueexpeeied? 9:05 am dif?culty with ?the website which is

emious because it"s no? 9:05 em yet.

Clearly, {here was mien?? 'ie not make ?le full report as accessible as FSS wmieci the

public 1'0 believe, and ?to have ?le media rely heavily on the Remarks Key Fiedings.





   

 

Ia'mnmy Bum
i-?IE-?ii Luge-e 3; 1;

 

APP 33



-. hue-45.0.

 

9:05 Thank you for bear?ar"rig With Apparently Jihef?e
have been some difficultimes Wiih the websi?te. We are
working 20 emaii the as as we can. Please
bear with us a bii [Pngef- - In the meantime, we hava
copies oer. FrEEh?s stat ieme?nt.

 

a

Beginning of 
We win new heiong ihe. Qggf-?a period. {313859 raise your
hand if you W?ui? iike it) aska question and wait in be

Addmonal talking 130me for $391333an press canferencs were also reamed and 1303:5861

by Deadspin.

Does tha evidence suggest the removal of Presidenf 51381139? was i319?

Wes, we beiieve it does.)

Does the evidence support the terminai'ion of Coach Paierno?

Wes, we believe it c1025.]
00 you believe Coach Panama did ail he shoutd have to report these ailega?ons?


believe Coach Miemo was protecting Mr. 

De you
Paiems :iid and did not aim. We are no

We can ants! report on what Coach tascribfng motives or
motivatibn.

Do you beiieve Coach {33113ch had [so much power at 

{Tm came}
praiec?ing Mr. Sandasky?

?30 yaw baffavrz anyane (215:: was

APP 34.

 

 

?Mm? .o .- . 

 

 

cumen?ts.

The ?ui?i?g ??319 331935 soaferance
85"? am.

Louis Fz'eeh issued his prepared magmas.

FQE 

?337: iE?? 
i3? 


Phiiadefphia, PA, Juiy 26112 Lam's Freail iaday issue-? grapared rem??rks in
conjunciian wi?h ioday's pubtica?on a? his report the: iavestiga?on Emit: the facts and
ckcumstances affhe aciians of The Siam ?aivarsiiy surrounding the: chiici

abuse mummi?ed by a former Geraid A. Samusky. Mr. Freeh w?i? summarize
iheae remark-s during his press conference 21% '10 am, faday.



News sites and TM?ar 1113 31103313? a?er, a nall?a?ve was shapai all in Time for ?le 13.00::
RBWS cycle.

8:59 am

 

   

By The Patriot-Nam
Fatima! an Miner
cm July 12. 2032 31859 madam: Jury 32. 2032 319:3!!- AM

 

APP 35

mum??m?

 

.. . .

 

 

9:88 3.113.

    

 

 

   

333111333733

33311531; $333553, 353131113 3133 $31533 133331311811

353113233533 33331 53313 135315113 to $311333? 31515515 331133;?

1315115 ?32 151.33 235?:

 

 

 

 

 

om: am r1 1133:1131: .331 



 

 

If; E33: 31131333

58:11:: Eormri?ca?og ?119 Maxi-53:33 Fm:

   

T1353 Vilma?y 511313111?3113033 313d lm?o?oly negative 1313015513 just before; dining 311d a?ez
his press conference 1331pemied The many unproven assertions 313d opinion-based
conclusions, 1135110111 any evaluation or analysis by the news outle?is. The 3123511}; did not
afford any me 313511g?11 opportunity for die four priooip 313 511v 01113 d, their representatives,
any 11311131 third 1331137 or even ?the Trustees to assess or even respond to M1: Freeh?s
01351350113.

Clemiy, ?the release of ?the report was 11181513111011st Siaged for 1313351311313 11111330? and

11351351133113 chance fox 3113? 1151161 of 3 1310111131.

i9 :37 3.331
The 211151731351? issued 3 brief 313131113111 53 response to ?le release of 1113 Ezeeh Report,

with 3. 133333 email 31 9:10 3113.

APP 86

 

 

 

 

 

$1113: 72, 2012

Siatemm?i {mm ?aiversi?y faadersE-zig: and the Board of 'i?a?usizees:

Teciay wi?h E?e regart reimsed byjudge grew; the Penn Staie Beard
0% Trm?sz?g ?aiiyered an the commitme?f we ma?a Ears? mat?55mm? Lama
We a?gaged judge Fs?eeh can sigma aw Endep tandem investigatimn {ram ihe
Univea?si?y?s airiims {regarding former Perm Sate employee, gem;
Saada?siq. and the hand?ing a? aIEegatians of the chiic?; abuse crimes sf
whic? he has sincebeen faund guiEi?y.

gram.

OaWard Siam Pam State's siudent run biog was able: shim a copy of the Freeh
zapori; as a PDF bafom the ?crash? and. place if: on ibeir These madam reporters were
8.1336 to pom '?mz pm?i?iens of rapom?, Wl?le mot averyone eise i3}. i116 3:0 om had access.

h'tip :f/onwardsfate.com120 12/0771 Grit?03336311-Siam?release!

2am.
reports usizzg jug? {316 key ?ndings:

 

 

By Sara Ganim I The mum-News ES Prim
Feller: an Twat? BEmail

 

July 12. 2612 a! 5:3! 1m January 21. 2013 a: 12:37 PM

2am. 9:45 am.

Wi?l 1115131333 still having problems amassing the full rep or? - fwo USB drives, and 111311
a ??lird? were given 0133?: i0 hazxiedly sham among a full room ofreporfzers i0 ?omoad The
rapor?c 013m ?ask 18.13%0133. A ?l?i?a effort if you?re a raporter who 021:1? access the: websi'ie

and yet; have to wait your ??lm for 3 USE.

This ensured. mm 1118 media. could not mad much more info the rep 01? past ?the Key

Fiadings before Fresh $00.11; $116 1543153171 217WIYw-?am-my an r- 'v

dm'm "mum.

.-.

i i: as?; mmuwaxmv . 

'Jq

 

9:52 em.

The NCAA released ?le following summon?

?Like everyone else, we are reviewz?eg #28 fh?e?rs? 2?2'2223 fod?ay. :15
President Emmer? wow if: his Novembee I 'Ze?e? 2?0 25222322222222 Rodney
I comeming

 

Erickson and redeemed ?zzle week, 2% oedema) P2225 
30272275222265 1492?}? insi?u?oeel (302222232 22225;" effzz?eepoZiefeS, f0: I?ikzefz new needs 2?0
respond. Fem game ?5 2?0 ?he feffe? will 0222' 22223:? $28353, feeiedieg whez?he?

or 27.0? 2?0 fake mike? ec?oe, We 23? ea?" Fem: Ewe"? eoe?need coo emiz'oe 2?22 0222*


exam ma?a}: 

However, Chair of ?he NCAA eommi?ee Ed Rey later admitted 2112?? he never

??ly read The Freeh 2232301? and only looked a? the exeeu?ve 321332222221? 321d press 22920112123.

in his ?tesi?imony in ?ne Pedemo Family?s ongoing ease, Rey edmi?ed ?le? he was, unaware
?le? he needed to prep for any??ng rele?ed to ??le Freeh Report before the orgm?ze?on?s
board met 20 discuss possible on the Universiiy. Instead; Ray spent
?me io Hawaii Where he was unable ?to read the en?re repoz't. Rey said he reimed on 2116
19th or 20th end approved "the consent decree on ?the 2132 22211211011? ee?ua?y reading ?le 

zep or? Tibet was The basis of those someone

i?s WOl'ih ?eeing the? ?the eo?re Freeh repel? eyes Viewable and. dom?oedeble online for

?the entixeiy of Ray?s ?ip and We days before.

"So I meyhm'c leaked 31 ?31: escat?ivc summary when it cam em, and ceriaia ty med press 218426122313; bull duff? Eadie-c 1 mad or mm able in download

and 3:21 a copy of [he Edi report nnli! after} go: 1:32:13 1.9535211 was about the {inter}? 211a pram the Cozmenl Denim], oreomulhing

3%;wa themeftur,?1iay said in WickSnikreJhe i?alanm fared?msyer.

am.
Louis Fresh ??00k. to the 1mm.

Pee Edy: Edam Consider The Visual impact ofyom? esgeoielly for

13110220 gmphem 2111f}. emerges. Display a hexane: behind the Speakers and on ?the podium.

APP 38

 

 

Saw gm ageza?g. 8183f: is unpmfessioml ?to kaap ?rm meciia

The en'iira pleas conference should not 1523? more 7312121 0116 hour, including "?115; 



Freah?s agenda was to reinforca preddeiemmd themes to ??136 media and 1:128 public at

large.

 

APP 39



 

 

 

Talking ?90me I Freeh @resser ?5 15: prep! Keks?i? Comp any
Kelcst was ihe PR ?rm handling the work for the ?special committee of The 
State University board of ?nsfees ?le: is inves?ga?ug the m?versity?s actions Wi?l regard

"to the allega?ons of child abuse? a?d coordinated efforts Wi?l Freeh Spexkin Sullivan.

Kelasiz?s Penn Sieie team includes Tom Daviesb, Jeremy Fielding, Stei? Goedsell Jim

Fingero?l. Tom Davies was the 132633 coaferenee moderator.
?5 A 13263;: done by FGIS, LLC Maaeg'mg Director, Walter Donaldson, II

. as; 503?}.
We betEeve it Would rank them eat? ameng {he b? In net

What ?Wide?? 15% to gage 311adeeztienailnsziwtions adapting?

A: We think (he recommenda?emzre we?: {creamy Institution af hlgiaer fawning.

WM Dwat?m II

ilk-WW; Gm:

v" 4 Li!-
sleep Mue- ?a
371?: Fig. $35-55; ?-43 I
E?JW-nsm?: 532-5233:
esteem r533
fax: ($33324 - I?m: 3
Weak: mm 35% 
:Wmm?mc?xmm.


 



APP 4D

 

 

"'W'Mw?wn: -

 

 

Free}: press conference Errors

Excee?gafe? ?ew: B1e12ez'. I1. (2913). Seechieky meme 2.
2 - 

 

11:11

 

.1?1211ge Freeh?s mess 1111 11m fe?emg gages 111::
29 1222:9121: {2121139510235 eii'ee pege 211. 2222121111: 111mg sired: e23. 111:: 1312:0123 1211221

 

 
   

 
  

 

ee?seiem.

Qur mesiemc?iening; 2.2.1111 50132311119: 1111111211115 1116212315.} :1i5re222 2:erd 1?6: 113-. 53131213231111 1's 15113:: of 2 13mm? 511151325? 2 "13141221213 {4&2 1113 
ea2zdus1.3-2 12:11:11.1 ueamsb}, 221:21 '11 33.2 33.13;; 33353-333333 

em State 5.13.111 to take 2.1121152391012121 years; :0 Isreiee?ee duldrel: e120 Semiuslg 111.2231qu 1121?? "253%" 21? - Mai-"E

12:12:11.1 r23 :eesmt? baa-arsed.

Messrs 33321213, Schultz, Petemo 3:241 Carley 3152: e: demenszraged, :12:e:1g1: amees or at are: .113 -- 
:1 ?emment 

2:212 :12: 12111232211221 we?! 13:21:23: :21: 11:11:11.3: 11221111512112.11 3.21:1: 8311161132 1- arrest} ,3,,333333,3 3.33333, ,,.3,3333333 3 .333 3333
ua-Iaon-u- ?33, 4.. ?in?

gas? 5352.1 :erewg?vw

 

   

 

 
 

 

 
 

In white}; 1211112311 ?011111513 uzl?eme 211:2: we m1: 013. \13311. 0:1: 01' this 2; ear. 32:12 i see evi??uce emif?f??: if 
2:21? their 131.11 1:21.22. 22:11:21: 111 '1?:an 3001 11111: 12112111212211.2233an {1.1213111 ?11 gram? :2 .. ?7"??Wr2 
323111112132 .2112: es. . -111: 1.1-1 (32.1112: 2 3021512111221 22:12:11 1.1.2.. 11mm 12012 22:2 a: :12. e3 22? 1,311?;
changee 111: p122: 312:1 tie-1:11:11 21:31:02 make 22 apatite 111:2 aetheri?es} iheirielgezeio 33:91:12: 111:: . 1-2211? 21;: :W?fswramr 1.12;: 
Eebmar} 9- 3011 24:12:12. attemnts 2.1221122332112121 c: 61115513 113121110115 1111116133? . 3?3 1?5" 3?
12111231? mime? 2,22 unmepetzine 121212222: 12032: 11.11:: we: 11:11:21 the f??i?zl?l eteze. eempue 11:11 1:11:33 3.: '31 1:11:13 31:23? a"

reefeghe??m 3:21.15 regain-?r?" ere

fembeil games 1132 522111215132 3:111 11212121211 reyeare?ly 13321112311
- 2 ?2 1:512:21 Esau-?zen ere 

5-21.. 221113342;


 

33 ?emmr? [tree-:13 5111353

       

 

  

     

 

 

   
 

The 5131:1241 132339135123: Messrs. Syanier. 11:12:11.1: eaeemoz and 1711:1223? 1:22:10: 2:31ng entice 1e . 33,33,333 33 333, 3,333 333-33, _3 33 333333333
lewe? 212: vintezeieyld 232221211116. Weleexe; 22:: 111.2111; M: - 2:2. 52212.12: 

1:3 came-.2. luxuriant-,2

1&1. .2. 4.: "we! 

[f1] Threugh wunsei, News. (Jude: 2211111 Schnitz have stated 1113111123 11uma1:e?th11122 L20 (1:212: X3 ?egmfg; :13; 2
"21.-..IO- emu: care 2.2.13- anelespenslbiy 155225.111: 121122.123 :22 handie'xagee 1.2112 :mubang 33,333-33 33.333.33.33 333.33
a?egauens. 2, 222122;, . g1

  

 

 

 

  
  

 

 

1
511:1 111:2:?1 12121211122112. 12:13:11.} 12232-210 11111111211111 2. wee 3.1121111 2:22 ?193 133,, .3 53.13332? 3:33.
EJOJzethiug that. 1131.13.11.13 eapa. 2111.2: 2321113.: we 1111i: 1:231:32 33122122311122: was. So meal-fed away 12:31:21 mime $333,363,333 {333.353-573.331 ?331333.333: 
over to 52:22:23.2: 6111:): pa 0131:, 33:03:21:- I 1110213211: 3:121:12: more exemee $3111 1112.1. it -emn-z; 2:22:12: 1:22:22:
flit-111:1: work 0111,3331; ?2333.23? 3 {deem we; 15222-142512: -Ce2.:r.1: 2:25. 
{Gamer-e221 {2121321}: 5751.215. 3:252:32 ?ees-2::
. .333 . . Fla-wk (glumy: 
131111". 222133111312 ?23111 the bpemal Investigati' Counsel t1: the was 11:22 erteiciby 313.3011: that?le I: :33: 
Februa?EODI Incident thee-homer 23125012.- ed the sexual abuse 01?: dlildbut only ?harsmg 3: 2215:: mm. . 2221: 2a 3:22 2:322. .122. 
further Stated 1.123212: never asked 2.121211101253ng Home!" 123-2 51211112513 entailed. ifCamm n1: 214118.122'51'9'2 2.127.
Talrmg mm accemtthe available 1231312123; eta?remmts and. evidence, 2.1.15 more reasonebie :0 3f 33332271.;33333333 3:313 -24:
matinee that in erder to 322011 the meseqmecee efbad 12112212221232, 12131211233333. 32323231732313 1:351:53}: .2 21am :2?2-2-2 . 

