Monday, July 30, 2012

Freeh Group investigator trashes NCAA for Penn State sanctions and relying on Freeh Report to do it.

 The ranks of those involved in the Freeh Report investigation, a deeply dishonest set of conclusions by Louis Freeh that did not contain a single shred of proof to substantiate it, may be starting to fray with a source inside the Freeh group publicly and severely criticizing the NCAA for its sanctions against Penn State and for relying on the Freeh report to do so.

 The comments by a member of Freeh's inner circle not just severely damage the credibility of the report itself and how its been used by the NCAA, and by extrapolation, Penn State, the news media and others, but it questions what has been questioned here -- the basic competence and integrity of the report and the intelligence of those who swallowed and accepted it at face value without demanding proof of it's unsubstantiated conclusions.

 This member of Freeh's own team, speaking on condition of anonymity is saying much the same thing by implication with comments directed primarily at the NCAA and the mindless knee jerk reaction of Mark Emmert, their president who should probably resign because of his clear inability to lead and his abuse of authority, who, as this Freeh investigator points out, egregiously overstepped his bounds and authority in imposing the NCAA santions, clearly in order to mindlessly grandstand. Instead he has made a fool of himself and the NCAA.

 This investigator, who, by his or her statements clearly show they have both investigative and legal credentials, pointed out that the NCAA had no business imposing those sanctions and were wrong to rely on the Freeh Report to do so.

 As reported by the Associated Press, this member of the Freeh Group, in criticizing the NCAA sanctions said, "The NCAA's job is to investigate whether Penn State broke it's own rules and whether Penn State gained a competitive advantage by doing so" pointing out that the NCAA in sanctioning Penn State and punishing it and its football program for transgressions or crimes that had nothing to do with NCAA rules, guidelines or their authority, abused their authority and doing so has obviously rankled this member of the Freeh Group.

 The source also pointed out another crucial point, one that's been pointed out here time and time again in it's relation to Paterno and the flaws, perhaps intentional of the investigation. The source stated:

 "Since the Freeh Report didn't interview Paterno Schultz or Curley, the NCAA should have furthered the investigation to see how far this went. The NCAA took this report and ran with it without further exploration ( as did the news media and everyone else who chose, mindlessly, to believe it). If you really wanted to show there was a nexus to cover up, interview the coaches. See their knowledge and culpability".

 The source said the failure to do so by the NCAA and others has damaged Penn State unnecessarily.

 The source went on:

 " The sanctions against Penn State were really overwhelming, and no one imagined the report being used to do that. Instead Emmert took the report and used Penn State's own resources to do them in. And they don't deserve this".

 Emmert admitted as much saying he relied completely on the conclusions of the Freeh Report to impose sanctions - sanctions he did not have the authority to impose in any event --  proving again the assertions that the NCAA, like the news media and those who believed the report at face value, were more a collection of medieval minds, refusing or unable to think for themsevles and were nothing more than a torch carrying mob believing what they were told because they were told to believe it,  without needing proof, and without caring. Pope Louis the Freeh said Paterno was a witch and the mob which included the news media and the NCAA lit their torches and gathered in the square for the burning.

 The statement by this Freeh Group insider doesn't just trash the NCAA and president Mark Emmert but by implication undermines the Freeh Report itself and the way it was presented and received and acted on by the news media and even Penn State's president Erickson, all once again proving themselves to be incompetent, inept, and without real journalistic or moral values while thinking they are proving otherwise.

 The Freeh Group  insider's statement that the NCAA ( and by implication the Freeh Group itself) should have interviewed other coaches to see if there was a cover up suggests in its own way that the Freeh Report was negligent for not doing so themselves, and is saying that Freeh based his conclusions on an incomplete investigation. And perhaps intentionally so.

 This member of Freeh's team clearly thought interviewing other coaches should have been done before coming to a conclusion of a cover up and also pointed out the folly that neither Paterno, now deceased, or Curley and Schultz had ever been interviewed.  And the only plausible reason why other coaches werent interviewed was because Freeh didn't want it done.Even more incredibly,and a fact that raised no red flags with the mindless class who carry press passes, Freeh never interviewed one of the central figures in the entire matter - Mike McQueary. McQueary even asked to be interviewed. Freeh declined.

 It's not just possible but probable that Freeh didn't want other coaches interviewed because he didn't want anything that might interfere with his preconceived agenda of blaming Paterno and others to be on the record. So not only was the report factually and morally corrupt on the face of it ( making the media, the NCAA and anyone else like Roland Martin and others at CNN look the same,) it was anything but an honest and independent investigation.And did Freeh refuse to interview Mike McQueary because he knew McQueary would tell him things that would make his accusations against Paterno impossible?  Freeh clearly didnt want whatever McQueary could have told him.

 What also needs to be pointed out is that these statements from a Freeh Group insider commenting on the NCAA sanctions and the report itself,  should be a blockbuster news story. Instead it has barely been reported by the news media at all, appearing so far, only on ESPN mobile news though the AP report  can probably be found by doing a web search.

 By comparing the exposure this story has received so far, coming from someone inside Freeh's own circle, to the media coverage of the email leaked by Freeh which proved absolutely nothing, but was leaked to make Paterno look bad, the silence of the media is further proof of just how corrupt and dishonest they are and how they are more interested in an agenda, propaganda and their own self interest than anything resembling the truth. Because in this case the truth makes the news media, the NCAA, and a lot of other people look stupid. And less than honest. Which, as many people already know, is not news.

NOTE: a new site, www.framingpaterno.com has just been created which will serve as a clearing house for articles going back to November of 2011 when the story first broke,up to and including the Freeh Report and all its flaws and dishonest conclusions, as well as forums and other features, coalescing people from diverse backgrounds and ideas whose goal is to set the record straight and right the wrongs of both the media and the Freeh Report in regards to Joe Paterno.






77 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why are you relying on an "anonymous" source? How many times have you called people who disagree with you anonymously on this blog such things as "cowards", "fascists" and "members of a mob"? Suddenly, some unknown weasel who CLAIMS to be on Freeh's staff says something you agree with and you can't praise him enough. You're a damn hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

After reading the original report on this matter in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I thought that you were intentionally doctoring (abridging, collapsing rearranging, supplementing) your quotes attributed to "The Source". Then, I noticed that you were relying on a second-hand Associated Press rewrite of the original CHE story written by the reporter who actually spoke with The Source.

