Freeh said he respected the family’s right to conduct a campaign to “shape the legacy of Joe Paterno,” but called the critique self-serving. Paterno’s attorney was contacted for an interview the coach, he said, and Paterno spoke with a reporter and biographer before his death but not Freeh’s team.
Curley and Schultz also declined numerous requests for interviews, Freeh said. They have been facing criminal charges since November 2011.
Freeh on Sunday cited grand jury testimony by Paterno in 2011 in which Paterno said a graduate assistant relayed to him a 2001 allegation against Sandusky of a “sexual nature” with a child.
He referred to a key point in the July report in which he said Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up a plan that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare in 2001. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind “after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe.”
“But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind “after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe.””
That’s really the bottom line. Freeh took that to mean Joe told him to cover it up, but the email never said Joe expressed any advice of the sort. It is based on the conclusion Freeh wanted - and you, apparently.
And what of Freeh's motivation? If he starts turning out reports that claim there isn't a factual basis to establish any definitive conclusions, what's the likelihood that his next client will pay $6.5M to commission a report? I view his motivation as no different from that of climate change scientists - if they say "we're not sure" the gravy train will grind to a halt. There's an inherent investment in sensationalizing the subject matter.