 

15:11:: SL2: eUniversity 1121:1112. Sewer 3:111:11: Patema 222:1 ,3 .251: 2.27522:



 

criticai fans reianmgm 83122121513 5 c1313.: 31212323110131 the 31211101111115. 211:? Beard of Trusee?, Farm 233
State. and (11:2: $211211: a: 13:22 gr: 12112119123311 emcee: :0 11:24.: 111:: dz?ci e6213e111me2e11- .. 
Cemrs?reeieft?m?r were:

2.2.125 2333312152132513211. 1312: 5:11:22 11112-2115: [3233.33.33 33,, 13;? 11:31:13,223;
3 Cemmenhf??wm}: 

ave-?v: 12522-1223: :52? 1.13 5322: en: .2222..- .-

Emile: 11123: nee-3305:2211 L215 ck?dte 12.22.2211 1:232 alez?eug 3:21de :32 32.110 3. 3.333 I
?1112:7211 me: me secs:

 

   
 
  

 

2.2. as the 021132012: 2.111231111523411: 61211.21 111231223: ghee: 2:12:1319Qu 3:325:12: 322*. 1.112: 3
?2 112a 9 ?21] 3? 2 . 1223:2222: 2222123?: Tat; 121
5110\131 1311 Lauri 1:1- 3619111321} '72s 5-322 3] ?$313315- {5:1an

tag": :22 112.22 203:. 32:11:11: ere

  
  
   
 

Ef?e ea?i?ence shame the: 111125111911: mm 31,561312213' about-?e 19113 2315111531211 inveetiga?on of ?23m mere {11213172}: new 3.22322.
Sendai-:3? 22111111116220 312513123121 sexual 12115102211112: 22.21le :2 32012215129?. 122 79:12:12 Stet: :?eezbell 3.2 11111:: "*1?11?2?33?1333331?1 3?11; 33;
A 1.9333233: 1 g: {n

10:11:: meme 53.112221 :12. Again 11:32 512.0222. (3111143 conceal: a?bmsc?i Mamic?m}. 121m evidence 51191325- 111.: 33:1,, mp3 33.3.3.3 3 .33-, 


21:2: r'ze 5:322: new. amazes.

V.


 

APP 4?1

.125. 2? .x?mm-







 

 

Edits 75:0 Free}: Press Cenference Findings 13 July 2812

 

Mr. Emma was made aware nf?rhe Em'?siigation of$3n?usk?3fellm?ed it (assay: but: 
g1: 33mins 3: had ham 3 kaymtm?ber nfilia?t coaching for - ccmmangzim??gmms. Pa?n? :ma.

 

  

 

 

   
     
    
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

failed to Elie an}: action; agaa?mg 
almost 3 3 $2315, and had an af?cajust grep: away 1&0121 Mr. Paiemo?s. Lit aim very least?crma-Jm?zs dew" u. Fumarm?'?. 185?;
Pate-mo cat-um ham? aierwi ?le mute iomball 21333;: In arch: to pre?x-ant Sm?mg from bungmg 3: ?mgmg :23: mm?; and. ..
waf?e: {him him the iasch Buii?izggj??gsm. Spmiar: S?mle, Emma and (111.31%: aim failed as 13wa ms- 2mm at: in-g?ifzn; . 
.. _zzra' late} agrarxn .- :3 
aim I216: anz'ti a: filigrees abeuztlw 19% zns'?sugaumz as}: saw any mike: amen. agamst MrHal. 
Smduskyg {3:02:92 or them eaten spoke: t9 Sw?nsiw abouthss miduet {in shears: naming was dame i 
-. R: . .5 ?g 
and Saadum? was alima?azi to continue ?3:111:21leme -. a .. - . . -
Cemmant Hz: Paras: cm
1m mar-cg ism-Ly was armgr? aimBasa? on ma exudate; ghe 0111:: 131mm: mien'mmg facmz ham-warlike: on '1 Emma rm 3? Ma;- 355 Errfew: 
F?bmary 3300: E33: Ekfezsrs. Sp 5311a; Carley and Schulz to reggamhe it) "the 1 $32-$72 33? S?rigifw 5.22-
Degamn?nt oi?ublic 1&1me and?i?n agreeiugnotte aria an febr?zarjg 2-3123 wag 3:51". 1 :zy. A
Eaterzw'g F?bmazy 36th com-ei'satien ML 3423:. Sigmamass: mu 4:21??

mag: mm ww gag-3m a! 53mm I, '2

. . . . 595%; swans,- 
We ne?a?ei?had the to ?211}: With Mr. Patemo, bu: he? 61d sayz?zatim 12:31:}; McQutamren a 3?
Fabmm? 18, 2 03. fr. when athe saw Swd?? daiugili the ?shower The maxi - .

w. - 5? - i 533?.
111$? Lamaze: 011 ?118: what grouhagitfo :20. 12% my 10}; 1101.3: its ?gure out? win: we want to do.? 5:553:95;- m?mmwg sgmm?mrmx
Why would am?w?mm :0 $3ng out win: had. to be ?ozwia them 3130 53ml: h-13?s?fv?r?s?? 2:22; ?t
. . femu?ywas am warm?: . ma?a
Lzmv: that, 112% Saiduaky baa-{mm Mi. Patama ?zsi 31m scat; Egg; gm gagi?ffimh?a?g?? rm 

weimm?? 11%: gta??gjli? ?f?gff" {5'33 ?1.33 33? . - . a?mma?i mam}: mm: ma?a ca?a
the: Eja?ei?t @ihm?sght, Eh ad {ism mam: nix same-m2, ?ataswmm??a wig; a??z?num
3:13:33 Mam: :9 ?armm?m am: 32:22am. 1
Kiwi: ?330ng am}. sh?ciziizg eiigr?gard cm. vic?ms was: tmeiehscore? by 1&5: Smu? 1131351 ubiich - gammank was
new? E21 its 3301353111361: 4: 281? $113? than: Wag in) ?attempt to i?emif}? faffi?n?rifgmi af?rm-..:

 

ificzim:23'vr a Mac: 2123;: child or a?zers Ema; EimiZ-gi: conduct $228131; a3 {amid Drevmtina 1F - . 
Ev vv'ir-vw r0 - I szE- 

 

 

   

 

 

 

moccm?rme? 1311 3mg; msgg?gz 5? .57; mm.

. ., Cami'nan?: {mamgmma F??ui?f: 3313.;
[33939: 0f these 3:011: men mien 312a? 2:312:31}? 2.013 ?s other ?lm Afr. Culley mama-3 wags ma pr??t?m mm
infom?ing the Secmci Mile that his. 93192 ?22% with a bogs}. {?rm ?zmugh 3J3. 13-3355 Prim 53? 
him" 3mm; the 1998 mama. $316: 13%: this}: gguiti 3:3? 533% C??zmant [$13223 s'mia?. 
as}: Sanduslajc 21m: to bziughi? Stats: 

?nalise $5559 5:53:13! {swans are?

Altimugh we found me ea'idence that the ?e:nn Shaw: Beau? a?msteeg was: was: @111: 
a??gatirmg regardmg?anduskyin 159% does not shiwl? me: Bead from criticism. aware-?gs.
In this matter: the Emmi despite its duties 5f came anri ovasight uf??ze Univarsity and its 1:3; "mm

 

 

Officars failed to create an emirdummt which had the: Eleiversiw1 mast swim? leaders
accountabie :0 i1; Fix-Ir. Spgl?erresimd?m Boanfs attempt to haw: mere In fact=
around me time Mr. kit Smitty and Mr. Schultz war: arrested, 351:. Spmier 15535
umvil?ng to give the Board any metre izzfonna? on about what W215 gazing on Ilsa!) wimhe was

providing it: th? pm but.

 

Tummy-1?: {mam}: ERIE. 2351125. 5:55;? 137%
Ma rah 3m: mam: r' 8 ?snacs mug
{missus mm: 2:5 3:192:12: 93331:? rims? Er-
15% 
mama; $351635 c-r. 1312 Farr. 5m: saw-55x3.

amedia. rep or: 3 2&1 1: Ike: Board Was put oh nbtizia about sexism- a?egations

that Sm?usky W35 51513331137 assaui?ng chii?ra: on the Pam Esme cmupusl Tile Baird faileq. 1'11 it; 
duty to make zeasmablr: hlquizj: imo these smious matters: anti {1211131ch ?ig??-byw?f? 
Freiaiciezm

  
 
  

n?

 

APP 42

 

Et??fs 3:3 Fresh P3935 Conference E?in?imgs 12 3 3113f 2012.

Fiesidem a Senior vice ?resid3nt and General Counsel di? notperfonn men duty to make
timely- thorough anti fa?uightrepms thhesa 1993-3113 2901 a?egatiws t0 the Beard- Ellis; was

 

a faii?m of g; $313310: 20:: which the Board ?11133: 31:9 bear . - [mamwmma 3: ?m Bursar
mm: 1
1 ?3155:5213 and. :32: mark-.5 ?3 2:32;
Va? 3250 found Mm'wzaanm?g rare {5511333327.

 

"1211:: Board did 31:33 have regular repaiir?ug pros-25111333 :33: seminar sun-amaze enmrr
di3ciosura [lift TEniversity;

*3 803313 2111333555 felt ?mirmeazing were a "whiaa? 51323113330233: for My. Spani er? 331:5 0:13;
a 17213 $3333 did 31.03 indagmdm?y as}: {m :13 3:3 infemlaiien 333335 3133 unriwmp-xzimg by
31.5mm: ab 011: the after Ma}? 3013. ad thereby felted 30 6:323:33:

3330;33333? his examtive 3:13:23. gamut of 331:. wars: criais in Fem 3:113:63 Izigmrj?",
The 31333321 m??z?caniizientm Spas?cr?: abi??es to handle wise: anti 33 as 131233: waxed {0
deal with:
- 3.13.3: {?ing of mil-313.3351 charg?s agmxsimniw Uniz'?zsigleada'g and 31350393..an
3? 031333: {9933331 mach i3: :Ememb 201 1; 3115:.
- ?n:33r?ngaf?aaciz?3mm3?

Ere-33:23; 9?$w2013 33 32:2 1?0? :33 c?zng?ma miic? Rpm-131g
3333i pmmc?azz. W25 comma-mi} wrong. .5 53102331 b?Ih? madam and. ?.321 ?313
part :33" immegt 33:12:32" 1:33:35; 3.13:1 fc-?ozfeci 33231353 13:31:: {3:33-3:11 92 $23 {Inn-3:31} 9:3 . - Emma:- {$3333}: mar. 3: .5. 

 

 

or: 33033311 ibis 35 32132-133? 3.23331? 2532123325123 2,55%? ?Wm? ?335 

"-r?ita? 245"; 
5333113} 33331313 03:3. young; b93113. the 135911 Building shower. "11:23 guitars war-3 afraid :33: being m. .. 
fired for r?gmi?ug3 mu'mhl 3333:3311 mash}. 51 3.33333? -9 5523.59.13 .. .3.

'C?mma?'t {#2523}: 5333;- 3333132113 
3.33.. 57:33:35 at

:2 ?a cam; :33. his 

{G?ai?i 223 5?9?Ef2- 3:352:332533 

23mm?: 

r1 



APP 43

 





 

Anaiysis of E?reeh?s Remarks Baring ?le Ques?o? am} Amway Sesgicm

ffzefailowiizg 22822252221229 were made by Lam?s Free]: daring the gzzes?orz and 512151222222 period

gracezi?z?zzg 2223:2012? at ?ag press emfammef ?6353 zjgpe z'zztfigaz?es 27m

2722:? are based 0.22 2.2222" 322229222; 2522 ?g $233252: ?lm: 2228222

2232222225292: {.222 page 5 af?zig 22233622? ?2222? $232.3 fi'itzi 2222215353 {:25 123,
20:40 ?the evidence clearly shows, i132 our 22332011253 $122 
22:20 ??12532 Ofih??e boys occmred is: The Lasch Bu?d?zg?

24:12 .. ?cfeglf??liifj??gg? a?wz? on 52 2333123132 and. {1113013123 basis. Thai; 01222233132 dici not

as:


kappa hem in 199 .

26:00 ?:2222222222222 2.23239 mi :2911; $222322 22222222212222: $2222; $3225 2212;222:1252 (rafeni?g ?2'0
822126.115}ng inim?ac?ng 2531211 youth 011 ??112? campus)

26:20 - ??118, reasonable 0021011131031 that We make: is that all $232322? ifzg?i?glig?agaigg 123271-32

{We ma?i?mga? @a?i??ag Mt Emma ma?a a, de??igi?n #2332213 a" dwisi?n 52.02%1322221
imgwl?ggim iaacg?raam gaff i3'?hmary 126111. I can?? parse beiweazz ?them, degrees ofrasponsib?ify
Whafs gigni?amt and she 012-211 is 21m?: ?ii-2323 EN Eisf 25252253335 ?23% @242; @223fo Er?? $2211

gwg??im??i??y 5?2. zifawi?an ?iawgiioagi?l 22mg Laforiggagiamj?
28:18 ?As we 1311?; h: 0131? Tapert, the mo?va?izion mam ?82-32 wag?gg?giaa ??iaad @Ebiigii??: 
31222: had-33121221223232.?

2.8 :52 ?What?s su?iki?g 3.13011: 1998 is mm? 22222333 $82k? 25.219 g?d?sk}? N025 one ofthose four

persons. Includizag the coach who was a. few steps away 1320111 his of?ce. There?s no indica?on

anybody spoke 135m.?
3 0:08 ?Well wz?m 2:2}93553 Wax; Cmim 813M 22222228822222.2123; ?23313 hv?eg ?31% 2:22:22 ward, Thai"

2335232? W513 worried about Sandusk'y shower?ng Wi?l a boy because of bad publicity. $0 ?@332

 

3? Ma?g?? (PBS)

APP 4-4-

 

 

@1111; 111111113 111E111: is 113.3%! .1133 e??g 1111111 171,11 1111511g, is a?mvas?ive 131111111111
31111 $51 by 131036 1111111311g the m?versiiy.?

30:55 11131111111 111111158 11 1111?11111111113111111 3111551113 3?31 which We found by the
ways 11111111 11111111 1111 1111.11.11.11). ?111111 1111321111111 1311111 11111311111111 111111111 1111 111193
11111-111111?

33 :08 ?The jani'i'ors, 131113 ?the 10113 on The 130110111. 011. These are. 1116 employees 811116
1111110 elem 13:16 10011111 10 01113 in the 1.33011 bu?djjag 11111111- 116313 21156 1212211.: 1313111.. T111111

1111111113 1.11113}: is probably, 3'11 111161813011, 1311: 2.112111 1111111313 $111.. 11111311 1181111111711.?

36:20 ?He (13111111110) as 3011110111 01106 said, made 1311111333 the: 1110.151 1111511118 13st life. We?ze
2:101: singling him 11111. ?13? $1111 111131111? 111111111 3 1211111111 1:11? 111111' $133111 $111111? 111153.111 111133 $11111?

1111115111 1111111111 111? 17111111 $111111. 1.11111; 1111' 1111 1111131111 1111 111? 12111 11111111 1121111111111111 

APP 45

 

TWENTY CRITECAL EN WEE REP 

The following list is provided-to quickly iden??r some of?ibe most critical more and omissions
Freeh Report. The list of errors and emissions is not all ioclusive, but identi?es many of
those "which were used by ?le NCAA as basis for levying sanctions and Freeh?s press
conference remodels. The ee'efez pobliehed will: ?le ereh Repel? did not ideniify any of ?ihe

errors contained below; morefore these 61369333 lemme: ihe recoxd ?to day.

The Free}: Repaid:
1. Groi?ed Federal sod siei?e laws regeediog ills oom?dendali?r of child abuse reports.
2. Incorrectly found ?the? Peiemo; Curley, end. Speeier lodew ?the details of ?the 1998
inves?ge?on (cone of idle emails used as evidence my details about ?ne
iswes?ge?oe).

3. loccmec?y found that Spade: failed it: his dudes by not informing ?le Board of Tmsfees
ebocd 1998 on ?the Standing Orders of die email evidence, Specier?s
?travel schedule, 331d 331's sieiemen?i: embe- 23? - he did not lmow of ?ne iovee?iige?oe).