A word of advice : Read the original of a report when it is available, not somebody else's synopsis. You wouldn't rely on somewbody else's synopsis of the Freeh Report, would you?

1crosbycat said...

I like this blog. I just want to encourage the author to continue.

And maybe all these "Anonymous" posters can differentiate themselves, because the comments don't make sense when strung together.

Anonymous said...

I like this blog too but I think that it would be far more popular if Marc didn't go hyperbolic when faced with dissent or even the possibility of dissent. It's hard to engage with someone who has labelled you a torch-bearing member of a lynch mob.

Unfortunately, much of this rage stems from the mistaken belief that a citizen is not allowed to have an opinion on the role of football in college education (i.e., the Penn State Scandal) unless he has thoroughly digested all 267 pages of the Freeh Report.

This November we are going to choose a president based on his views on immigration reform, climate change, financial reform, tax policy, healthcare reform, mortgage reform, student debt and bankrupty law, and a dozens of other issues. People do not have the time to read 267-page position papers, including underlying data, on each of these issues. They have jobs. They have families. They have lives. If you limit the franchise to those who spend their nights reading thousands of pages, this will no longer be a democracy. Clearly, people have to rely on some source of opinion whose analysis they deem reasonable.

The Freeh Report is a much easier
issue. Suppose that my local electric company issues a 267-page report admitting that its employees acted illegally and released toxic gases. Suppose that my local natural gas company issues a 267-page report admitting that its employees acted illegally when fracking and poisoned the groundwater. Suppose that my local hospital issues a 267-page report admitting that its employees acted illegally and turned away uninsured patients. Do I really need to pore over all those pages of reports before insisting that the electric company, natural gas company and hospital be punished? Why do I need to neglect my family to wade through those "tomes" when the organizations involved ADMIT THEIR GUILT? Penn State, acting through its officers and board (the only way it can legally act) HAS ADMITTED ITS GUILT, as expressed in the Freeh Report, and its willingness to accept punishment from the NCAA and to compensate the victims. I certainly don't feel like a "member of a lynch mob" because I'm not willing to devote a chunk of my life to proving INNOCENT an institution that SAYS that it's GUILTY. If Penn State admits its own guilt, I have no problem supporting the remedies imposed by the NCAA and Penn State itself.

Linda Berkland said...

It's very interesting how all of you "anonymous" posters complain about references to anonymous sources! Regarding Penn State "admitting their guilt", please tell me what choices the board has at the moment given the lynch mob and media assault. Accept responsibility by initiating its own investigation and not standing up to Freeh or the NCAA and thereby please the lynch mob OR defend the university against very unjust criticism and not accept the Freeh report or NCAA sanctions and further fuel the flames of public and media outrage who would say they had no sensitivity for the victims of a child predator??? Can you say LOSE/LOSE situation?? The facts are out there, but most of you would rather waste your time commenting on blog posts that don't support your position than to actually educate yourself on them. For you megalominds, the Cliff Notes are enough! I am NOT anonymous. I am Linda Berkland, a registered dietitian, mother of 2 beautiful teenage daughters, graduate of The Pennsylvania State University with a Bachelor of Science degree from The College of Health and Human Development. I have read ALL 267 pages of the Freeh report and found, as have countless others, including very well educated and experienced attorneys, that the Freeh report amounts to a $6.5 million stack of toilet paper commissioned by the Board of PSU to try and quiet the lynch mob. In the words of Jack Nicholson, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

Marc Rubin said...

"Why are you relying on an "anonymous" source? How many times have you called people who disagree with you anonymously on this blog such things as "cowards", "fascists" and "members of a mob"? Suddenly, some unknown weasel who CLAIMS to be on Freeh's staff.."?

People like you are always good for a bunch of laughs. Is your brain really that fried? Freeh makes assertions about Paterno with no proof like "it is believed 'Coach' is Paterno" and you swallow it like a trained seal on a pedestal but you dont believe the Associated Press because the source inside the Freeh group rained on your witch hunting mob mentality parade? Is that why he is a weasel? Because he proved that its YOU who are the weasel? and a cowardly one at that. And to prove what a true moron and hypocrite you are complaining about the use of a source who wanted to remain anonymous, look at how you signed your post. Like the pathetic anonymous weasel you are. Next time sign your real name before complaining about the use of the term "anonymous".You are the poster child for the dumb,ignorant, and fascist mentality of the people who believed the report.

Anonymous said...

As a member of the public, I don't have time to consider the internal "squabblings" at Penn State. If some of the alumni and the administration disagree over tactics or any other thing, that's their concern. I also don't have time to plumb the depths of the administration's motivations. A large, complex institution like Penn State is obviously going to have an equally complex decision-making process, with a myriad of factors, INCLUDING PUBLIC RELATIONS, being considered. As a member of the public, I can only deal with the OFFICIAL position of Penn State as expressed by the entities entrusted BY LAW with its governance.

Try not to go full-cult crazy for a minute and consider the following situation. Suppose I'm a parent with a kid applying to college, in fact, to TEN colleges (College Confidential estimates that 37% of applicants apply to ten or more). I AM going to have my say about my kid's decision. But I'm sure as Hell not going to read 267 pages about EACH of the ten colleges. Hell, high school college advisors don't read 267 pages about every college their students apply to. Call me a fascist if you must (and Marc ALWAYS must), but I'm not plowing through 2,670 pages (!!!!) before I express my opinion. If my kid says that one of the colleges has a terrific academic reputation and a great alumni network BUT the President of the college admitted that the college covered up child rape on campus, my response, and the response of every parent in America without Penn State affiliation, will be "Move on to the other nine". I certainly am not going to tell my kid that we should do a thorough investigation of the internal politics and motivations behind the Penn State President's admission. I would accept Penn State's admission of guilt at face value and move on AND SO WOULD EVERYONE ON THIS BLOG IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOME COLLEGE OTHER THAN PENN STATE!

