“Believed to be”? A $6 million dollar investigation into what was the biggest story in the country for weeks, and an attack on a man’s credibility, grand jury testimony and public statements is based on “believed to be”? Why doesn’t he know. Why didn’t he find out. Why wasn’t he able to say in a report that uses this email to accuse Paterno of lying about what he knew back in 1998 and, by extension, lying to the grand jury, without confirming it? Is it possible since Sandusky was still a coach at Penn State that the reference is to him and that Curley was keeping him abreast of the investigation? Am I saying that is the case? No. Am I saying its possible? Yes. And with no other corroboration by Freeh, just this vague email, that asks “anything new in this department” ask yourself if any jury in the country would convict a man of anything based solely on this.
Notice the rank dishonesty of this. The words “after Curley’s initial updates..” Updates is plural. Where are they? Where is the evidence, not Freeh’s biased and dishonest conclusion, but proof, there were initial updates? How many? Where are they? All he talks about in the report is the one vague May 13 email.
He also states in that one sentence, ” the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno”. But where is Freehs proof that it was conveyed at all?
But not constrained by a court or a judge or the rules of evidence, Freeh unethically and like a prosecutor trying to make a case, he says what he wants facts or not.
There is no fact in Freeh’s written reportthat shows that the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was ever conveyed to Paterno. He just says it. He just wants you to take his word for it. But he has no proof. Which may be why Freeh says, darn, he cant find any evidence of how it was done.
And Dan Vannata at ESPN magazine did report a few days ago that a source, probably in Freeh’s own group who had seen all the emails told him that this email from Curley was “definitely taken out of context” and chosen to put everyone in the worst possible light. Any honest person without an agenda has to ask why did Freeh use the words ” consulted with” when the email said “after talking with”? Why did Freeh say “they” when the email said “I”? Where is the proof that this wasnt referencing the initial meeting Paterno had with Curley where he relayed what McQueary said he saw and where they agreed to report it to “everyone” and that subsequently Curley, on his own changed his mind?
They would have been worth investigating. If there had been an ethical and honest investigator doing the job.