4. Incoli'ec?ily found ills: Petemo, Carley, Spenier, and Selmliz were kept infomed of {be

1998 of Senduslcy (email evidence shows ?they were 1107; kept weaned).

5? locomec?y found Potomac end Carley provided Sendusky Wi?l access to for
conducting programs for youth (access was granted by Ou?each O??lce).

6. Consimcied 2-131 incompleie ?melijie of Senduslcy?s crimes.

7. Did not inves?gete the claims by Gary Schultz sod Wendell regarding
contacting Geode Could?)r Children amd Yoo'ib Services (CYS) about line 2001 incident.

Did no?: address the obengicg ies?mony and nooepeci?c infome?oe reporfed by Mike



 

2 


APP 48

 

McQueery regarding the 2001 shower incident.
9. Omitted the testimony of Dr. Jonathan Drencv regarding the 2001 incident.
10. Inccirectly characterized emails as and ?Heigue? to the 2001 shower incident.

ll. Ineetiectly censluded ?diet Schultz, Spanier, arid Curley had agreed to repe? the incident
to DPW, but Petemc cheeged the plan.

12. concluded that PSU failed to repcit Sandusky is 2001 to avoid the

consequences of bad publicity.

13. Did ect investigate the petential cea?ict of interest issue between DPW 821d The Second

Mile thet was mentioned by pcliee ehief?lhcmes l-lezmee during the 1998 mves?gatice.

14-. leecmectly stated Peteme. Carley, and McQuem?y should have reported the .2001 
to comply the Clezy Act.

15. leccn?eetly found that Petemc did eat report the 2001 incident immediately he
didn?t went to iatempt anyezie?s weekend (Peteme infeizeed PSU cf?eim en the
weelsteed. lii edditice, Peiemo?s schedule reveals that his cut of town travel delayed his

report by a. day).
16. lncoxtectly recounted the trial testimony regarding the Fall 20 00/17 ietim 8 ieeidezzt.
17. Did not critically analyze tes?dmeuy the Fall 20 OO/Victizn 8 incident.
18. stated that Victim 6 was assaulted (Sendusky was acquitted ofthat charge).
19. Incorrectly stated that Victim ?7 was assaulted (Seeduslcy was not charged with assault).

20. Incorrectly stated that Victim 5 was assaulted (Seedusky was acquitted of that charge).

APP 47

 

.. 

 

awe I 3.3

352mm State Athletics and. the Culmre of Academic Excellence: a Hie?im?ie? Review

If is indisputable ?ea: of ?the ?eld, lee Paiemo?s fo cue for MS fo o?lhall leam was academic

success. One aeede 11o fm?iher pro of ?than the saooessful Grand flap omen? and his bold 1983

challenge to Peon Slate?s Board of Trustees ?Eo upgrade 'l?he aeadeo?e curriculum, faculty and.

lae?i?ea and ?Elle school ?31m a woeld class oniyez'si'ty.

The a?nleiio dep arimen?t had been upgrading" aeoden?o req?emeois for years before ?the lake
19603 when Patemo, in his tenors: as head coach, began ios?iu?og ?the Grand Experhneot l?lis
belief ?31a? Pena Sfaie could become an elife collegiate football power mall; a?jlefes who Were

superioz on 'ihe ?eld aod 231 "the classroom ?look: These asphaliooa to a higher level. ?People loll

me it oan?i'; be dooe Wi?tlloui saezj?oiog madame,? Palermo said a: a 1967 ariiole la The
Philadelphia Daily l?xle?we.1

Paiemo Wes zeahmo. He lolew moot of his players would he aeholms hue he wowed Them 'to

be good Sindem'e, ?peoole who belong 333. college . .. [looming] art and literaolre and music: mad

all ?le (?ller wings college has ?to Easy courses were out aod tougher ones were in. me

over ?le decades he and his Staff pushed yhem all io gel: 'their degrees aad become good oimens

io 

In Paterao?s 46 years as head coach, the gradua?on of his players were among the best in

the nation. Sihoe the NCAA and the American Football Coaches Associa?on began ?aoldng

annual gradua'iion Iaies in the mid-?19803, Feeds-late football players have graduated are an

average peroea?tage rate ie the high 8 Os, od?i?h gradoa?on xates of moriiy players also averaging

in ?the SOS?whoi'h for above ihe aa?onal averageTh'?ty fennel? Chaim of ?the Uoiyel?sity Faeul?iy Senate how ?various aoedemio backgrounds are on

?ne z?eoord in 2012 soppor?og the aihle?o dep aroxleal?s academic memes arod strict adherence ?to
iihe roles.1Q Doe feline: chair, Dr. .l?ll? Nichols, was a foaoder aed one??time chair oflhe

Co ?oral on lateraollegiaie A?ale'iioe? a ae?oowide alhaooe of 63 oeiyersiiy faculty seaa'ies with

BBS [Div 1] football progrms oozooemed about The ?ageoiory of athle?es in an academic

enyizoozoeot ?Our [Pena Siam] faooliy chairs believe ihe academic hitea'iioas and 
APP 48

 

 

5-. - -

:xuuw:m-?

 

of our athletic depalnnent over many years has been among the best of peer institutions and

many people outside Penn State may not realize that,? said Nichole, 110W professor emeritus of

the universi?l?s College of 19?

Thirty?one of Paterno?s players became ?rst team Academic All-Americans with thirteen of
those selected as ?first, second or third teem AlluArne-rieene on the ?eld. Five of his seventeen
players who received prestigious $18,000 poetgreclnete fellowships from the College Football

Hall of Fame were also ?rst teen: AJl-Amerioens.?

Dennis Onlgotz. Charlie Pittman and John Ursebel are living bookencls for Potemo?s Grand
Experiment. Onliotz, e. linebacker studying bio?physics, Pittman, :1 meaning back majoring in
business, were in Paterno?e firm: recruiting class and become Academic rill-Arner*ioene 1:1 1969 as
well as first team All?Amerieene on the ?eld. They also were the ?rst Peterno players to receive
:1 bell of fame $18,000 post-graduate fellowship and went onto business canceere.M 15
Ursoliel, an offensive linemen who was in one of Peterno?s lest classes of recruits, was the
premier echolerweililete in the {30min}? in 2013 when be received the esteemed Sullivan Award:
presented by the Amt-item Athletic Union as the nation?s ontetenciing meteor athlete, and the
William V. Campbell Trophy, given to the nation?s outstanding college football scholer?etlrletea
by tire National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame. Ureehel earned bachelor and
master?s degrees in ine?iemetios and o. master?s in mathematics education with it perfect 4.0
Grade Point Average at the some time becoming a. two?time All?Big Ten stoning guard and a
seeond?teen1 All?American. He turned clown Princeton and Stanford to ottend Penn State
because he said he wanted to play for lee Paterno. He is now pursuing 21 Ph. at MT and
continuing his football career in the National Football League with Baltimore."5 17

It was Penn State?s ?rst nn?onol championship team in 1982, led by Aeeclernio All~An1elioon
Todd Bleeltledge who W011 the Davy O?Brien Award as the nation?s outstanding quarterback,
?ier? spurred the Board of Trustees to invite Peterno to ink about his team at the trustees meeting
on 32111. 22, 1983. Feterno surprised everyone. Insteacl of @cnseing football, Peterno
concenn?etecl on academics and. the de?eieneies of the waiversity in that realm.lg 39
?It bothers toe to see PermStete fo otbell be Number One and. . .severol wool-?5 later and we find

out we ?on?t have many o3.c our disciplines that rated up there with other institutions in the

APP 49

. mun. umw?m-r

 

 

country,? Patemo told the trustees. ?We need money so that we can get some stars. . .We need
vibrant, aggressive, brilliant teachers and scholars. . .We need chairs [of departments]. ..We need
a better We need more controversy, We need more freedom, we need more people to
come to us with different ideas, We need more minorities We need to find our soul .. . We

have got to raise $7 to $10 million books as far as I?m concerned in the next 37m months or we are

going to lose some things and an opportlmity we have.?20 21

Will: the ?ill supeort of the Board of Trustees and the administrations of Presidents lobn
Oswald, Bryce Jordan, loab Themes and Graham :Spaoier, Paterno?e call to academdc aims
transformed Penn State into one of the country?s great public universities. In the next three
decades, Petemo?e ?nancial challenge helped raise billions of dollars to ful?ll bis academic
tdsionw?ieolnding nearly $14. Mllion toward the $34,4? Mien eapenaion of tbe librazy that new
bears the Petemo namewwbile also personally contiibn?ng $5 33 
lo horror ofloe and Sue Patemo?s long time commitment to academics, berm State?s College of
Liberal flats in partnership with the school?s Sebreyer Honors College named its new fellows
program in 2008 after the Patemos. The program for lmdergradoetes requires a commitment that
includes ?completing a Speci?ed number of honors or honoreequivelent courses, maintaining a
high grade average, and completing a. research?based or creative capstone project.? As the bridal
news release about the program stated, ?The (Patemoe) embody academic ambition and
excellence in "line liberal arts tradition that is 21 Miner]: oftbe Fellows program are well as rite
commitment to ethics, leadership and service. . .bi their many years at Penn State, the Patenios

have consistently advocated diet excellence is not something reserved for a few elite, but a. trait

that should be pursued vigorously by all.?25

Pateroo?s emphasis on academics and his Grand Experiment were not born in isolation. They
were an extension ofPerni State?s long history in the education of Soidents participating ie
varsity sports, a struggle between academics and the often tainted world of nitercollegiate
etble?es that goes baolr to the era oftlie era?called ?tramp aiblete? in the late 1800?s and early
1900?s. When Penn State began competing against other colleges in the late 18803, the stride?ere
organized mil ran the teams zmder on orgma?on entitled the Athlete Association Widi

baseball, football, track and basketball. Some faculty assisted in an adrisow capacity?bot not as

APP 50

 

mam-um



A

 

coaches as new de?ned?While others bemoaned ihe time students spent playing sports of any
27 28 '29

In 33112::er of 1899 ihe ul?iime?ie authority for eihle'tice was given io ihe alumni, 5. move that
would change Penn Sieie e'tble?es forever. Nine years leier, die alumni created the of
gredueie manager, a. ?the: cooiinuecl until "the early 19503, and. superseded ihe anihoeiiy of

ihe ?rst three eihleiie direohn'e.3931

The 21113133.in ?wielded so muoh power and in?uence over die next several decades that eveniuelly
in 1928 ?the edminiehe?on was forced 'io ialee eohh?ol end radically eni heel; 'ihe edileiies
pmg?ann. In 1907, the Feeuliy Commie?lee on Aihleiice helped implemeni few new roles on
eligibiliiy ?the": set academies as e131iori?iy for versi?ly sports, ineleding one ihei required eihleizee
be enrolled as e'hidenis Wid?n {we Weeks of ihe siege of a semester and another declaring emdeoie
be ineligible if?fhey did no? achieve 3. whole level of gi?edee32 33

l-lowever, ehe student body rebelled of: ?the passing of new eligibility mlee ?thee would eiiniineie
the ?hemp eihleie? thee inherent in ioiereollegiei?e In ihei ere ii: was
common for eihleies it: move from school "to school, Wiihin ihe some academic
year, similar a vagrant who 'oevele aimlessly on foo'i. Two of Penn Sieie?s mosi'

famous hisiozieel eihleies here ?die?: fainted designeiion Levi Lamb and Lee Talbot.? 35

The rules would have made if: mandeiory that e?ihleies Spend a. hill year in The classroom and page
a ?se?iisfeotory examination for advancement? before a versiiy teem While also playing
?for no more Three years.? Noi' until period 130111 1911 through 1914 were Those rules adepied
under ?le presiden?al leadership ofEdWin Sparks, including a rule Thai: inede anyone ineligible
who had received a eohelor?s degzee from ibis or any other college of equal scholarship
sienderds? or Who had eompeied in iniereollegieie eihleiice another college equal/smiley

siendei'ds.35 37 33

Meanwhile, 012 ne?ooel level, Peon Sie??e also was involved in helping to organize a new group
of college presidents 11o hi'ing eiebiliiy, emdad ruim eed con?ned? in college eihleiice. in 1905
"the Intercollegiate Aihleiio ofi'he Uin?tecl was bozo. Oddly, Penn State was not
granted membership ?the New York based group oniil 3.908 and one year leier, ?die 

of 50 colleges changed its name io ?l?he Neiionel Collegiate Aihleiio or 4?

APP 5'1

w-rx-M-?wwem 54:422.; 

 

. NJ. .

 

It?s no cohaoidence that the emphasis on eligibility and the classroom evolved doring a 22?year
stretch (1906?1927) when Penn State footh all emerged as an intercollegiate power in an era long

before 1he creation of national polls 1n retrospect the undefeated 1911 and 1912 teams are non:r

considered national champions by some hisiorians. 41132 43 The teams from 1919 through 1923

were unbeaten in 3 0 straight games, playing an loterseotional schedule 111 such venues at New

York City, Washington DC, Seattle and ?the 1923 Rose Bowl in Pasadena. Five players "from that

period have been into the College Football 1-131. of Fame and ?ve others became ?rst

team All? Amelicans, later becoming highly successful 111. such professions as medicine business,

a a
h1gher edooanon and the military. ?1 45 5 47

By the early 19203, college roothall ravaled rnajor league baseball and horse racingea asiinnerica a
favorite sports, but college administrations and faculty hecme concerned about the

overerophasis of intercollegiate athletics 1n the academic environment In January of 1926,1111:

Caznegie Foundation for {he Advancemen?l of Teaching began
on 130 college campuses, niclnding Penn State At about the same time, a small but in?uennal

eaarnanlng the place or atl?e?cs

faction led by Alumni Seer etary Milne Sullivan began probing"c 1131 the de?
particularly ?football His efforts ?so coincidedwitha '1

new rerornlenlnded college president, Ralph Hetzel 43 49 59

Penn State 3111111111

emphasis of all intercollegiate athletics,

lo the of the athletic depariroent, the adminishatlon and alumni created a new 13?

man Board of Atl?e?o Control to oversee all sports. On Angus: 10, 1927, iwo months after the

arrival of Hetzel, this board with the approval of the board of trustees, ended all ?nancial aid to

athletes, banning scholarships alerting with the entering class of freshmen in the fall 01B 1928 and

reducing other spending. (As of 1924, 75 smdent?athletes were on scholarship or receiving
cled the separation of sports

1930 with the creation

?nancial aid.) To ?JIther stress academics, the board also recommen
from the Den arnnent of Physical Edooation, which occurred in January,
of a 111.5111r School of Physical Edneallon to replace ?ihe PE dep anment and giving all co aches
L.51 52

academic rank under the supervision of a school direclor who would not he a cone 1

When in 1927, Penn State ot?cl?y nai?onned 111e, Cnnegie Foundation of ?ne Board of Athletic

Conirol?s actions, the forn?lda?on?s ?nal report erroneously cited Penn State as one of the

insiitntions ?Whose a?lenc crandards were not consistent ?will; its ed11cationa1 and ethical

values.? President l-letzel larer persuaded the study conarnlitee to add a Footnote lo 113 report, but

APP 52

?1 

 

- ?Mayan.? 

 

the footnote was completely ignored by the public and media, a situation reminiscent of the false
narrative propagated in 201 1?12 about the alleged culture of football at Penn State. 53 54?