Try to control your cult reflexes("You're a fascist" ..."You can't handle the truth") and actually give the parent in the above example your SINCERE advice. This is a real-world, concrete situation which millions of college apllicants and their parents will face. Give them the benefit of your advice (hopefully, advice that doesn't require anyone to quit their jobs and dedicate their lives to reading about higher education in the USA).

Linda Berkland said...

Anonymous,

Since intellect seems to have a link to heredity, I think it's a very good thing that your kid won't be applying to Penn State. It's a waste of an application fee to apply to a school that you're not smart enough to be accepted into, after all! Marc Rubin called it like it is....you're the weasel who just doesn't want to get to the truth because it doesn't fit into the scenario you want it to. Please don't get me wrong. I believe Penn State's board is a bunch of weasels too because they lack the courage to stand up to the media and people with a lynch mob mentality like you. But the rest of us aren't afraid of the truth and have the courage to seek it. Thank you, Marc Rubin, for once again telling it like it is....hopefully "anonymous" will remain anonymous and disappear the same way his/her name did!

Anonymous said...

There is a word for people who respond to dissent by shouting "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!!" Marc knows the word. He uses it in every other sentence. It's not a very nice word.

If you only want to hear your own opinions endlessly regurgitated back to you, then password protect the site or simply delete any comment which doesn't whole-heartedly support your position. This is what cults do to prevent any challenge to "The Truth".

If, on the other hand, you want to participate in the marketplace of ideas, don't worry about WHO is crapping on your ideas. Worry about getting an intellectual shovel big enough to throw the crap back at them.

You've been invited to give advice to a hypothetical parent facing a decision which faces millions of parents. Don't retreat into cultic mantras like "lynch mob" and cowardly board". Focus. Engage.

If all you want is a "contact high" of denial, you don't need a blog. Just go down to the HUB and inhale deeply. (By the way, that's sarcasm. Sarcasm is one of those things you encounter in the outside world.)

bunky said...

Isn't amazing that anonymous doesn't have time to read about what's happening at PSU and to PSU, but has plenty of time to express uninformed opinions and in doing so prefers to accept unsubstantiated offical reports. In case anyone didn't buy into Orwell's description of sheep in "The Animal Farm", I offer exhibit A.....A for anonymous.

Anonymous said...

In the real world, people have to make decisions, often important ones like their child's education, without reading reams of material on the subject. That doesn't make them "sheep" or "members of a lynch mob". They're just human beings doing the best they REASONABLY can to arrive at a decision that works for themselves and their families.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the parent in the scenario is wrong in refusing to read THOUSANDS of pages about their child's college choices? More importantly, would you condemn them for eliminating the college whose President ADMITS to child rape cover-up and concentrating what little time they can spare from their job and family on the colleges which haven't publicly confessed (yet!) wrongdoing? Parents don't have detective agencies at their beck and call. Can't you cut them some slack?

Anonymous said...

I would say to that parent : No reputation of any institution or individual, be it Penn State or Joe Paterno, is more important than your child's education.

Somebody once said that the Rosenbergs didn't deserve to go to Hell because they put the interests of the Soviet Union above those of the United States; they deserved to go to Hell because they put the interests of Joe Stalin over those of their two little boys.

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin said...
"Is that why he is a weasel? Because he proved that its YOU who are the weasel? and a cowardly one at that."

Marc - You're the one who based half of your original stance against the media and "lynch mobs" on the "fact" that Paterno went to the "head of police services" in Schultz. Your excuse when I called you out on his title (he was actually the VP of Finanace/Business and had ZERO police authority) was that "EVERYBODY" was calling him that. You have since been mum about your original stance and moved on to attacking Freeh, posters, psychologists, fascists and everyone in between BUT Joe.

Your method of pointing fingers while refusing to engage anyone in a reasonable discussion is more cowardly than anything the first poster said. Add in the fact that you are still spewing that "no sex abuse occurred at PSU" nonsense and using assumptions to battle Freeh's assumptions and we have a severe lack of credibility.

What is your current argument regarding Paterno's firing? Are you sticking to your guns in that the media was irresponsible in their reporting and Joe should have kept his job? I don't believe I have ever heard you or any other Paterno-backer say he should have kept it, yet we sit here ranting and ranting about Louis Freeh. Who the hell cares? The guy's group read some e-mails, conducted a few interviews and told us more of what we already knew. Big deal.

The facts remain - McQueary saw Sandusky exchanging in extremely sexual acts with a 10-year-old. Sandusky is in jail partially because that incident resulted in four guilty verdicts: Indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors and endangering welfare of children. Use that not guilty on involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (or Aurabass' "a 50 YO is too big to rape a 10 YO" argument) all you want because McQueary didn't see penetration. That isn't a lot to hide behind. Moving on with the facts - Joe and other PSU leaders learned of this incident. Some or all (we'll know more with impending trials) of those leaders were aware of the '98 investigation into Jerry's contact with minors. Despite this knowledge, the group kept the shower incident in house and never told authorities. All those involved have since been removed from their positions. PSU is now in the capable hands of O'Brien and keeping most of their guys to rebuild the football program and school the right way. Keeping any of the "leaders" (including Joe) on the payroll after failing to report sexual abuse to authorities would have been even more harmful to an already ailing university.

-MC

Linda Berkland said...

Anonymous....this argument about the fictitious parent is seriously lame! If you're thinking about sending your kid to PSU and you're concerned about the situation there, then by all means, don't send your kid there! But if your argument is meant to defend yourself because you haven't read the Freeh report, then you're simply an idiot. Joe Paterno and Penn State are being SLANDERED because the BOT at Penn State did what they thought was the responsible thing to do and paid $6.5 million dollars for an "independent investigation" to determine what happened there. Do you honestly think Louis Freeh would have stood on that podium and said "After 8 months, 430 interviews and the review of 1000's of documents, not to mention $6.5 million spent, my team of investigators has been unable to determine who is at fault here based on the evidence we've identified". He admits in the report, which you clearly have not read because you are expending way too much hot air trying to defend why you've not read the report, that "Coach" is "believed to be Paterno". He also uses phrases like "it is assumed". The list of baseless assumptions goes on and on and on. I often hear, "what if it was your kid who was a victim of Sandusky?" I can't even imagine and I would not be responsible for my actions. But I think a fair question for you in your judgment of Joe Paterno is, "What if this was your father?" He is being slandered without ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that he did anything wrong. And, as for PSU, its students, its athletes, its alumni are being brutalized (mostly verbally) by uninformed blow hards like you who continue to just believe what you read and trash an absolutely brilliant institute of higher learning.

