Rush to Injustice
Rank speculation. Innuendo. Subjective opinions. This rhetoric, not objective facts and evidence, forms the core of the Freeh report’s conclusions regarding Joe Paterno. Speculation and subjective opinions are regularly rejected in the American justice system as unreliable and inadmissible in proceedings designed to discover the truth. Mr. Freeh knows these fundamental rules as a former judge, but sadly he ignored them in favor of substituting his personal opinions for objective factual findings and conclusions throughout his report. Although his report is confident in its conclusions, it lacks the careful distinctions, scrupulous weighing of evidence, and fair consideration of relevant information that is expected of a report addressing issues of such importance. In the six months since release of the Freeh report, world-renowned experts, including the former Attorney General of the United States, one of the foremost former FBI profilers of child sex crimes, and a leading physician and psychologist specializing in pedophilia at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine, among many others, have reached similar conclusions: The Freeh report is deeply flawed and incomplete, and its statements specifically as to Joe Paterno are unfounded and unfair.
UPDATE: The Paterno report has changed at least one mind: Nike Founder Phil Knight's. Read his thoughts here.