Even before the elimination of scholarships, the quality of the football pro gram had begun to
deteriorate. With the elevation education to a complete academic school in 1930,
Hugh relinquished his head coaching position to become professor and director ofthe
new school. Bezdelr had been a national leader against the creeping ?professionalism? in
intercollegiate athletics. His seven~yeer tenure as director of the School of Physical Education

reinforced his philosophy with needemi cs 22 n1ejorpriorityss 56

However, Without ?nmcial aid for athletes, the football teens spirsled dosmwerd into mediocrity
under Coach Bob Higgins, 21 two~thne Allurernerican end on Besclelr?s best teams who also had
been a good student; graduating with degree in Commerce @d Fforerrce."37 53 From 1930
through 193 8, the teem did not have a winning season. Early in the decade alumni and other
?iends helped Higgins by reemiting young men from the cool and steel towns of
They found them subsidized housing and jobs to help pay their tniti on and books,
W122i the alumni did circumvented college policy but was not against the NCAA roles, and as the
1940s progressed Penn State was relevant again on me ?eld, cliJnr-cring with the undefeated

Cotton Bowl team of 1947 that ?nished No. 4 in the nation.? 60 ?51

After the 194-8 season, l?ggins retired and was succeeded for one year by Joe Bedenlr, mother
Penn State All?Anieiicen under Bezdelr and long?time assistant to Higgins. With college football
again changing in thepost-World War II years, the board oftrostees in Me}? of 1949 authorized
the implementation of 100 tuition scholarships for athletes. A year later athle?c ?nancial aid
was restroctmed Wl?l 3 0 15111 scholarships that included toilion, room and board for football.
Within months additional scholarships and toition~only were authorized for all sports.52 63

Under college president Milton Eisenhower, the hiring of a new football conch and athletic
director in the early 195 Os revolutionized Penn State?s studentuethletes. Charles ?Rip? Engle,
with success on the ?eld in the academically?stringent Ivy League at Brown Unisersi?f and
family roots in central and Penn Sta-rte, became the head coach in the spring of 1950
and brought his graduating querterb och, Joe Paterno, with hirn. Yet it was ?lo hiring of
Michigm?s experienced administrator Ernie McCoy in 1952 as a?aletic director and dean ofthe

School Education that was the catalyst of the academic edvancements??l 55
APP 53

run-cu. went?

 

Mamba-.2: Mmurnnmewwacau 



McCoy, a shrewd businessman who also believed in the education of athletes and following the
rules, overhauled the athletic department; including its administrative and ?nancial operations.
McCoy eliminated ?die a?nletic board of control that sopewised all sports 15:an
inh'arntn'als to varsity. As dean of physical education, he bolstered the athle?c department?s

academic rigor, roMg it more athrned to the same standards of Penn State?s other academic

__con1ponents such as Engineering and Readiness.65 57?

we?

Coaches continued to teach in the classroom as they had done for years, but now with more
direct responsibility to School of Physical Education iln'ough associate dean John Lawther, the
successful former men?s hasrtethall coach (1936-49), who was a one academic}is 59 Penn State?s
Faculty Senate helped hnplement newr enhance mles that required athletes be code}: the
same quali?cations as non?athletes and to rnalce the same academic progress as non?athletes.
McCoy explained to The Daily Collegian, the Penn State student newspaper, in 1959: ..
either he in the upper Weh?hs of?i?heir high school graduating class or score high
in the college board exams or pass a universitngiven enhance test. . .Under senate regulations, a
student is put on probation when his semester average falls below (scholarship)
Will be removed if an athlete is not melting nonnal progress toward a degree. This ?nonnel

pro grees? means a student must have accumulated an AlLUniversity average of at the end of
his freshmen year, a 1.his sophomore year and a l.9 by completion of his
junior year. A 2.0 is necessary for graduation. . .1 third: oer eligibility requirements are higher

than most other schools??

In conjunction ?with the new rules, assistant coaches monitored the classroom. work ofthe
athletes and provided any needednrtoring. In 1954, Bugle placed assistant coach Frank Patrick
in charge of academic advising for football players, freshmen in particular, as a collateral duty.71
What began then as a small step to supp ort the proper education of football players and other
athletes would one day grow into a highly~praised national example of academic support for

athletes that continues to day ender the name of the Morgan Acaden?c Center for Student?

. Athletes with a full-time sinff of 17 and dozens ofparotirners in a brand new (2016) modem

loaded updated computer technologyf??2

No donht the foundation of Faterno?s Grand Experiment was set by McCoy, Engle, and President
Walker but it was Patenro who elevated the basic student?athlete education philosophy to the

APP 54

 

 

highest level. Some critics have attempted to dileerage Paterno?s Grarld Eweriment, poio?tiog
pai?y to the admission of a number of student?athletes after 1980 who Were football players
under special m?versity rules.l3 Those ?presidential admissions? had been in place for decades
for the general student population 812d were aimed at admitting high school students with
aoadezoio poteri?al but with inferior grades. Once eerolled, the stodeats had to abide by

uoiversi?r?s regular academic: standards??

Some of the football players who receiver. ?presidential admissions? Went on to graduate and
others did not melee it. The Grand Bap erimeot combined, if diluted bit ??om Patemo ?3 original
goal, but Patemo also believed he was giving those on ?presidential admissions? a chance to get
a degree, receiving all the same academic submits as the other football players were i3}.

academic support omit.? 

?Presiderriiol admiseioris were not just for football players,? said John Coyle, Peron State?s
NCAA and conference Faculty Representative i?i?om 3.970 to 2000. ?The Presidential Admits
?owed oomeideratioe. to be giveo also for talent to admit ?eshmee or; the main campus as long
es the prospective student met the waiversity?wide miejzoum academic requirement. For most
years, the number of special admits for the Blue Bead. ROTC, l?ldosioa Theater5 ere, far exceeded
the number oi?i'eqaeets to oomider Student athletes. Then in the 1980?s, Perm. State received
growing criticise: for the relatively low number ofmioority a??etee, especially in basketball arid
football. . Coach Paterno made a special effort to rectify this situation, but had to request more
Special admits? a classic: case of?dar31ned if you do and damned if don?t.? Actually, the 110331181
progress requirements for sordenbathletes were more stringent than most D-l bistitutions and

admission steaderds were higher than for some other Universitiea.am

Until ?re scandal broke in late 2011, Penn State was considered the prototype of a clear athletic
program that followed the roles and pushed its etudeoeethletes towards academic excellence.
Despite attempts ~?10 tie its image to the crimes of I my Saoduelcy, there has never been evidence

of academic sacri?ce forfootball ?59 39 31

IPeterrlo, and Asbell, l3. ?Chapter 11: A. Grand Bigoeriment.? Petemo By 3728 Book. New

Yo?. Random House. 1989.
2 Riley, R. Pee}: State News ?Tootball Preview,? August 1967 Vol. 54 No. 1. State

College, Pa.

APP 55

dawmhum

 

.. . Wuhanm -. 'u i a. .. .. 

mug. 

 

3 Erato, L. ?Chapter 2: The Grand Eweriozen?t.? 00 ?lings Penn State Fons Should Know 63:

Do Before They Die. Chicago. Books. 201 5.
4 Home, K. ?Penn State Football Sets Graduniion Rain Record.? Onward Store, Onward State,
October 12, 201.2. 
5 ?Academics.? NCAA. org 27w O?icz?al Sine offke NCAA, 

do?ecadennos
5 ?Penn So?e Fooiball Groane?on Success Raf?e among the Top 15 at F138 momma.? Peon

Sz?oz?e woman, November 541, 2014.
h?n ://news.nsu. edufsiorv/S 3 3 1 12/20 14/ 1 

Iain-emono??ion?ls-fbs

7 Email ?om Rush Musbinsky "Bo Loo 13min, November 1, 2012.

3 ?Graduation Raies.? Noomg .. The Q?oz?ol Size NCAA, January 10, 2018.


3 ?Tenn Siefc Smdeni~Aibloies Con?nue to Benn Ouisfending Greclne'iion Rates.? Penn Store
Univeroz?zji, November 15, 2016. b?p :ffnewsnsueciu/sfow/?iB?Y 834-1201 6/1 1/15/otb1e?csfoenm


9 ?American Football Coaches Aesooie?iion Lends Penn State Fooi?bell Gredne?on Rates.? Penn

Sfofe University, January 22, .2015. 885/2015/01/22fomencanu


?Snowmen? by a Group of Ens-1?; Chairs of The So?e University Faculty Senate
Regeztiing "the hook Report, 1118 NCM Consent Decree, anti Then ?cndemio Implications.?

Angus? 28, 2012.W.01emi33.edoffaoulw 

 

Finalgd'f
11 Nicho1s, I. (professor sometime of Penn Siei'e Co?ege of iniewiemo by Lou

Erato, Oo?iober .2016. Some College, Pa.
12131011013, .1. Op Ed Dismissed Penn State?s on Sports hiegri?iy,? The 
Poo?for?News, August 3, 2002.
13 20.15 Penn Sfofe F0 all 17 econ ook.
?Pram, L. 100 Things Penn Sim Fons Should Know Do befo

20 1 5 .
15 20] 613mm Sroz?e Football Yem'boofc.
?Pram, L. 100 Things Penn State Fans Shouldl?aow Do before They Die. ?Chapter 71: Iobn
Uzscbel and ?the Triumph Books, 2015.
17 Mink, R. ?John stcbel Feels ?At Home? In MIT P1133 Pro gram.? News MS,
Bal?moroRevenscom, Febroexy 9, 2016. 1001131-
2mm! 1 954-11 
?3 Paiemo, .T. and Asbell, B. c?eiemo: by ?ibe Book: Chapter 22: A Bigger Number One Than

Foofbe?? Berldey Books, 1991.
2116 Bond of Tmsiees, Jenna}? 22, 1983.

19 Transc?pt, .Toe Eniemo in Fenn Si
3? Mennol, M. ??o?emo: Take Advantage of This ?Magic Time? The Daily Collegian, January

24, 1983. 733810b3?8dbe?5dfciu95 9 0?
3edo116500e3bnn1

21 Posnenski, 3. Poferno. New ?170$. 81221031 and Shooter. 2012.

Stein. Dedicates Potezno Library.? Peron Seam, Sepiember 8, 2000.


23 ?Patemo Libreny Histozjr.? Poz?emo Librmy, marmoa'temo?el

34 2010 Penn Sfofe Foofbo? Yearbook, 5.

re They Die. ?111111111311 Books,

d?benvel?siadinm.com?ibmwbim

APP 56

 

25 Gent Team. Liberal Arts Introduces Palermo Fellows Program.? Gom?News. com, March
6, 2008. 

25 The Penn Slate 14121772225 News ?The Development ofAihle?cs,? October 1925, Vol. 12 N0. 1.

27 ?lter, S. ?From Atherion ?to I-Ieizel: A 111510137 of loieroollegie?te Aihle?c Control art ?the
Slate College, 1887~193 P111). disserie?iioo, Penn State Universiiy, 1991.

23 The Perm .S?z?oi?e Alwmz? News. Oc?iobei' 1925.

39 Riley, R. Rood 2?0 Member One: A Pemoeol Clzrom'ele Sierra Foofboll. Doubleday,
1977.

39 Beer, 3. ?From Atheitoo io I-leizel: A I-lislozy of ?ltereollegiejze Aihle?c Cooi?rol of the
Sieie College, 1887?1930.? Peoo Sieie Univel?siiy, 1991.

31 The Peer: Sfaz?e News, Ociober 1925.

33 Beer, S. ?From America to Helge}: A 1-1131on of lol?ei'eollegieie e?ile?tie Coo'e?ol a? llie
S'i?ei'e College, 1887?1930.? P1113. Penis. Slate University, 1991.

33 lifter, S. ?From A?ie?oo io Heizel: A l-lisim? of loiezcollegieie All?e?c Control of the
Stole College, 1887?1930.? mee?e?oo, Fem: Slate Uoivereiw, 1991.

?From, L. The Fem State Football 1? Chempeigo, ll. Spores Publishing Inc. 1998.

35 The Penn graze Alum-22? News, Ociobei? 1925.

3?5 Bezillo, M. Modem College,? Pam: game: on allege-?ied Jimmy), The Peimeylveoie
Stale Univereiiy Press, Uoivereiiy Perk eod London, 1985.

37 ?tter, S. ?From Aiherioii to Helge]: A History of loieroollegieie A'izhle?o Cono'ol of: ?flie
Sieie College, 1887~1930." 1311.13. Penn Sieie University, 1991.

38Brier, S. ?From America to Heteel: A 1&1on of loiezcollegie?ie Allile?iie Como-01 at 'ilie
Pemeylvenie S'i'eie College, 1887?1930.? 1311.13. diseeriei?ion, Peon Sieie University, 1991.

35? Beeill e. ?Sliepiog Modem College,? Penn Elmer e21 illus?'eiecl lJiS?i'oiy.

Riley, R. Rood 2?52 Noe-Zoe? One: .51 Chronicle )S?z?oz?e Foofoczfl. Doubleday,
1977.

?11 ?Oilfield 2005 NCAA Division l?A end LAA Fooibell Records Book?. The National
Collegieie A?ale?o Association, Indianapolis, 2006.

4'2 Eiler, S. ?Trom A?ie?oe lo l-le?tzel: A Hislory of Intercollegiate Alhle?iic Coniml oi the
Pemeylvenie S?fe?te College, 1881-1930.? 1311.13. dieserie?on, Peon Slate 1991.

?13 Riley, R. Road fo Nomoer 0128341 Persoeol Chronicle offer/.122 Same Fooz?ocz?. Doubleday,

1977.

2016Fooz?boll Yearbook.

45 Preio, L. The Penn State Football Chempeign, 11. Sports Publishing Inc
1998.

45 Bitter, S. ?From Alhertoo to Heir/gel: A Hisfory of loieroollegieie Athletic Control at the
Stole College, 18 87-1 93 P1113. dissei'te'iioo, Fem Sie?ce UHiVersiW, 1991.

47 Riley, R. Rood 2?0 Number One: 151 Persoiiol ofPeim Slate Foofball. Doubleday,

1977.

431335110, 00 Nefegs.

4?9 Elliot, 8. ?From Aihe?oo ?to Hotel: A Elisioiy of hiei?oollegieie Athleiio {30111301 of the
Siaie College, 188741930.? P111). dieseiie?iioo, Peon Sieie Uoivezsiiy, 1991.

50 Riley, R. Rood 250 Number 052.2: 11 Persoezol Clear-2561.3? Sfofe Fooz?ooZZ. Doublecley,
1.977. 

51 ?tter, S. ?From Allie-r1021 ?so He?cl: A l?slory of loiereollegieie Athleiie Confrol 3.111118
Pemylvenie State College, 1887?193 PM). 'cliese?e?on, Peon Siei'e Universiiy, 1991 .

52Riley, R. Rood f0 Nomoe? 01285131 Personal Chronicle ofPemz Eloisa Fooz?ooll. Dooblecley,

1977.
APP 57

 

 

53 Prato, L. 100 ?lings.

54? Etter, S. ?on111 A?lerton to Hetzel: A History of Intercollegiate Athletic: Control at the
State College, 1887?1930.? disseltetioo, Penn State University, 1991.
55 Riley, R. Road to Number 011te Personal Chronicle ofPemt Stole Football. Doubleday,

1977.
55 ?tter, S. ?Prom Atlzeltoo to l-leteel: A History of Intercollegiate Athletic Control at the
Pemylveoie State College, 1881-1930.? P111). dissertation, Pena State University, 1991.
53' Dome-:11, R. The Hfg. Montgomery, AL, 0W1 Bey Publishers, 1994.
53 Riley, R. Road to Nmelver 0.138344 Personal Clareoetele ofPemz Stole Football. Doublerley,

1977.
59 Riley, R. Road to Number One: A Personal Chronicle ofPeno State Football. Doubleday,

1977.
?50 Preto, L. 100 ?llings. 
61 Pretty L, The Penn. Stete Football Eoeyolop edie. i
52 Riley, Road to Number One: A Personal Chronicle offer-m State Football. Doubleday, 

977.
53 Smith, PL. Wooeded limes: .loe Poteroo, 

Athletics. University of Illinois Frees, .2016.

?54 Riley, R. Rood to Noe-?ber One: A Personal Chronicle
1977.