Anonymous said...

Joe's defenders simply can't accept the fact that the BOT and the administration have accepted the conclusions in the Freeh Report, which conclusions crucify certain of the employees of Penn State. Why do YOU crucify members of the public for having the IDENTICAL opinion of those employees as the BOT and the administration? Penn State can only speak legally through its BOT and administration. Penn State has spoken. The public has more respect for the voice of Penn State than its own alumni.


With respect to the necessity of studying the Freeh Report, have you read the Kyoto Protocol and the minutes and underlying studies relating to it, the Clear Air Act and its amendments and the Congressional history behind them, and all of the Congressional hearings on global warming, etc., etc., etc.? Then you shouldn't have an opinion on climate change. You shouldn't vote this November because you haven't mastered these materials. You could say the same thing about financial reform (Anybody here read Dodd-Frank and its Congressional history (a whole lotta pages)? No? Then you shouldn't vote.)

Do you see just how damn SILLY it is to insist upon a higher level of scrutiny for the issue of sports in academe (the Penn State Scandal) than we do for a vote on climate change? The fact that certain individuals whom you admire have gotten caught up in this issue is NOT the public's problem.

Anonymous said...

"What if this was your father?"

That's why judges recuse themselves. That's why those of us who have no emotional attachment to Joe or any of the other individuals involved or to any of the institutions involved can be impartial and dispassionate. When people disagree with us it doesn't set off rockets with us because,
to us, it's just another issue before the public which needs to be analyzed just like any other issue.

If you're so emotionally invested that you can't hear dissent without resorting to invective and ad hominem attacks, perhaps YOU should recuse yourselves.

Anonymous said...

I appeal to those of you who don't support Joe Paterno to find a more appropriate forum. This site is for those of us who are still reeling from a week in which an institution which we revered and, indeed, loved, has, as someone put it, crucified an individual for whom we have even greater reverence and affection. This is a sanctuary in which the still emotionally fragile can comfort each other.

We overreact to criticism? So what? We lash out at anyone who doubts Joe? So what?

If you want spirited give-and-take, look elsewhere. Not here.

Linda Berkland said...

To the "anonymous" who is either too lazy, small minded or stupid to read the Freeh report, your continued arguments that you don't need to read the Freeh report in order to reach your conclusions are evidence to support your idiocy. I will no longer debate with you because you don't deserve my time. One more thing, I would like to add the word coward to the list of words I've just used to describe you. If you had any cojones, you'd put your name to your opinion!

Marc Rubin said...

"You're the one who based half of your original stance against the media and "lynch mobs" on the "fact" that Paterno went to the "head of police services" in Schultz. Your excuse when I called you out on his title (he was actually the VP of Finanace/Business and had ZERO police authority) "

To prove once again the sheer idiocy, stupidity and hypocrisy of people like you, (and by the way you NEVER called me out on anything -- that is way beyond your capacity), you have no problem accepting the dishonest conclusions of the Freeh report BASED ON SCHULTZ BEING HEAD OF PENN STATE POLICE SERVICES but you dont accept Shcultz's authority when its Paterno reporting what McQueary told him to Schultz

If that doesnt make you admit your own idiocy and hypocrisy I dont know what will. It was Schultz who was supposedly receiving updates from Thomas Harmon Captain of Penn State police on the progress of the Sandusky investigation and reporting them to Schultz. Now put your thinking cap on if you have one and figure out why Harmon was reporting to Schultz: because he was head of Business and Finance? Feeling really stupid now?

The Freeh Report tries to conclude that Paterno knew about the investigation because he was supposedly ( and without a shred of proof to back it up which seems is good enough for you) getting updates from Curley who was getting them from Schultz. Schultz being head of police services and having the information about the progress of the investigation is good enough for you when it comes to accusing Paterno, but its not good enough for you when it comes to Paterno going to Schultz with McQueary's accusation to begin with.

Your point of view is not just stupid it reeks of the kind of medieval , mindless fascist mentality Ive used characterize people like you who believe the Freeh Report because it makes you feel like something youre not. Luckily you sound like you have no positions of power so your point of view only makes you look stupid and cant do any real damage.

Prove one single thing Ive written here isnt true. Prove it dont say it, just prove it and do it with facts. And if you can't that will say all that needs to be said.

Marc Rubin said...

"You have since been mum about your original stance and moved on to attacking Freeh, posters, psychologists, fascists and everyone in between BUT Joe."

I guess we can add, "no reading comprehension" to the list of maladies affecting people who believe the Freeh Report.

Try this: present one, just one peice of proof that ANYTHING the Freeh Report says regarding Freeh's conclusions about Paterno is true not just what Freeh says, which you swallow like a trained seal, but actual conclusive proof that its true.And before you waste your time, open a dictionary and read the definition of the word "proof". Then give us the proof.

Anonymous said...

To all of you geniuses out there just looking for an excuse to hate: Please present one Patern-related conclusion from the Freeh report that was based on fact and not simply conjecture or inuendo. Just one. Until you can do that I respectfully suggest you crawl back into your cave and continue gathering your stones.

Anonymous said...

The Freeh Report has been and will be the basis for all responses to the scandal by the NCAA, the DOE, the Big Ten, the media and the public in general. Accordingly, one needs to read it in order to understand these responses, regardless of which side one is on. Having said that, I understand why Anonymous believes that nothing more than familiarity with the conclusions in the Report (which familiarity, thanks to the media's focus SOLELY on the conclusions, does not require one actually to read the Report) is necessary. There's nothing radical or new about Anonymous' position; it's the same position as that taken by the NCAA, the Big Ten, the media and the public.

