I write to you again today as someone who is hesitant to parse words or believe in conspiracies as it pertains to the Sandusky situation. I write to you as someone who understands that the information contained Freeh report can be interpreted in a number of different ways. I write to you as someone who accepts that we may never know the absolute truth.
But I also write to you as someone who values factuality and consistency in public statements from powerful figures.
As I delved into the Paterno family report today and Louis Freeh’s subsequent statement, I couldn’t help but notice an alarming discrepancy and one that could mean a lot about the personalities we’re dealing with here.
This excerpt comes from page 53 of the Freeh report:
The special investigative counsel requested an interview with Paterno on December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno’s attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us.
Freeh’s statement today on the matter reads like a smug character assassination, implying that Paterno was happy to talk to everyone but Freeh. But in the Freeh report, it says that he was willing but time ran out.
So which one is it? Did Paterno deny Freeh’s interview request or did he die before it was possible?
Like many things in this case, we’ll probably never know. But it’s an interesting discrepancy and a little concerning coming from the person who led a $6.5 million investigation that ended up costing the university many more millions.
PS4RS also pointed this out on Twitter earlier today.