55 Smi?l, R. Wozezcleol Liam: Joe Patemo, Jerry Sol-263ml;
Jiltl?zlez?z'es. University of Press, 2.016.

55 Riley, R. Rood to Member? One: ll Personal Chronicle 0
1977.

57 Smith, R. Wounded Lime: Joe Palermo, Jerry
Atlaletiee. University of Illinois Press, 2016.

58 Smith, R. Wozozclecl Lions: Joe Potemo, Jew-:12 goo?ng/?32, cool the Crises to Peer:
Athletics. Uoivereity of Press, 2016.

59 Enders Thesis, McCoy 1952-4959.
Preto, L. ?A??etes Meet Equal Academic Rules.? The Daily Collegian, March 18, 1959. Page 1.

71 ?Report: History and Evolution of Academic Advising for Penn State?s Stodent~AtlJletes.?
Provided. by Morgan Academic Center. Downloaded Ootob er 201 6. .


72 Rep ort: History ancl Evolution of Academe Adel
73 Smith, R. Wounded Lions: Joe Potemo, Jerry Sondoelg}, owl the Closes Penn

Athletics. University of Press, 2016.
Coyle, 3' (professor emeritus ofPeoo State College of Business), ieterviewed by Lou Pratt),
October 2016. State College, Pa.
75 Coyle, October 2016.
76 Report: l-Iistom and Evolution of Ace.
79? Coyle, l. lutet?riew, October 2016.
?3 Personal Observetioo by Lou Preto, August 2011.
79P1'eto, L. 00 llzlego.
3? Peon State News Release. NCAA.
31 Fitzpatrick, F. The Lion in Aotwee: or Seosoe with Joe Palermo on

Gotham Books, 2005.

 

and the Crises 3?72 Peer; State
ofPeon State Football. Doeblecley,
I, and the Crises :92 Few State

IPemz State Football. Doubleday,

Set-Ideolgi, owl the Crises to Pelee State

State

slog for Penn State?s Student?Athletes.
State

?etoie Advising for Perm State?s Stocleot?Atl?zletee.

President Myles Brand. Praises Peon State Athletics.
of Perm State Football.

APP 58

 

APPENEK 3e
??ller of the Commooiiy? Peclopl?les

One in every ?ve girls and one in every severe boys ere sexumly abused by the me ihey 
edulihoocl.l Despiie ?these numbers, many Ide?ms clo not report sexual abuse 1&0 euihor?iee or
even ?their families, for a verieiy of reasons ranging from shame or fear ?to coolesioez This
means the: in every eommooiiy, there are both Vicious and o?eeclers who are 131111110er

enzyme.

The siereoimieel child sermel abuser is porireyecl as a s?eoger, leaking erourzcl school bus eiops
or playgrounds in search ofvie?roek As $210111, we '?eaell children oboe? ?steeger deoger? bu?:
ignore ?le sreiis?eelly more likely eime?oo ?l?ll??i children ere fer more ?ely be

ree?o?zecl by someone they know.

is mpori?eni ?to fully how offenders operate, which children are of highest risk

for abuse, and When/how r0 repori objld abuse empiolooe. Mose oer-vs reporis revolve around "the
?siioe?oeel? offender, who is more likely ?io abuse ebil?ee because there is en Opporomiiy and 21
clesire offeed. Si?loe'lioeel o?eoders have no preference for a certain ?type ofvie?ijm eocl fend to

be both sermolly and morally iodiserimine?e. This is ?le ?manger danger? *?rype of effortcler.3

However, much less understood, and more dif?cult to iden?l?yg is ?le ?prefereo?el? child sex
o??errcler (PSO). How does {his fype of offender differ from the sifoe?ooal offeoder?? While
Situational offenders typically have no preference for age or gender and are likely unkoovm to

The vic?fim, preferen?al offenders have a dis?ne?t preference for and are sexually attracted ?to

children.4
?Niee our? or ?miller of'i'he offenders?

There is a subcategory ofpreferee?iiel child molesters 1:11er as ?oiee guy? or ?pillm of'ihe
oomueiiy? offeeders. ?While our siereoijqje of 3. child sexed o?'encler views a molesier as an

evil monster; the P80 is quire ?the opposi'fe, meld?g i? very dif?cult for {hose more ?see,? or believe, that they have a sexual attraction toward children. Characteristics of a nice guy

o?ender include:5

re High soelel 31111133 2331:1101 waking 113 a position of authority

Friendly, help?l, giving or loving and takes special 1331e1est111 013113113 o1111c11'e33 o1 groups
of children.

Often f11'13?01'v'ed. 113 orgehizetions 113313 serve children, 511011 as sohools: youth camps or
sports leagues, ohorehee, 01' 37031111 

Gains 'Ehe 1:11.181 of ohilchen by offering time eiten?oo or gifts

May be socially aw Mo?azcl m1 113 efer 1he company of ehild1e33 over same age adults

Wl?le offender is driven by 01311011113111}: 01133113111313 the P50 will seek or use

13031110135 when 1he3e 15 01313031133113? 1'0 seduce and maeiijuleie memos 13mliee

out their 1311111135 This 13 aeoomplishe? over 11131:: through '3 process lmom as

we. eommuoi'iies

111 order to 0311

?grooming.?

Grooming

The grooming pzoeess does not only occur with ?le in?eoded 1311;113:111. Offenders will also groom

families and even The local common 111 eddi'iioo, see; offeeders may groom 0313131321 331311033

3311101116332 113311111tio113, including state child we?ere agencies one ?professionals, 211310 believing that

they present 130 1151;: to children.

What does grooming 1007621758?

usually begms with subtle behavior that may not initially eppeeu to be ioepgpropriete
the child or being vely acfeo?one'te Grooming may 

(310 0131131
such 33' 132137111 lot of atteotion to

3 A11 omele'te? 111211111 who seems overly ioiezeeted 111 e. ohilcl.
?1311 3111111 whof: equently o3 memes 0131301 11113111135 10 be alone Winh e. chilel (or

multiple children).

3 A31 3511111 who becomes fumed 031 a. child some iimes 3?1 the expense 03133311013053 1311111

theh' own children oz: femihes.

APP 80

 

 

 An adult Who gives special privileges or oppc?oni?iies to a child rides ?to and none
practices, etc).

An adult be??iends e. family and shows more interest in building a. relationship Wiih the
child ?then Wi?i ihe edulie

An adult displays feminism fcwei?ds one child Veilzin a. family.

An adult ?nds opp mim??i?ies io buy a child gifts.

An adult ceiers ?to "the inferests ofihe child, so a child or wthe parent may initiate coniec?a
with "the offender.

An eduli: who displays age and gender preferences.
Who is of geeoz?esz.? risk of becoming vicfz?zn ofc 

greeiesi risk of grooming and ebuse by P80 are those children, needy because of emotional
or physical negleci or who come ??ozn families immersed in life eiine'iions such as
divorce or inedeqnaie ?nancial resources? Identifying ehilch'en from ennironmeni?e, The
PSO seduces 'ihern with gifts: oppormni?es, efteniion effec?on or whatever The molesier
deiermines might be lacking from a. child?s life. This molester idenii?es with ihe child, listening

and "talking io dice: and their hazel: es en en?iori?iy iiguise.3 9

In public. ?nice guy? PSOS are viewed positively by everyone around them. In they
o?en push boundaries with children, lowering inhibitions by being very physical or playful,
sometimes discussing sen icpics or providing pomegraphy in order to make The child think of

sex acts as less taboo and more ?nonnelf?o

Why are PSOS d?culi? to 

Because children are groomed into compliance by the P80, victims will often not call ou?c for
help or dieclcse ?the? ?iey?ve engaged in sexual behavior,? Even 'ihough they may be s?mg
been, The P50 is neeie ?then: well, makes them feel special, and gives {been access
io ?lings or oppor?zuni?es not o??iezwise available. And because ?these molesters are seen as
pillars ofithe communiiy, even when iheii social behavior may be perceived as odd or ewlmerd,
if is s'mply unfe?diomeble in those around "them $31235: ibis Med and well resPec?fed pexeon could

possibly be seemelly abusing childi'en 1?2

APP 61

 

 

Prevention of Childhood Sexual Abuse

Despite the clear need io prevent child abuse, most real or offender management ini?aiives center .
around registering known sex offenders, noiifying communities about offenders in iheir
neighborhoods, condneiing background cheeks on individuals wishing to word; with children,

and giving longer prison r0 o?eedere. These are all reaciionary measures and diere are
no scienti?c data available support their ef?cacy. 13 And, in daie, more are virinally no

evidenced based programs or policies diet focus on me area of child abuse prevennon.

known facts ahonr child almaere:M

The overall rewo?ense rare for child moleerers is aign?ieenl?lv lower than iha'i ?for either

c?minale
25% of vicious are abused by a family member and 60% are abused by someone else

froze ?ieir social neivvorl-a,

One one of all adoli' o?enee?s ageing? juveniles involve ?compliare?: viorima? or someone
who cooperated for a variety of reasons.

it in eeiirnared that 93% of sexual abuse cases involve someone the child vioiira lodovvs.
Child molesters are more likely in be educated and employed "than o?aer criminaia
Policy and law focus on reporiing, re gisiraiion and noii?ca?on, While ignoring minors rhar 'i'll?li
children are actually? ai lower rislr of being molested by someone who is a known offender and
stranger than by? someone Within their own family or close social network. As di?culi as it may

he to conduct research on ?nice guy? o?enders (because they are unloiovvn reducin child


abuse will never occur as long as state and federal governmenral efforts are reao?ve, rather 

proactive.

Additionally, while laws and policies have changed a: increase ?die number of mandated reporters
and "to edncei'e employees about how and when ?to repent abuse suspicions, 42,000 calls to
ChildLine weer mansvvered in 2015 alone.? if only a small fraction of ?those
calls were credible reports, hovz many children in "the state of have miffered, or are

still suffering, at the hands of an noloaovvn abuser?

APP 62

 

 

?Tluifed States Deperonenf of lus?ce National Sex Offender Public Website.? Common
Questions, U.S. Departmeni? of .Tue?ee, unmeansopwgov/eu?


2 ?Teot Sheet: What You Need io I?ow Aboui Sex Offenders.? Genre-joy Ej?c?ve Public Policy, The
Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008. 

3 Leoniug, K. ?Child Moleeiezs: A Behavioral Aealysis For Law Enforcemeni Of?cers Iovee?geimg
Cases of Child Sexual Exploi?e?oe.? O?ee of?wem?fe Jos?ce one? Del?zgoeni Prayeefion (139.332. of
?eece). Weshz?ngz?oo, .230, December 1992.

4 Lenoiug, Ii. ?Child Molesiers: A Bebeviorel Agelysis For Lew Eel?oreeroeei Officers Loveetige?ug
Cases of Child Sexual Exploitation.? Qx?'fee efJuveane J'zoo'ee mo? Delinquent Prevee?oo (Dept. of
?eece), DC, December 1992. 

5 Clemeeie, .7. ?Analysis of?ine Special Ioves?geiive Counsel Report and the Crimes of Gerald A.
Sandoelcy 85 Education Guide ?lo ??le Ideu??ee? on and Preveu?on of Child Vie?mize?ou?.
Febmely 2013. 

51.2113in g, E. ?Child Molesters: A Behavioral Auelysis For Lew Enforcemeui? Of?cers Invesiigeiiug
Cases of Chile Sexual O?loe of?meeile Joso'oe oncz?DeImgeem (Dept. of
Jzorfee), Woelzz?ogroo, DC, December 1992. 

7 Loon?g, K. ?Child Mole-seem: Behevior? Aeolyeie For Law Enforcemeoi' Of?oeze ZuVee?ge?ug
Cases of Child Sexual Exploi?ie?on.? Q?fice osznPerzz'Ze Jzzso'ce and Delozgeem? (?eet. of
Jesz?ioe), Weslzz?ngz?orz, DC, December 3.992.

3 Leoning, K. ?Child Moleeiere: A. Behavioral .euelyeis For Lee! Euforeemeoi Officers Investige?eg
Cases of Cl?lcl Sexual Exploife?ou.? Qf?oe of?weizile szfice oncheZz?oguem?Preveizz?iozz (Dept of
?eece), Woefzz'zzgfon. DC, December 1992.

9 Clemente, J. ?Auelyeie ofl'he Special hvee?ge?ve Counsel Roper? and toe Comes of Gerald A.
Senduslg! 8e Eduee?on Guide 'i?o ?i116 Idenii?ce? on and Preven?oo of Child Sexual Victimization?.
February 2013.

Clemeoie, l. ?Au?ysis of ?the Speeiel Inveeu?getiVe Counsel Report and ?le Crimes of Gerald A.
Seoduelcy Eduea?on Guide fo ?the Ideo?o?ee?ou and Prevention of Child Sexual Vie?miee?on?.
Febmery 2013.

?Clemente: J. ?Analysis of ?le Special Inves?gative Counsel Report and ?ae Crimes of Gerald A,
Sanduslqr [5?5 Educe?ou G-eide 2:0 ?le Iden??oe?on and Prevention of Child Sexual Vie?o?ze?on?.
February 20 1 3 .

12 Clemente, I. ?Aualyeis of??le Special Investiga?Ve Couesel Repo? feed the Crimes of Geralrl A.
Sandusky e: Eduee?oo Guide to the Ideu??cation and Prevention of Child Sexual Vic?mize?on?.
Pebmaly 2013. -

13 Finkellnor, D. ?The Preven?oo of Childhood Sexual Abuse.? Ike Fm?we ofC?fszco-en, vol. 19, no. 2,
2009, pp. 169?187., 5.

llFiolgelhor, D. ?The Preveo?ou of Childhood Sexual Abuse.? The Fume oka?o'rezz, vol. 19, no. 2,
2909, pp. 169?3. 87., (3051:1013 53/foe.0.0035.

Il13el?esqmle, E. ?T?uferlm Repel? of Sigoi?ceiu: Mailers Regarding ?ille Deperimeef of Human 
of ??le Sieiewide Chile Abuse I-Io?ioe (ChildLiole? May 13.016.

APP 63

 

 

en .. .,

 

 

 

Science on Social Judgment

Why ?e oii?eoi?y beheviog someone might Hoe be who they
eppeoi?e? 35o be ob}; oio?og??

When we ioi?a?y meek someone, We form on onpz'essioo. Although {here is on adage ?don?:

 

judge a book by ifs cover,? science has demons?o'eied repeatec?y ?the?: ?rsi impressions are most
important. That is why We ?try so herd fo ?make a. good ?rm: iropreseioo.? Thai ?rei 
sets 'izhe siege for how we oon?ooe ?to see 311d uodezsieo? 'i?hei person. In fact, when we fire? meet
a sirmger, The ?re? impression provide ?ee oon (and ?iherefore, ihe mos? compelling) iofoime?oo
?abet We have about someone. This is lmowo es commotion bios.i oddi?oml z'iy?ormofion is
jodged based on 2715:? z?oi?ol impression. Thus. if 0221' ?re? impression of our mew oeighboe is ?i113:
he is a ?ieedly guy who come over ?to help move ~the flooimre 'thei ?le movers poi in one
moog piece all oiher ioforme?oo will be judged. by {hot standard. Thai is Why neighbors are
often so surprised when a sezio}. or spree killer is disoovered in ?iiheir neighborhood. We hear on

TV ?that ?He/she was such 23 quiet, polite guy.?

The foot ?that all eddi?onel iofozme?oo We receive about someozze is *i'heo viewed oomsisieo?y
Wi?: ?the: ?rs? impressioo is as ihe ?halo effect.?2 This is on ouiome?o "thought process?
our percep?on of another pozson is ?colored? by a. peeson?s speci?c characteristic or behavior.
Because it is euiome?o (we don?t realize we are doing if), we judge The total person bosecl on a
single factor a person?s strength, wealmess, physical appeexanoe, or behavior. So inthe case of
That ?rst impressioo of the neighbor (he is help?? and ?jendly), ?the halo effect means the? we
see all of their other behzwiors as ?firiog me the? impression! belief. In aomaliw, This aoi?oroa?o
"tendency prevents people ?ora behag people do no?: always behave injust one
Way. However, i'he halo o?eoi' moons Thai our ioi?iiol impreseioo causes us ?to ignore o??ler

informe?on because ii? do es :1on ?t Wi?z whe? we believe we Imow it} be ihe me.