Why are the NCAA, Big Ten, et al so comfortable with abdicating their responsibility at least to "look under the hood" of the Report? I can understand their reluctance to do a full-blown investigation but they seem oblivious to even the internal inconsistencies within the Report itself.

The explanation for this refusal of the NCAA et al to dig into the Report is simple : By officially accepting the Freeh Report hook, line and sinker, Penn State, as an institution, has "confessed" to every accusation in it. In fact, as far as the NCAA et al are concerned, Penn State has also "confessed" ON BEHALF OF Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno. It is this vicarious confession which, I believe, has given the Paterno haters out there full licence to spit on his memory.

If, back in November, Penn State had simply announced the suspension (NOT the termination) of the persons involved pending the resolution of the legal proceedings and reserved comment on the matter pending such resolution (WHICH IS WHAT WELL-RUN INSTITUTIONS DO IN SUCH SITUATIONS), there would still have been a firestorm of bad publicity but it couldn't have possibly been worse than the position we're in now.

I don't know how we get out of this. I know that many are hoping that if Curley and Schultz are found not guilty, the NCAA et al will "eat crow" and everyone's good name will be restored. I fear that the reaction to such verdict is far more likely to be Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson rolled into one. Of course, having an actual court involved is better than nothing, but I'm not optimistic.

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin said...
"To prove once again the sheer idiocy, stupidity and hypocrisy of people like you, (and by the way you NEVER called me out on anything -- that is way beyond your capacity), you have no problem accepting the dishonest conclusions of the Freeh report BASED ON SCHULTZ BEING HEAD OF PENN STATE POLICE SERVICES but you dont accept Shcultz's authority when its Paterno reporting what McQueary told him to Schultz"

Where did I say anything even remotely close to what you are suggesting here? From my post: "we sit here ranting and ranting about Louis Freeh. Who the hell cares? The guy's group read some e-mails, conducted a few interviews and told us more of what we already knew. Big deal." Yup, sure looks like I took the pitcher of Freeh kool-aid and chugged it right down... Again, your defensiveness only makes you look more self conscious and desperate.


Marc Rubin said...
"If that doesnt make you admit your own idiocy and hypocrisy I dont know what will. It was Schultz who was supposedly receiving updates from Thomas Harmon Captain of Penn State police on the progress of the Sandusky investigation and reporting them to Schultz. Now put your thinking cap on if you have one and figure out why Harmon was reporting to Schultz: because he was head of Business and Finance? Feeling really stupid now?"

"Supposedly receiving updates"... Your hypocrisy is extremely transparent - Preach facts, Bring assumptions. Very nice.

In this piece (http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/06/sandusky-trial-testimony-further.html) you refer to Schultz three times as the head of penn state campus police. To that I said this in the first comment: "Schultz was a VP/business guy; not in any way, shape or form a police officer, deputy, chief, sheriff, or anyone with power to arrest or detain Sandusky."

Your response was, as always, an attack on me where you assumed that I view PSU campus police as not real police. As with this post, there was nothing in my response that suggested anything close to that. You later address the title issue and your best "proof" is that Schultz was referred to as the head of campus police that so many times it had to be true. Again, you attacked my intelligence without offering anything intelligent of your own.

I also searched for the word "police" in your next 3-4 posts and responses... Nowhere do you refer to Schultz as the "Head of Police Services" or anything like that. Is that good enough for proof or is that just you realizing you were wrong? It was not until your July 21st post where you seem to respond directly to my criticism: "If Paterno going to Schultz was "not doing enough" because Schultz "wasn't the police", why was Harmon, the Captain of Penn State police reporting directly to Schultz ? Because he was vice president of Business and Finance?"

You use that logic in your above response by saying "Now put your thinking cap on if you have one and figure out why Harmon was reporting to Schultz: because he was head of Business and Finance? Feeling really stupid now?" In both instances you end with a question. You never actually accuse me of being incorrect in saying that Schultz's title was in fact "Vice President of Finance and Business". You never post any resource showing Schultz's title as being "Head of Police Services".

(To be continued) -MC

Anonymous said...

Here is something for you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/tim-curley-george-schultz-penn-state-abuse-scandal-resign_n_1079093.html

From that article:

"Gary Schultz, vice president for finance and business, will step down and go back into retirement, Spanier said."

"Curley and Schultz were accused of failing to alert police – as required by state law – of their investigation of the allegations."

Hmm. Failing to alert police... But no, Harmon "supposedly" reporting updates to Schultz, the "Head of Police Services because everyone says so", is a great basis for an argument.

Even your buddy GK tried to back your argument by posting a May/June 2007 newsletter. This is from that PDF: "In his role as vice president for finance and business, Horvath will report to Gary C. Schultz, senior vice president for finance and business/treasurer of the University". There's even a picture of Gary with that exact title next to his name. This is from a psu.edu website btw (http://www.fandb.psu.edu/fandb/newsletters/upload/May-June-2007.pdf). It goes on to list "Stephen G. Shelow, Director of University Police". If you can show me one piece of evidence that Schultz ever held THAT title, we can start talking again.

"Prove one single thing Ive written here isnt true. Prove it dont say it, just prove it and do it with facts. And if you can't that will say all that needs to be said."

I won't get into the I-told-you-so trash that you keep spewing. I laid out facts above. If you want to combat any of those with a decent discussion between two adults, please go ahead. I am actually curious to hear your answers to questions like "because he was the vp of finance and business?" I am also curious to hear your answers to my earlier questions about whether or not Joe should have kept his job. That's what the original discussion was about an you/other Paterno-backers have in fact been mum on that issue.

-MC

Anonymous said...

"Your narrow FASCISTIC mind cant accept the rule of law and the judicial process because it rains on your parade and exposes you as someone who like others of your kind jumped to your own ignorant conclusions without knowing the facts, trying to beat your chest as some kind of phony moralist and anything that takes away your fun and exposes you as ignorant is nothing you are going to accept."

"Everything about the Freeh Report and the reactions of the press and people who believe what they read without checking facts, or even applying common sense is how FASCISM took a foothold in Europe in the 1930's

What makes matters even worse, and makes both the press and those who swallowed the report even dumber and well fitted for a BROWNSHIRT, is the fact that Freeh doesn't even state with certainty or claims of proof that "Coach" is in fact Paterno."

"They arent as stupid and dont have the Junior FASCISTS of America mentality of some of the morons who swallow an already discredited Louis Freeh and a report filled with lies, attempts to mislead and that mischaracterizes evidence and is filled with outright incompetence."

"That there are people who would swallow the Freeh report at all and not check the facts to see if any of it true, is a petrie dish of how FASCISM got a foothold in Europe in the 1930's."


"Given the principles of the Founders, and their true beliefs, the religious views of Santorum and many conservatives on the Christian right are views that are not only un-American and anti-American by the founders standards and definition, their goal of wanting laws that reflect their religious views and social agenda represent exactly the kind of religious FASCISM that the Founders wanted to insure would never be a part of the United States."

"The idea of forcing others to accept their beliefs and to make their beliefs part of the law of the land so as to make those beliefs part of everyone's life is what is called FASCISM and flies in the face of what the Founders envisioned for this country."

This...man...needs...to...get...a...grip.

Anonymous said...

I for one have always admired Marc's ablity to detect fascists in totally disparate issues. Separation of church and state, healthcare reform, the Tickle Monster Scandal, you name it, Marc has found some bastard goosestepping his way through the debate.

Marc is like the Woody Allen character in Annie Hall who could detect anti-semitism in the way people sneezed.

Anonymous said...

Sound familiar?

http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2007/10/fbis-war-on-richard-jewell.html

Anonymous said...

Good article (see link below) and god legal analysis by someone who actually ad the Freeh Report (rather than bought Freeh's conclusions without much thought). By the way, how can ESPN keep commenting on Paterno in such a negative light when they hid the Syracuse Scandal and have done nothing to protect children form molestation?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-case-against-joe-paterno-weak-to-non-existent-on-the-current-record.php

Anonymous said...

"Attorney Joe Amendola told The Associated Press in a phone interview that Sandusky told him that even if people believe he is guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted in June, it would be "ridiculous" to think Penn State administrators engaged in a cover-up."

Jerry, we appreciate you support.

Linda Berkland said...

Oh, geez, there are so many anonymous commenters on this article, it's hard to keep you all straight! So this is directed toward "Anonymous" who lives in a world of fictitious parents trying to find a suitable university for their kids.....Since you apparently appreciate Cliff Notes versions of everything to make your decisions, please refer to the following press release....http://www.ps4rs.org/docs/press-release_07-26-12.pdf. In this press release, you will find a link to a checklist that evaluates what would be necessary to consider the Freeh report a complete investigation. It was developed by a team of 40 attorneys PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE FREEH REPORT! Those same attorneys reviewed the report against their checklist and found that the report hit on 22/96 necessary pieces of information. No need to read all 267 pages "Anonymous"! It's all summed up in just a couple....should be just the right size for your small brain to handle.

Anonymous said...

"No need to read all 267 pages "Anonymous"! It's all summed up in just a couple....should be just the right size for your small brain to handle."

Are you insane? The checklist doesn't provide a narrative. You wouldn't know anything about the events and people involved from the checklist. Who is Wendell Courtney? Who is Cynthia Baldwin? The checklist mentions them but doesn't say who the Hell they are? You can only make any sense of the checklist by cross-referencing to the 267-page Freeh Report itself. You expect a parent with ten schools to consider to wade through all those items and to check the checkmarks against the text of the actual Freeh Report to see if the checkmarks are accurate? ALL of the items ASSUME that the reader is familiar with the basic facts and the significant players involved. Do you expect the parent and his kid to sit for hours at the kitchen table cross-referencing between the checklist and the Freeh Report and simultaneously Googling Courtney, Baldwin, Freeh, Curley, Schultz, Lasch Building and on and on? Even if the parent wanted to accept the shortcomings claimed by the forty shyster alumni, he'd have to do a ton of work to understand just what the hell he was accepting. Again, I ask you: Are you insane?

In any case, the parent's kid isn't applying to PS4RS; he's applying to Penn State. Why wouldnt he want to know the CONCLUSIONS set forth in a report "blessed" by Penn State? If my kid is going to apply to a college and the college itself CONFESSES that it covered up child rape on campus, I don't give a damn how many shyster alumni say otherwise, my kid is NOT applying to that college.

Try to see this in another context. If your local day care center admits that it covered up child abuse at the day care center, you are NOT sending your three-year-old there. Period. Don't pretend otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Can we just leave that poor parent and his kid to find a college on their own? At this point, I don't give a damn where the kid goes to college.

Linda Berkland said...

Oh, geez, the fictitious parent again??? I said I was done with you earlier but now I really MUST be! This is about justice! Not just for the victims, and there are NONE more deserving. But for Penn State, its students, its student athletes, its alumni AND Joe Paterno as well, because crucifying them does absolutely nothing to bring justice to the victims. And, slander is against the law! The victims themselves are speaking out against this media lynch mob. Your arguments are so juvenile and ill conceived that I really can no longer debate with you. Marc Rubin, Linda Berkland and countless other intelligent, open minded parents, professionals,humanitarians and just plain, simple human beings can see through this. But you, my friend, are THICK AS MOLASSES! Please don't waste any more time on this board unless you're willing to read the report, open your mind and have an intelligent conversation about what's actually contained in the report! If you can't, go spend some time with your fictitious kid, who's applying to a fictitious college, under the name anonymous!

Anonymous said...

People start this hypothetical crap because there's nothing left to say about the Freeh Report, pro or con, that hasn't already been said. Until somebody comes up with some new facts, everybody is just repeating themselves and pissing on each other. It may not be until the Curley-Schultz trials before there's any generally accepted new facts. Have the trial dates even been set yet?

Anonymous said...

"Until somebody comes up with some new facts, everybody is just repeating themselves and pissing on each other."

Isn't that what people on this site and elsewhere have been saying, that there aren't enough facts in the Freeh Report to arrive at a conclusion about anybody?

Linda Berkland said...