Where. we ignore a. piece of oono'adioiory Mome?on (we actually see our neighbor slop
bio wife ooross ?the face), we eoiome?oa?y use 3. ?lough'i process oe?eci con?mo?oo bias. We

take for: contradictory Mormo?oo and wo? to ondersieod ha a way one": ?ts with our ho?ol

APP 64

 

 

impression. So we make excuses for the behavior he most have been really drunk, she must
have said something horrible for that ?nice guy? to do that. In short, We process and later
remember the contradictory mfonnation in a way that con?rms our preexisting beliefs. We give

very little consideration to the fact that maybe our initial impression was wrong. We stick with

our initial impression because it is easier to force the new information into our overall belief

system ra?rer than having to start to build a totally new peroeptionfhellef system ab out this

person.

But even if We oamrot rationalize behavior such as domestic abuse by that ?great guy? next door,

Why do so few people do sometln'ng aboot it? There are several reasons:

1.

People are often shooltecl or ?lghtened by what they have seen or heard. They fear
that the perpetrator may ton: and {to the some thing or something even worse to the

person who reports or intervenes.

Particularly in cases when the behavior is not witnessed directly, people often doubt
themselves. ?What if the persorr who told me that is lying?? The vast majority of us
have experienced false rumors being spread about as aad We know how dif?eolt it is
to combat those falsehoods. Therefore, we are ofteo reluctant to act on negative

information passed on to us beeaose of the possibility that it too is false.

People fear potential consequences should they get involved and report it. What if
nothing changes and they made it worse for the persoa being abased? Will the person
reporting be legally liable if it ends up being false? Could the person reported tom
around and sue the reporter for false reporting? Could there be some other type of

retaliation?

People believe th? if it was really happening ?someone else must have reported it by
now.? Most people have heard the story of Kitty Genoyese, who in 1964:: was raped
md killed in two separate late-?night attacks outside her apartment bulletin in Queens.
For more than halter; hour, 3 8 respectable, law~abiding cameras watched a killer stall:
and stab a woman as she cried out ?He?s lolling me, please help.? Only aerator

eventually called the poliee and ?ner was actor Kitty was dead. When interviewed.

APP 65



umm-wnv? 1

 

we. .e my?. .u 

..

- a: awe-r: Mfumsafm .. ..



 

 

later, many of the Witnesses Thought that i was ?none Of?lfijl' business? or ?1 assumed

someone else had ahead? called.? In this case, the horri?c event was aomally

wiinessed. This assemp?on that ?it is not my business? or ?someone else has

reporied it? (Boiled "the bysiander effect) is even shronger when The erson did not

unmess The concerning behavior ?rst hone.

 

 

R. ?Can?nne?on Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Gniees.? Review of
General v01. 2, no. 2, 1998, p13. 175-?220, doi:10?1 

ZNiSbe?, R, and Wilson, T. ?The H310 Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of
i 1977, pp. 250?256.,

Judgments.? Journal offersmzoliiy and Social vol. 3 5, no. 
5.4.250.

 

 

APP 66

 

Errors in Sanousky Greed Jury Eeesenimeei;

Beeligreeml: Pemevlveeie Greecl lam! ljroeesses

le a, 211.1 limesiige?ng Grand Joey is an investige?iive and. "tool ?them can
be uiilized by a comfy Disoie?t Asfomey or the A?omey General. A21 leves?geiive grand jury
can be impsoelecl to hear and observe 'fes'tieloey and evidenee l0 deiemziee ifibel?e is any 'to
support? she ?ing of criminal charges. Ellie invee??iss?ve greed jezy believes {be evidence
preseniecl by the prosecution Walnuts the ?ling of criminal charges against an iedlviclusl or

measles? oz; imves?ge?ve greed jury peeseslmen?i will be issued.I

The greed jury di??ers "from a. peril; jury (h'ial jury) in its embers end du?iy. A peel? jmy 2131.:er
consists of only 6-12 jurors Wl?le grendjm?ies usually have 23 jurors. ere ?leslcecl lo
defermine gm}? Wbile grand juries are not. greed jurors serve for a period of 18
momlns, appearing in com an average of 2 days per month. Al?lougb greed julies can be
esiencled for a longer tens, someiimes 'testimony on one case will many over info a second

pseel?s semi?

All evidence promoted in grand jury is close in strict secrecy. All greed jury pm'iieipe?i?s
inolucliog, be? not limited 'io, jerors, eftomeys, and sfenogmpbers, swom io secrecy 531d

subj es? lo prosecu? on for oozrtempt if they disclose infoona?oe. Additionally, all do eumezrfs
produced and transcripts made re?ecting ?tes?mony are available 021137150 ??le Commonweal?l, the

proseeu?on, 21116. are not available for public consumption?

For 21 Witness, counsel 0311 be present in {he gxand jury 3300331 dosing ques?oojeg and is allowed ?to
advise the mmess bm?: cameo? make obj or arguments or otbemiise address {be gl'secljory
or ??116: e?omey for ibe Commonweelm. The supervising judge has the posse: to remove counsel
from "the grencljury room. If counsel societies ?Elle. rules ofihe greed jmjr, they are sub} eat so a.

charge of 

APP 87

 

?bum?. mun?i- r. .. ..

 

Limitations of Grand. Proceedings and Pr'esenterents

The Attorney for the Commonwealth controls the investigation and dissemination of ihforroa?on
to the grand jury itself. The Attomey for the Commonwesl?r controls the Mmesses and the
testimohy they offer to the gteodjury in both and contest Consequently, the 
is presented with a 0118?Sid6d version of the accusations in the light roost favorable to the 
prosecution. fudge Sol Weohtler said that district attorneys have so much in?uence on
greed juries that ?by and large, at grand jury would indict a hero sandwich on the dearth of'ihe pig,
if that?s whet you wastedd Weohtler believed greed juries ?operate more often as the

rosewtor?s stem than the citizen?s shield.?
.9

Because oftheir oeewsided nature: presehhrzerrts issued by grand juries should never be
considered l00% factual. It; the ease of the Seoduslty greed jury presen?imezrh there are claims
made that have been shown to be false, misleading or strootured Er: such a way as to focus
attention on certain individuals and create highly biased perceptions ofthe ease, which were

rooa- eted three sensatiooehstie media re sorts 3031 release ofthe resentment.


Feet-eel Error oft: toehrdtos dose?oh V. l?etemo hr Preseotmeet

While federal grand juries must adhere to eertehr investigative roles and demand secrecy i321
investigative ?ndihgs to prevent collateral damage to innocent odtoesses and other third parties,
does 110% bind its state grand jeries in such a summer. The failure to regulate
precisely What is included in the do cement does not provide those iodividuals with the ability to
defend themselves. Peblioly mentioejrlg Patemo strongly implied he had committed a crime.
The prosecuting attorney has stated that there never has been any evidence that Patemo was

involved in perpeh'atiog any crime, so his name should have never been rheotioned 1?21 the
tareserrtooerrt.?

Femoral Error or? yrmelioe

The joyestigstors did not actually ford any of the victims. The Victims were either self?reported
(Victims l, 9, .10), were reported (victims 3, 43 5, 7) by the mother of Victhh 6 (1998 shower
incident), or were hearsay Victims not yet identi?ed (Victims 2, 8). When orefiiog the

presehtorezrh prosecrrtors ormrbered victims by their errdy into the case, not by the dates of their

vicherriesetierr.6

APP ?38

 

From the 2011 Grand quy Presenb?ent using alphabetical identi?ers for each victim

Victim 1, AF Reported abuse by Seodusky

Victim 2, U1 AIL incident was Wimessed by gz'eduete assistant in 2001 in e. PSU
Shower

92 Victim 3, I Abused ie PSU showers/facilities by Semdusky (Identi?ed by mothet of
Victim 6)

A Victim 4-, EH Abused in EU showers/fecili?es by Smidusky (Identi?ed by mother of
Victim 6)

A Victim 5, Abused in by Seoduslty (Identi?ed by mother of
Victim 6)

Victim 6, 2131?? Reported by mother it: 1998 Abused it: PSU showers/facilities by
Sendusiey

Vic?e' 7, D8 Abused in PSU Showers/?facilities by (Identi?ed by mother of
Victim 6)

A Victim 8, U2 Not Identi?ed by hearsay Witness (J 3:113:01?) Repetted abuse in 
PSU shower by Secdueky

Based on this nembet'mg system, the presentment steere the reader to conclude that Victim 1 was
the ?rst: victim and Victim 9 the last. it, as the reader is led to believe, '?lese victims are
bumbet'ed cbtonolcgicelly, then after Victim 2?s abuse was reported to PSU of?cials, 7 others

would have been subjected to abuse.

But that isn?t what: happened. This revised ?meline shows how abuses reportedly oecmted:
Cbronolo gical Timeline for Idee?fybliz Seeduslty?e Victims

A Nov. 2008, Victim 1, At A Reported abuse ?ee: 200542008 by Seodueity.

flute 2009a Victim 2, ZK Repozted by mother it: 1998. Reported abuse in PSU
sbowersz?fecilitiee by Sendusky (acquittal on bideceet esset?t).

A June 2009, Victim 3 REM 231d child it: 1998 inyee?getioe. Reported abuse ?ill PSU
showers/facilities by Seadusky. Never brought to ??13151.

APP 69

 

 

 

June 2009, Vio?m 4, IS Iden??ed by ?Viotim 2? mother. Repeated abuse in Sandusky
home, on trips, and at PSU.

lime 2009, View 5, EH Identi?ed by ?Vie?m 2? mo?ler. Reported abuse in
Sanduslcy home, on trips, and PSU.

June 2009, Vieiim 6. Hi Iden?d?ed by ?Vie?m 2? mother. Reporied abuse in PSU
shower by Sendeslcy.

lune 2009, Victim 7, D8 Iden?d?ed by ?Vio?m 2? ino?ler. Reported abuse-in PSU
pool.

Nov. 2010, Victim 8, U1 A31 inoideni was Mmessed by e. gtredueie assisted? 3231 2001 in
PSU shower.

March 2011, Vie?m 9, U2. Identi?ed by hearsay Wi?inees (heifer). Reported abuse in a
PSU shower by Seedusley.

like Shem}, ?le 2001 inoideni dim We McQueen? witnessed was the seooed $0 the lest ide?m
account knee/31 to ?the GAG and the ?nal wifeess was hearsay 'i'eedmony Wi?ibou'i Imam vio?m.

There is no evidence ?to Supper? {be notion 01233?. the handling of the 2001 shower inoiden?i by PSU
edminieireiore led ?to mld'dple other ebildzee. being abused.

Feemel Eerie}: Me?deew?e 

33y fer, me most euixegeoue senienee 5:21 the Senduslgy greed jmy geesenimen?t appears on pages 6

and 
?He saw a naked boy?, Vioiim 2, Whose age be estimated do be fen years old, Wi?l his

hands up against ?(be well, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Senduslcy.?

This statement has been dispelled on numerous occasions.

MoQueery family friend, Dr. Jonaibon Drenov, tes??ed 013d be queried M1: MoQueary 3 times
on ibe might be W'id?l?SSCd ?le decider}? about Wbedzer be sew a seam eat eed 3 bimee be was ?eld

He was {3236 ofdae ?res: iwo people do whom Mr. spoke?

Followieg ?le November, 2011 preseeimeni release, MeQueery wro?ue an email do a. prosecutor

and e. Sentinels? ieves?ge'ter, el?ying whet be bad seem. cannot say 1000 pereem; sure 013?: 53':

APP 7O

 

Was sodomy.? did :oot see iosertion it was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion,

Whatever it was.?8

In more recent testimmy in Saoduel?cy?s PCAR heerhig, Ionelle Eshbeoh, a. Commonwealth
attomey who worked or}. the Sandoslcy case, also testi?ed that McQueen! asked for permission to
publicly correct the record but was asked by her not to do so for fear that he would jeopardize the

Commonwealth?s ease?

The December 16th, preliminary hearing testimoey of Mike MoQtteery also proved the falsity of
the Seodoelty grand jury preseohneo?t?e statement that he had reported seeizig engaged
in sexual intercourse with a. young boy. From his December 16, 201 1 testimony are the

?following quotes:
?l have never used the word errel or rape in this since day ooe.? 72)

?I?ve already started that when I saw his emits ?mapped around the boy that I could riot see

his 75)
cannot say ?ia'tl saw Mr. Sanduslcy?s hands on a. boy?s geeitals.? 75)
would not have used the words 21122-11 intereoorse.? 81)

?l think it?s clear I oeri?t remember the words I used.? 102)

Although MoQueery?s testimony about the shower irrciclerrt has since changed over time, this
sworn testimony, closest to the time of his app eeranoe before the grand jury, strongly indicates
that his grand jury testimony did not include statements ebotrt memeseing anal rape. McQoeary?s
email attempting to correct statements in the presentment further supports the idea that the

ioelusioo of this material in the presentment can only have been a deliberate misrepresentation.

Error er; of Witeess Sredibilite

The grand jury presentment states that ?The greed jury ?nds the graduate essieteet?s tes?mooy to
be exoemely credible.? Orr the mofeoe, this would seem to be compelling in terms of the
strength of the tes?reooy. However, grand jury panels ohauge over time and sometimes
testimony is carried over to mother panel ofjorors. That ?was the case with the Seodusliy greed

jtoy. The greodjury which issued the preseohnerrt and reoororoeoded criminal charges ?mu-um?.

Wm?! -. 

s. .. ?Luannwmu? 'x-x xv-wv- . . ..

 

brought against Sanduslqr was root the some greed jury to hear Mike McQoeary?s testimony.
And, in fact, a member of the 30th grand jury, who heard McQueery?s testimony, disputes ?re
preserrtmerrt?e characterization ofMeQueery as ?extremely credible.? Starr Bolton, 53~yeeruold
employee of the Home Depot in York, Fe, says he was skeptical of McQueory?s claim that
sermol acts were going on between the boy and Serrdoslcy because McQuemy also said. that he

didn?t see penetration, ?This planted a seed with me -- either you saw it or you didn?t,? says

Bolton, who was ore of 23 grand jurors,10

The also states that the testimony of Gary Schultz and Tim Corley was deemed not
credible by the jurors and that 21o reports were ever made to ?of?cials? regarding what they were
told by MoQoeery. It doee, hoWeVer, eelmoyyledge that Tim Corley reported what they were told
to of?cials at The Second Mile, exactly what was required by PA lee; at the time.?1 Despite
Corleye action following the low about reportiog, errd no action beirrg taken. by The Second Mile

o?oiele, no one at The Second Mile who was aware of the 2001 incident was ever myee?tigeted,

let alooe charged, for failure to report.

Error Enhalerreed Feces oe item grate
While the presee'onerrt acknowledges that all the Seodoeloy yieh?ms were participeots ill}. The

Secorrd Mile mad that Smclueky was the formder end primmt foodreioer for the charity, or
evidence presented ?focuses solely on Penn State. It also discusses at length testimony by a. coach
at Central Mountain High School who was a eyewimese to behavior by Seedoslcy that was
considered to be ?suspicious? bet states that once the child victim and his mother came forward
with a complamt, Sondushy was immediately barred hem the school. What it doesn?t merriiorr is
that when approached by the idolim and his mother, school o?iciale did NOT immediately report
What they were told to child welfare agencies, but instead told the boy arid his mother to ?go
home and think about it.? As reported ll}. a book written by Vicem l, the school did not make 

rep ort rm?l they were direeterred by the Victoria?s peyoholo gist}2

Correltrsiorr: llit?hilt: the Seedoshy grand jury presentment was automatically accepted as factual
?oor the clay of its release, more thorough review iodicetes that it was crafted to ?zlly focus
attention or}. Perm State and away from The Second Mile, Central Mountain Egh School, State

child creme egerrcies and local leer enforcement. It was also mitten in such a trey as to create

APP 72

 

 

 

 

and anchor 21 percep?oe by readers that individuals at Penn State lmew of a ?tape? 821d opted to
keep it quiet despite the fact that a report was appropriately made, per lewin 2001, "to The
Second Mile.