"Anonymous" with the fictitious kid looking for a fictitious college.....I know I said I was done with you but, just one more thing....just think if, over the course of history, people everywhere had the same thought process as you...."Well, these people say it's true and they're in a position of authority, so it must be true! No need for me to question their findings." If the great minds in history were to do that, where would we be today? You can take the easy way out and just believe what you're told but I'm grateful for people like Galileo, Edison, our founding fathers, the Wright Brothers, etc., etc., etc. If those people had just believed what they were being told, think about what life would be like for your fictitious kid Anonymous, Jr.

Anonymous said...

People on this site may SAY that they hate the Anonymous Gang (Weasel Guy, Fascist Guy, Concerned Parent Guy) but their comments suggest otherwise.

Of the 36 comments on Marc's original posting, only TWO (maybe) are responses to his original posting. The balance are almost evenly split between the Anonymous Gang and people going apeshit at the Anonymous Gang. People just love being pissed off. They love it a Hell of a lot more than slogging through that boring Freeh crap. Penn Staters may appreciate the "heavy lifting" done by Marc and Aurabass, but they don't really want to deal with much more than their conclusions, particularly if there's a jackass like Concerned Parent Guy to dump on.

There are postings on this site in which the ONLY comments are by members of the Anonymous Gang trying to provoke each other. How bizarre is that?

Now that you've hurt their feelings, the Anonymous Gang should simply say "Our work is done here" and slip away. But without them and those who love to hate them, this site will be a ghost town.

Adios, Anonymous Gang. Go with God.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Good article (see link below) and god legal analysis by someone who actually ad the Freeh Report (rather than bought Freeh's conclusions without much thought). By the way, how can ESPN keep commenting on Paterno in such a negative light when they hid the Syracuse Scandal and have done nothing to protect children form molestation?"

This is the same thing I challenged Marc on back in June/July. What is ESPN/CNN/The Facist Media Group saying about Paterno? Do you have a link to an article, clip, etc. that shows ESPN irresponsibly damning Paterno? I am not calling you out. I am genuinely curious.

-MC

Anonymous said...

Read the report & do more reading. BOT did not accept Fresh Report findings nor NCAA sanctions. New Pres did that all on his own, unilaterally. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL...as in fundamentally your responsibility to stay informed & make informed decisions. I'm busy =I'm lazy. It only takes a few minutes here & there to read the download that is free.

Ray Blehar said...

To those of you who believe PSU President Rodney Erickson's acceptance of the Freeh Report means the report is accurate, I say you're 100% wrong.

The fact is that the Freeh Report was nothing more than a cover-up of the state's lousy investigation of Sandusky in 1998. They failed and failed miserably...he was abusing 8 boys at the time. The state interviewed NONE of them.

All of this info is in the public domain...Freeh Report, 1998 Police Report, and Grand Jury Presentment.

Anonymous said...

Erickson did not have the authority to "admit Penn States guilt", so using that admission as the basis for holding uninformed opinions is absurd on the face of it. The BoT members suing the NCAA, and probably PSU itself, seek to know the truth rather than just react like worms. Freeh has a history of getting paid for unsubstantiated opinion, and this case looks to be no different.

Chad Hansen said...

I really don't see how one can compare reading materials that may help decide which school you send your child to to deciding that 267 pages is too much to read before condemning people on the basis of that report. Also, how can one think that the people at PSU that fired the four accused of a coverup can admit guilt on their behalf simply by accepting the report as is. I mean, if you are going to pay 6.5 million for a report, wouldn't you at least have someone play devil's advocate and challenge it?

Anonymous said...

"I really don't see how one can compare reading materials that may help decide which school you send your child to to deciding that 267 pages is too much to read before condemning people on the basis of that report."

My child is more important to me than a few academic bureacrats and a football coach. Why would I spend more effort on forming an opinion of their guilt or innocence than I do on my child's education?

The sad thing is that Joe's defenders DO think that he is more important than children. The sadder thing is that Joe felt exactly the same way.

Chad Hansen said...

What a ridiculous reply. If you can't be bothered to read the report then why spend so much time making assertions such as Joe thinking he is more important than childern? Besides that, this is not an either or situation. You don't show that you care about abused childern by destroying a man's reputation based on nothing.

Chad hansen said...

BTW, I'm not a Penn State fan and have no allegiance to Joe Paterno or that school. Therefore,its rather despicable to think that anyone who looks at the case against Paterno and finds it to be rather weak doesn't care about childern. My guess is most everyone that has come down on PSU hasn't lifted a finger to help abused childern or dialed down their interest in activities that are trivial compared to preventing child abuse. I know I'm going to still watch my football team play.

Ultimately, if a more convincing case is made against JP, it won't make any difference in my life. At this point I think this whole thing as been a rush to judgment based on so many misrepresentations and assumptions and the arguments in defense of Joe that I have found on this site and others are way more convincing that what I have heard elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

The victims have stated publicly that they hold Paterno and the other members of the Gang of Four responsible for the cover-up and are suing Penn State as a result of that cover-up. In fact, some of them have expressed their hatred for Paterno and the others. Others have said that they can't find the words to express how much they hate Paterno.

How do you support both sides of a lawsuit?

How do you look a victim of child rape in the eye and say, "I feel really bad for what happened to you but I'm concerned about how this might hurt the reputation of the people you blame for your suffering"? How cruel can you get?

Marc Rubin said...

"The victims have stated publicly that they hold Paterno and the other members of the Gang of Four responsible for the cover-up and are suing Penn State as a result of that cover-up."

The victims as you call them are doing what their lawyers tell them to do. there is still not a shred of proof that Paterno did one single thing that Freeh accused him of and in fact the overwhelming amount of available evidence is that the "coach" in the 1998 email that Freeh says "is believed" is Paterno, is that the "coach" is Sandusky.

Secondly these people who are the victims had no associaton with Penn State at all but with Second Mile and Sandusky but you notice that these people are suing Penn State and NOT Sandusky the person who actually abused them. And for only one reason. They are out for money and Sandusky doesnt have enough to make them rich which is why they are suing Penn State. That and the fact that they see Penn State caving in and capitulating to everything and they and their lawyers see easy money. Which is why they are suing Penn State which had absolutely nothing to do with whatever happened to them and not Sandusky who did.

Anonymous said...