 

Subobaptet?B~P1?ovisions and Responsibilities for Reporting Suspected Child Abuse. Section
63.? I Title 23 - DOMESYYC REMTIONS,


2 Subobeptet B?l?tovisions and Responsibilities for Reporting Su3peeted Child Abuse. Sec?on
63] I Title .23 DOMESZYC 

Wmlegiestetopeos/WUO 1.000..HTM.

3 Sobobopter B~Ptovieions and Reeponsibili?tiee for Reporting Suspected Child Abuse. Seetz'oo
Title 23 - DOMESTIC REWIONS,


4 Subebepter B~Provisioos aocl Reopoosibili?es for Reportiog Suspeeted Child Abuse. Section
63]] Title 23 DOMESTIC REMTIONS,


5 Thompsoo, C. on? Senatesloj Prosecutor: No Bviclenoe Joe Patemo Participated in Cokdoel
Covet?up at Penn State.? Septembea: 4-, 2013. Pananve. com.


5 The Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Civil Ao?tion-?Lewt ?z?clzoel J:
Magma? VS The State 17 Oct. 2016, pp. 95??l 00.

?Bl&hal?, R, 213351 Morgen, B. ?My Victim 6 Should Have Beet: Victim SecoodM'z?Ze
Sotzolwig,? Swede], Blogepotcom, February it, 2013. uotpeoblogsmteom/ZOlBEE/Why?


Plaintiff?s Exhibits From Jory Triel Helcl October 17?27, 2016. ?-?cboez J. McQoeotji to flee
State Ufzfversizjz. 2012, pp. 2064207.

9 The Comt of Comer; Pleas of Centre County, Pemeylvenie Civil AotioowLew. Michael J.
McQoeory vs The State [?tfvemiz?jh 17 Get. 2016, pp. 95m100.

15 Van Natta, D. ?The Ws?eblower?s Last Stand.? More}: 4, 2014. ESPN


Sobobepter B-?Provisions and Responsibilities for Reporting Suspected Child Abuse. Section
63H 3212'ng .23 DOMESZYC RELATIONS,


12 Coffey, W. ?Bod Zone: Victim No. Tells His Story of Abuse.? December 8, 2012, New Yo?:
Daily News. 
1 . 121 5072

APP 73

2% w: 

 

 

APPENEE 337

NCAA, Ereeh worked to gether1
Elev 2m

Bee Vim Nei'?e 3:3.

Cele?? dc filed in Show ?ned I?he NCAA and imves?geiors a ?lm hired
by Penn Smite University 1?0 ccedeei; a Wholly independeet itmee?gatice of ?le Universi?r?s

handliizg cfihe deny Secdusky child. sex abuse scandal worked closely in ?the inves?ge?cn.

The ?lm, led by fewer FBI chief Louis B. Freeh, published damning cceclueicns about Penn

Smi??s ?lack of irce?'m?cml ccn'ixel? ?the? The NCAA ??2866. as ?the basis for fie sweeping saeciicns
ageinef hem Sfefe in July 2012.

The court dccumemts ?led Tuesday but released publicly Wednesday, chimed by ?Outside ?The
Lime,? strongly suggest The NCAA provided an invee?ge?ve blueprint to Freeh.
he'iween Free]; 321d The NCAA began less 'ihan "two weeks after Penn S?i'e?i'e hired
Freeh?s ?rm, will :21. Nov. 30, 201 l, ?'cm NCAA presiden?i Marl: Emmi ?50 speak by

phone will; Freeh.

Former FBI chief Louis B. Freeh, who led ?le Eaves?ge?ee of how Fem: Sieie hemlled i'he fem

Sahduslq child sex abuse scandal. From then 011, and meetings heirween ?the

groups ccn?eued, ?le do euments Show:

a 011 Dec. 7, 2011, Freeh and his ?top depu?es mei' with Donald Remy, the gem-rel
counsel; Julie Roe Lech, thee. Vice president of enforcement for The Jone?dlan Bme?,
eu'i?side counsel for the Big Ten; and ether c?icials for ?nee hours at ?the Ni'ti'aey Lion Inn ca the

Lmvez'siijr?s S?e?ie College campus.
9 Deal 19, 201 1, Remy soliciied input ?ow a Freeh parieer about The ?text of a le?d'er The

NCAA was mieeding ?e seed ?to Fem Sie?a?e.

APP 74

 

 

 The NCAA on Dec. 28, 2011, emailed Fi'eeh?s top deputy a list of questions that sought
infomation about the culture of 136nm State?s football program and university leaders? duty to

report suspected criminal behavior.

9 Less than two weeks later, on ion. 7, 2012, NCAA lawyers and enforcement of?cials hosted a
twonhour video-conference oall for 15 to 1?7 ofFreeh?e investigators, desezibed by one ofthem in

email as an ?education session.? In all, there were 13 conference calls With the NCAA dnxieg

the eotn?se ofFreeh?s investigation.

After the Ere-eh report was released on July 12, 2012, Emmett attempted to have a direct

?principal to ptinoip?.? disenesion with Freeh, an email five days later shows.

The eelttne of Penn State?s football program and university leeders? duty to report smpeeted
erhniaei behavior were eenn'al ?ndings of the Fteeh report. The Z-?eeo State Boexd of True-tees
accepted all of the report?s ?ndings, and the NCAA followed on oe July 23, 2012, with severe
senotione: a $60 tn?lioo ?ne, the vacating of football teem Wine from 1998 to 2011, e. iotn?myeer
postseason ban, a four?year scholarship reduction md athletic department probation for ?ve

years.

Although the NCAA nl?mately loosened some sanctions, the fallout has continued. The
documents ?led in state court Wednesday" are part of a lawsuit ?led by State Sen.
lalte Common. and state treasurer Rob MoCozcl thet ohalleeges the $60 millioe fine
against Penn State. A lawsuit ?led by the estate of tome: football coach loe Petemo agaioet the

NCAA over the emotions and alleged defamation of Patenio continues in state court.

?Clearly the more we dig into this, ?le more troubling it gets,? Connen told ?Outside the Lines.?
?There clearly is a signi?cant amount of communication between Freeh and the NCAA that go es
We}? beyood merely providing informatioe. I?d call it coordination. Clea-?y, Freeh went way
past his mandate. He was the enforcement 13 ere on. to}: the NCAA. That?s whet it looles like. I
don?t know how you can lo ole at it any other way. it?s almost like the NCAA hired him to do

?ieii enforcement investigation on Penn State.?

?At 3. minimum, it is inappropriate. At a maximum, these were two parties wo??ng together to

get an etneome ?diet was predetetmined.?

APP 75

.. Mm?

 

 

 

Of?cials from the Freeh group had no immediate response Wednesday Remy said Connen?s

assertions are ?hischaaoteriza?on ofthe evidence? and ?are inconsistent yeth the facts.? 

?think 'iihe communications between ?le Freeh group and ?the NCAA were consistent with the

comment to Win; i?he Freeh group and our commiiment ?i'o monitor phe

progress of "filler inves?ge?on,? Remy said. ?hl no way do ?those doolmen?ize demonstrate ?the

NCAA was doing anyihing beyond the 

In efe?izemen'i, Penn Sine ?If 11% been publie Lolowleclge for almo Si Three yeezs ihei: the
University had agreed that the NCAA esocl 'Ehe Big Ten Cooferenee would moniior ?le progress
of ihe Freeh inves?ge?tioo. While ?the NCAA may have made engges?ons to the Freeh Group

Wi?uh respeot its inves?ge?on, ?the scope of?ce Free]: havesiige'tion was established "by {he Peon

Sie?ie Board as set fo?h in The engagement lefier, not by ?le NCAA. The

University?s preliminary review ofthe proposed quee?cione seggee?is om ere many
proposed ques?one 'theft are no? addressed in "ihe ?nal July 12, 2012 repon.?

Remy hes iold ?le eour?z in the 00117112113. lewenii that The Freeh inves?genon ?Wee enin?ely
inclepencleni ?ow. the ?Yet based on discovery ?to date in en me?er, this

ohareo?erizeriion of'iihe invest}: - eiion is woefully inoom lete,? German?s 1e ere wrote in "the


?To illuso'ete, ihe mvolyemeni with The Freeh

The omse?i of'the Freeh Group?s

court clooumen?is ?ed Wednes?ey.

Gzonp wee regular and subsien?uiye and hogan neatly from
zeien?on by Penn Stole.?

cumeeis is an email exchange between Cym?ne Beam then the general

In December 2011, Baldwin sent Remy a draft copy of a leiier

and ?le NCAA more time to respond ?to ifs

Also among ?le do
counsel of Penn State, and Remy.
the? she was preparing to send to Ewen
coneenas about the Sandosky matter. Remy said he

soon. ?Thain: you,? Belem uni?es to Remy. ?We await your comments and suggesteil

?d have some suggested ?nes for Baldwin

changes.?

?It ion?: often you ask ihe person you are writing 3. loner to pre?ed?; ?the? loner ?the'i:

orchesn'eie some Inna. of oo?i?eome. And

Comon sold:
will eyee?elally he made public, m?ess you are ?trying "io

That?s whet e319 looks like.?

APP 75

 



?r?wanA. gumom.?

armw'v. 35:23:;

.1222; mix-em: 12;.

Remy disputed that on Wednesday: ?We had a discussion: ?Do We need to respond to your
letter.? To the extent we talked about that, it do esn?t Show eny?drieg other then responsible
oomrmiicetion between the NCAA end Penn State so We wouldn?t get in the way oftheir ability
to have director Freeh do his independent investigation. Mr. German?s suggestion; that it is

anything beyond that is a gross miseheracterizetioe of what actually ocomi?ed.?

Besides those meetings and early and providing detailed questions, the NCAA
proposed terms to help Freeh?s investigators better search emails, the dooments Show,
Remy also o?ered to provide a edtoess list to Freeh; it is meltdowe whether one was given.
Emmett relied on the Freeh report?s ?ndings to force thennPenrr State president Rodney Etieleeoe

to eocept the sanctions.

Much otthe language used by Freeh at hie hex-ye about his ?ndihge or: July 12, 2012,
covered subject areas that the NCAA had asked $er from the begirzeieg: lack of histitudonal
=eorrh'ol tied the oultore problem at Perm Stete. Arid Fret-rah; timing dreieews conference, focused
most ofhis oziticism oe Peer: Stete?s leaders: Petereo, former president Graham Spaeier eed

former urtiyetsity vice presidents Tim Curley and. Gary Schultz.

?I?m eegry,? German said. ?When you reed the other we?ye seen, the NCAA is
saying ?We have an image problem. 3 So it looks like the NCAA was looking to hnproye its own
image at the expense of Perm State. And to do that, they were orchestrating an outcome with
Freeh to melee it happen A lot of people were hurt by the sanctions brought down by the
NCAA, and to think it was achieved possibly by this coordination by Freeh and the NCAA

makes me very, very angry.?

011 Dec. 29, 2011, Omar Y. MoNeill, the permer and. general counsel of Freeh?s ?rm, Freeh
Sporldn d: Sullivan LLP, thanked Remy, the NCAA general weasel, for emailing a copy of the
?vepege list of questions. Among the 32 questions: ?How has Petr}; State Uhiyersity
heroised iestitetionel control over the issues identi?ed in md related to the Greed lmy Report?
Were ?diere procedures in place that were or were not followed?? Other questioes were,
?Describe the culture of the msiyersi?ty as it relates to ethical beheyior, Describe the culture of
the athletics depetmerrt.? ?Also, I await your list ofpoteeti? Witnesses, database search terms,

etc., you would like to provide,? McNeill wrote to Remy in a 12:30 pm. email 03.1 Dec. 29, 2011.

APP 77

.. 

vr 

no mm- m-?u .

.M "-35:47 ..ueem 2t. nu-A?T?f 

n-vzasmmn-c.? -. 

.1..- .

 

m?m- .

On Nov. 9, 2011, the Perm. State Board ofTrustees tired Coach Joe Paterno as outrage about the
Sanduslqr allegations engulfed the campus. Nine days later, on Nov. 18, 2011, board member
Kenneth Frazier emphasized the former FBI director?s irrdependeace and his mandate to ?nd the
hath ?for Pear: State?s community. ?He has complete rein: to follow any lead, to lo ole irate every
corner of the university to get to the bottom of What happened and than to make

recormeadatiorzs that will help errata-e that it aever happens again,? Frazier said there.

At the time, Freeh told reporters there would be ?no favoritism? in his havestigation. He called
that assorarzce ?the main condition. of my engagement? with Peon State. Freeh?s ?rm was paid

$8.2 million by Perm State to coeduct the motility.

The disclosures in the doeuarezrts ?led Wednesday echo a fact pattem the benching
ofthe scandal at the University of mm hr that case, the NCM provided a list of questioes to
a lx?ami lawyer 'm a hearing to attempt to glean trader-?oath response-s item a

University of Miami booster.

hr arr email from Remy to a top Free]; of?cial on Jan. 6, 2012, Remy wrote that the NCAA had
prepared a PowerPoint demonstration for Freeh?s investigators, hot it was general its. nature and
not speci?c; to Penn State. ?As discussed, this ieformatiorral brie?ng is being provided to your
tears to illustrate how the NCM eaforeemerrt staff historically has examined issaes Evolving

iasiitotioael control and ethical conduct," Remy wrote. ?We hope that it will be helpful as you.
independently examine similar issues related to your charge. Of course, it goes Without seating
that at this time the NCAA does not have an open enforcement inquiry or investigation into

the issues at Penn State arid ?dais presentation is not focused on that institution.?

The sanctions handed doom by the NCAA a?er the Freeh rep art?s release were unprecedented in
college football. German scoffed at that assertion, pointing out that a week earlier the NCAA
had provided detailed, Peter State?speci?c written questioas to Freeh?s iaves?gatore. ?This

appears to be an attempt to cover soaretbfoag that is obviously attempt to collaborate arid
cooperate,? he said.

Last week, emails made public the Comer; lawsuit showed that NCAA. of?cials had

questioned their owe authority to sanctioa Petal State arid that enforcemeat of?cials were

APP 78

 

hope?il that the university would be ?so embmessed they will do anything? when Erickson
signed a consent decree acceptihg historic sehctions in July 20 12.

?We could try to on this issue and may be successful but it?d he a stretch??
emote Roe Loch, the former NCAA Vice President of in on emeil on July 14, just
days before Smelt the seeotiooe against Peon State. ?l characterized on:
approach to PSU as a bh?when talking to Merl: Emmett] yesterday afternooe after the cell.
He basically agreed b/c if we make this an enforcement issue, ?we may Win the mimediete bottle

but lose the war when the (301 Como?ttee oo Directions] 11% to mle.?

The emails released last week also show that the NCAA did not believe it had the Luiodictioe to
act against Pena State. know we are bezdting on the feet the school is so they will
do eny?i'liihg, botl em not me about that, eed no con?dence conference or other members will
egtee to that,? Vice president of academic and membership e?eh?e Iievih Lemon wrote
on luly 1831-, 2012. ?This will force the jurisdictional issue that we really don?t have a gteet

answer to that one.?

In another disclosure of coort records Monday: longtime l?xlCAA staff member said the NCAA
was 933d pee-diotecl the NCAA would telte swift ection against Penn State

shortly after the Freeh rep art was released in July 203.2.

111 a July 45%, 2012, story 1'11 the Centre Daily Thales, Gene Marsh, ?who was hired by Penn State to
dead with the sanctions issue, was quoted as eeyieg that the NCAA punishing Penn State after the
oonvictioo of Senduslcy and millioos in civil settlements would be ?like she otiug road kill.?

Shep Cooper, on edmieish?etor for the Committee on In?eotione, wrote an email about
those comments to March. ?For What it?s worth, I agree,? Cooper Wtote. ?However, the new
NCAA leadership is extremely heegeconscioue end ifthey conclude that pursuing allegations
against PSU would enhance the association?s Standing with the public, then an ht?'ectiooe case
would follow. I loaow that mm Emmett hes made stetemeots to the press indicating that he
it could fell into some sort of [loss of inediutichel control] case.? ended the

email: ??Shootieg reed hill3 is an apt analogy.?

APP 79

. . u?m va- 

 



 

 

1 Van Na?a, D. NCAA, Free]; Worked To gamer.? ESPN, November 12, 20 14.
hituzl/news?av east/Links/l 1 1165742!

APP 80

 

 

HPENBK 3.8

Vichy Tripoeey: Biesecl Source

Nationally, Vicky Triponey is lmown simply as ?The Woman Who S'ioocl up ?it! Joe Paiemo.?l
However, according to The Smite sdmioish'eiors, feculiy and sicdeois who Wi'messecl her
behavior during four years as Peon Sieie?s Vice l?resiclen'i for Siudeni Affairs, Triponey is 1101'
remembei'ed as the sole voice of concei'c is a so called ?corrupt culture.? The geople who
worked with or for her, as Well as ihe siudehis she impacted, desei'ihe her as someone who

silemp?iecl i0 silence ?the voice of sicdeeis seal to do so as any cost

Evidence the? Penn described Triponey accurately can he found in. her previous recoi'cl of
?accomplishmenis? during her ?time at {he Univei'siiy of While in Seems, Tripcney
?forced en ihcreese sisden'i fees and the siucleni newspaper to hire a fall-

iime eclvisor under her ioi?el conicol.2 3 4 This style was also evident at Pens Sieie.

Until Triponey?s hiding, Penn State siudeoi's had always enjoyed certain powers of self?
gcvemance ihey con?olled their own affairs on issues of siocleoi life outside of ihe classroom.
These responsibilities were Wide-ranging and included The ?lli?ly ?io disoihu'ie coldest fees as it
saw the ?eedoze of siocleni media, and the abiliiy ?to che?er new Silld?t?'i? orgm'zetions and
impose penalties on groups that violated ur?vemi?iy policies. Wiihin months of her arrival ei'
Penn Slate 1'11 2003, Triponey effcoiively ended smden?t self~govemenoe by consolidating *those
powers Within the Of?ce of Sindee?: Affairs.

For example, a mere ihree months after Tl'iponey was hired, she disbanded ?the Student
Organizations Appeals Bead (BOAR), which was part ofthe Undergraduate Smden't
Goveromeni Supreme C0111?;s Made up entirely of sludeni's, the SOAB was respoesihle for
registering all unclesgredusie Slillfl??l ihei sppliecl for Desgai'ie e113?
evidence of problems, Tripoziey called The process ?purely and oiled ihe protection

of rights? as justi?ceiion for ihe assault on self~govemeece.5

APP 8'1



- 'Iauv?ne?. Mi .r

.11.. raw?'wm'mh

 

?Mm?u?-w-d - -

 

ed money to disbend the student
G) had existed for 44 years.
which was tasked edth

Less than two years later, Triponey provided the support and se

entirely. The Undergraduate Student Government (US

ymoosly fmded the group Smdents for Real Advocacy,

Trieoney anon
winning a student refereedorn to dissolve the USS into the ?advocacy?bees? UPUA.7

Anonymous ?nding of one student group to be used a
Vice President of Studeot Affairs should have raised ethical concerns about
The Vice President of Student Men?s should

 

gejnst eno?er Universitysene?oned

student group by the
Triponev?s behavior for at least two reasons. First,

not be taking sides by pitting one student group against memes groop. Second, if Triponey had

that the USG should be dissolved, then her support, monetary or

 

legitimate reasons for believin

otherwise, should have been trensoereet and not anonymous.
Triponev?s private $3,000 donation proved effective: Sis; percent of'dre student body voted. to
disbend USS, While four percent voted to keep it, despite serious questions about ?forged
sigoennes on the petition to hold the refereedmn.g All USS self-governing powers were
immediately absorbed by Triponey?s of?ce, and the (EU
envihing become the duly recognized Penn State undergre

Triponey end then?President Graham Spenter. Triponey handpicked the students for the sentient 

A nd?lout any autonomy to decide

duets: student government by

government transition team herself.9

As one Student Senator er the time poi: it: ?We this represents the student body very
3313

Well. is involved from the start, and student control is at a. minimum.

USG Senate President Andy Bendnooi called Triponev?s game: don?t want to single out Vicky?

has been most involved [in the trend of reducing solders:
n] 1 1

power]. A lot of innusions on student government have hepp ened under her reign. I

Triponey, "out the Student: Affairs of?ce

 

 

 

3? O?Nell, A. ?The woman who stood up to Joe Petemo,? CNN, July 20, 2012.

com/20 1 2/07/1 
2 Monks, M. ?Groups went increase to student fees.? The Daily Campus, February 26, 2002.-

htto?/sefem rardoldsteteorsiv 



3 Steffi ?The Deily Campus should remain independent.? The Daily April 7, 2003.
~The?Doilv?Cemons~


 

 

 

 

APP 82

 

 

4 Vivien S. ?Let us run our Newspaper.? The DaiZy Campus, April 27, 2003.



5 Rhodos, T. ?Smdoms should be ou?'aged at group process.? The Daily Collegian, September
10, 2004. 4db367o7?2234?5d62~924d~
83529b708?f?80h?1?1?

6 Triponoy, V, ?Smdoms will bone??t ??om group process)? The Daily Collegiaiz, Sop?ombor 10,
2004. 30b4aoOS?oOSf-510b-aabe~


7 Carl, M. 0111156 361:3 up group." .lee Daily February 2006.


3 Siaff. ?Soorooy, hypocrisy ohamoforizo planning process.? The Daffy Collegian,
February 28, 2006. a8fob240~84f2~5f55~b3221~
agoff398825ol?ml

9 Romi?tz, I ?Foulko armies group to aid The Daily Colfegicm, April 25, 2006.


?Remit; J. Woz?lm crazies group io aid The Daily CoZZegiam; ?pr? 25, 2006.


11 Staff. ?The Rofoz?encimz.? T728 Collegian, February 283 2006.
hm)Jr?m?moollammasu. edu/arohivos/al?ole 34-63 o49bm33 91~5 9fe~b016?9305 02b3 56491111111

APP 83

- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEWE 

Kemerh Expert in Child Sex Abuse: Trailering Frovided to Break Grcuy,
December 13, 2011

lieneei?h V. Lemming is retired from 30 years Wills ?le FBI as ?their premier expel? i3}. ebild
molestation eases. Lemming is an earlier ofmol?ple poblica?ons describing oheraciezie?cs of
preferee?el child sex offenders, "the processes involved in vicibnizeiion, and the responses of
and youth-savior; organizeiions to child viciimizeiion. 011 the basis of??ds
expeirise, Leaning was hired by the Free]: group it: iraizo the region?s investigators in ibis
specialized area. A full day ?aming was provided on December 13, 2011.2 This ?aming seesioe
was largely based on ioi?orme'iion in s. meeuscripi; lerer published in die Journal of
Irrz?er'persoeol Violeece, ri?ed ?Aeqeeioreme Molee?ie?cn and YoudlLServieg Organizatioesf?z
the meeuscn'pi Wes pr'mdded re The Freely. group. Togei?lier Will} the Momerioo coereieed in the

manuscript some esserr?riel poiei's coriveyed include:

1. Pro?le oi?rbe ?dice gov? cffeeder: ?who seems ro love and is often loved
by children. o?errders are frequen?i?ly described as ?nice guys? and ?pillars
of ibe commriiy,? and quite often rile}? scruzdly? are, ill all other respects. Many have
qualities ?that are much admired by groups regular and ?feiil?bl church
eiiendanee,? many hours of eomrormiiy service, or are exemplary milder}? career). Many
individuals do not prevent or recognize 'izbe sexual of a child by a. respected
member of socieiy because cannot believe amen who is orherwise good Spiritual,
generous, or seems is only care for children could be cbild molester; even a. plea or jury
verdict of guilt may be rejected by such Powerp cite slides indicate the?:
Leaning identi?ed eherecterisiies of Jerry Sendeelry ?ier were consisrem: wi?l ?pillar of
rile commuoiiy? offender.

2. Obstacles for youth-serving orgaeize?oes it}. derec?oo offending: ?We
game e) realize rear maey of idle challenges in understanding certairi behavior periems
"fiber we had seen in on levesiigerioes and ill lirigeiiori also confront youth?
ser?sdog orgeeize?iions. Mos: problematic seem io be ibcee cases diet do 1101' the

siereoijzpe of ?er? genial predators forcing ?mower? young children irrio overt sexual

APP 84

.







..

34;; 

 

 

. .

activity. Eliot narrow sod naive stereotype has blinded far too many otherwise reasonable

people, delaying or blo citing their recognition of how acquaintance molestation more

often occurs and 310W recurrences might be best prevented and addressed. Children can

be sexually victimized Within organizations Whether or not the orgmetico is legally
negligent and regardless oftlie degree of eegligence.?

3. Acoueinteooe offenders are widelv misunderstood by: Society and media; mental health
and child protective services; mvestigetors end legislet?ezes and. judges;
youth-serving cl'gaoizctions. Media, reports are driven by the need to get sailings and 
mine, and are often inecomete.

4. Priciities for tom-serving organizations creating oolicv for oreventing child

Victimizatioo: ?Weo consulti?g with child abuse experts, organizations need to verify

 

that the eeperts have speci?c ezeperiecee and expertise Widi exfmfomz?lz?cl cases imtolvi?g
aoguoz?m?mce offenders. All ettotts to address this problem should. be developed and
implemented on the basis of ac slimmed oederstendicg of the estate of sexual
victimization of childree. and the behavior pettems of child molesters and victims.
Orgm?ze?oos must often deal with dif?cult cases in which Well~lilted iodividcels who
are dedicated to helping children sexually victimize children over time in ways their may
involve behavior generally not ?icuglirt of as sexual (cg, touching, rubbing, boggling,
horse ploy3 etc)?5
Importance of following a disciolined analv?c "process when conducting an investigation
involving possible child sexual Vic?mizetioe: Steps: (1) gather infometion; (2) assess
and evaluate iniozmcticn; (3) corroborate (make sure that information is consistent across
multiple sources). Comoboretioo must include consideration of: multiple accounts;
mitten records (detailed/reliable); video/endio recordings; statements against self-interest

(?He was like a pied piper with children?); consistency across accounts.

In statements to the media, Lancing desciibes Peer: State?s handling of Seeduslqr as a typical

case of an crgeoizetioo failing to act due to being minimised about ecqueioteuce Victimization,

APP 85

 

Child sex-?abuse expert Keme?l Lancing of Virginia, who
woxked for ihe FBI for 30 yeexs, said ?the Penn State case ?is
actually extremely comon? and ?that such cases force the

public io oonfroni The possible ?oice?goy molester? who isn?t

necessarily port of ?their ?remeworli. ?The reason ?these guys
get away Wiili this so loeg is hardly anybody oodersiends ibis
and has ?the slightest idea of wheel ?they?re looking for, because
fliese cases do :10? ?le popular stereotype Thai :Amerioeos
wan?? to believe and which is peipe?meied by ?le media,? he
said. ?Aed whee I ?tell you hardly anyone undersieods ?iese
cases, iboi includes police and 



Looming eeicl ofien 'mose around the molester see signs, not

over: sexual eciivi?gr ?beendseji viola?oes? like homing .

around in ?the shower or :obbiog a. child?s beck. ?Someiimes
ii?s covered up and some?mee it?s damage eonil?ol and some
ofii? is ?the g00d~01d~l30}? network and some ofi?i' is ignorance,"
sold Leaning. ?But at some point people don"t process this
infome?on totally.? ?These ere di??ouli 'i?o investigate,
not only because society doesn?i understand, bu? police don?t
mode-Island,? he said?

5i??

According to Looming, who spent 35 years pro?ling
pedOphiles, e. bellman of ?acqueim'ence molesters? is the}?
ihejr fend io be deeply tested and eveii beloved. The}? are not
strangers, but ?one of 123.? They are expert at seducing
children and are almost as expert at seducing adults, including
parents, imo believing in ihem. ?It?s here to identi?r those
people close to you as epofeo?ciel molester, because you know
?them so well,? says. ?No one wenis lo believe such
a thing of ?jeod.?g

APP 86

. -.

*w'ulv?w ?ya?km?? 4 new, 

-. so. .-

\c'mm?v?

 

 

Conclusion: The Freak group failed to incorporate information regarding acquaintance

child sen o?enciers into iheir understanding of the Sandosky matter.

1. Looping provided haforrnetion hidiceting that Jerry Sendnolcy was a ?pillar of the
oornmoniisf? offender stature in the community blinded people to the poseibility he

could be homing children; this idea was not included in the Freell repeat.

2. Lonning provided h?onnetion indicating that youth?serving organizations along with
law enforcement, child protective services, and society and the media are commonly
unaware of the ways to recognize acquaintance o?enders; the possibility that Penn State

of?cials may have onioten?onolly f?ed to understood Sendesky?o actions as abusive is

not: included in the Freeh report.

3. Lming provided information to guide youth?serving organizations in obtaining quali?ed
consultation when creating policies to protect children emphasizing the need for
consultants to be knowledgeable about acquaintance victim'metion; this was not included

in the Free]: report recommendations.

4. Looping provided guidelines for conducting investigations of child abuse, and
emphasized the importance of evelne?dng inimmetion and carefully corroborating reports
before molding conclusions; the Freeh report disregards informeiion contrary to the

conelusioos miller than qualifying the conclusions.

5. Learning cautioned that media. reports on child sex vio?mizetion cases are often
inaccrnete and motivated by competing interests (getting ratings, ?lling time); the Freeh
group zeod media reports mooritioally and allowed ?aemselves to be in?uenced by

seneo?onolietio accounts based on quesiioneble evidence.

 

1 Leaning, K. ?Sexual vionrnizetion of children by staff personnel: Responses by serving
organizations.? December 13, 201 l, PowerPoiot presentation

2 Lapping, ii, and Diem, P. ?Aoqueintenee Molestation and YonihSei'ving Organizations.? Jozmzol of
Interpersonal PioZerzce, vol. 29, no. 15, 23 May 2014:, pp. 2815?6283 8 ., doi:10.1177f08 862685145323 60.
3 Lmoing EL, and Dietz, P. ?Acquaintenoe Molestation and ?faith?Serving OrgMotions?.? Jozo'nol of
interpersonal molerzce, vol. 29, no. 15, :23 May 2014-, pp. 28 15??233 8 ., 
4 Looping, 1C, md Diet, ?Acquaintanoe Molestation and Youth?S owing Organizations.? Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, vol. 29, no. 25, 23 May 2024, pp. 2815m283 8 ., 50.

APP 87

 

-v 4m.? .

 

 

5 Hotalminon, R. ?Why did suspicions about Jen-y Sandusky yield no action for so long?? June 15, 2012.
MoClatchy Newspapers. hm: artio132473 1104111311
5 Donaldson, 3. ?Penn State Scandal: cNice Guy? PedoPh?os Groom Their Victims, Exports Say.?
November 7, 201 1. ABC News. 


7 Jews, 8. ?Blame for ?le Peon So?e scandal does not lie with Joe ?a"iomo.? November 8, 2011.
Washington Post. so 0113/ oolieges/ 
doos-?no?t-liomwi?ih-i oe?oa?iomo/ZO 3. 1/1 1/0 siow?imlhoz