So the way to "support" the victims of child abuse is to accuse them of only wanting money?

At least you're willing to express what most Joepologists try to conceal : a deep, abiding contempt for the victims.

Anonymous said...

Is your abysmal "easy money" opinion of the victims shared by your colleagues at Framing Joe Paterno?

Does the Paterno family share your opinion?

You can't bear the fact that Holy Joe has been brought low by a bunch of kids whom you consider money-hungry scum.

Anonymous said...

If, as you say, the victims' cases against Penn State have no basis in fact, Penn State will prevail in court and Joe will be vindicated. Oh, wait a second. Penn State has already ADMITTED its liability. Penn State only did so because ESPN (or was it the New York Times?) told it to do so, you say?. Pathetic.

Marc Rubin said...

"If, as you say, the victims' cases against Penn State have no basis in fact, Penn State will prevail in court and Joe will be vindicated. Oh, wait a second. Penn State has already ADMITTED its liability. Penn State only did so because ESPN (or was it the New York Times?) told it to do so, you say?. Pathetic."

Its you who are pathetic. You accepted someone's guilt without a shred of proof like a medieval mind running with the mob to a witch burning. And your not just pathetic your ignorant.And let me remind you that Penn State didnt ADMIT to anything because no one at Penn State had any standing to admit to anything in the Freeh Report. They ACCEPTED the report which is different than ADMITTING but when you are as ignorant as you are, its hard to tell the difference.

What is truly pathetic is you base all your beliefs and nonsense without even having read the report. Because you let other people do your thinking for you. And accept guilt without proof. Where does that put you on a moral scale of 1-10? A 2?

As for money,you think you can use the word "victim" like a weapon to justify all your nonsense.But being a victim doesnt justify anything and everything. It doesnt allow you to rob a bank. It doesnt allow you to be dishonest.And it doesnt make you moral. Accepting the word of Louis Freeh, a man who already smeared an innocent man without proof in Richard Jewell, makes you the pathetic one. And again let me remind you that no one at Penn State who had any standing to accept guilt did so -- Erickson simply ACCEPTED the findings as gutless a decison as that was, because he just wants to get this behind them.

The Paterno family clearly isnt accepting anything as evidenced by the law suit they plan to file against the NCAA. But you seem to be too ignorant to know that too.

You also dont have enough courage of your convictions to sign your own name. Id call that pathetic too. And typical of ignorant people who think they are morally superior when clearly the opposite is true.

Marc Rubin said...

I don't know who this strawman is that you claim to have not read the Freeh Report but your accusation is certainly in line with the "If only people read the Freeh Report the way we do, they'd love JoePa too" line of the Joepologists.

The only people who see a difference between "admit" and "accept" are the same die-hard Joepologists..."

Having a debate with someone with the reading comprehension and vocabulary of a 4 year old as you demonstrate time and time again and who "admits" he cant tell the difference between "accepting" and "admitting" is a waste of time.So is debating with someone who is consistantly afraid to sign their names but has no problem hurling stones at people like Joe Paterno with no facts at their disposal and accepting anything an authority figure says. Like always just let an ignorant person talk long enough and, like with you, their ignorance and stupidity and dishonesty will always betray tbem. "Joepologists". Did you make that up? Next time sign your name if you have the courage, which you already demonstrated you don't.

Anonymous said...

Merriam-Webster defines "admit" as "concede as true" and "accept" as "recognize as true".

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that Merriam-Webster defines "admit" as "CONCEDE as true" because it defines "concede" as "ACCEPT as true".

Doesn't this pretty much put the "admit"="accept" issue to bed?

Chad Hansen said...

So, a bunch of spineless cowards still at PSU caved into blackmail threats from the NCAA? That hardly makes the accusations against Paterno true. Furthermore, the victims going after PSU hardly makes them right about Paterno either.

Has anyone asked Emmert what he thinks is the smoking gun? Why on something this important do the people at PSU not even take the time have an equally independent person challenge the report? Why does the NCAA rush to penalize PSU without doing the same? Just by visiting these sites, I find people pointing out things and making solid arguments that I wouldn't even know to look for or could simply just miss altogether. What is the big rush to punish a school for the alleged actions of four people that haven't had their side heard? I'm not a paterno apologist. Guilty or not, I don't think the sanctions make any sense particularly why games are forfeited back to 1998.

Marc Rubin said...

"Anonymous said...
It's interesting that Merriam-Webster defines "admit" as "CONCEDE as true" because it defines "concede" as "ACCEPT as true".

Doesn't this pretty much put the "admit"="accept" issue to bed?"

What needs to be put to bed is you and I intend to. First I deleted your comment about, in your words, "children with bleeding anuses" since it marks you as someone with severe emotional issues and you are probably not much higher on the food chain than Sandusky himself.

Secondly you were quite stupid if you thought I wouldnt check Webster's myself and it revealed that you are as underhanded and dishonest and unethical as the Louis Freeh you worship and a flat out liar. The Webster dictionary definition of "accept" is exactly what I and anyone with an IQ in 3 digits knows it means and it is quite different than " admit".

The first four definitions in Merriam Webster for "accept" are:


1: to receive willingly; accept a gift. b: to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) a surface that will not accept ink


2: to give admittance or approval to;accept her as one of the group


3: to endure without protest or reaction;(accept poor living conditions)

These definitions are not only quite different than the word
"admit" as any idiot can see and proves that you really do have the reading comprehension of a 6 year old, but the definition you represented as "Merriam Websters defintion of 'accept'" was simply a flat out lie and not any of these but something you had to scroll down to the bottom of the page to find in other usages of the word. So you found that as the 6th or 7th possible usage, not the definition as shown by Websters, but you lie and say it is. Which shows you to be as underhanded and dishonest in your own way as Louis Freeh which explains your defense of him and also makes you a flat out liar which also explains a lot about you and your defense of Freeh.

From now on you can sign your real name and the name of your parole officer or your comments will be deleted and you can slink back into your cowards shadow where you came from.

Marc Rubin said...

"So, a bunch of spineless cowards still at PSU caved into blackmail threats from the NCAA? That hardly makes the accusations against Paterno true. Furthermore, the victims going after PSU hardly makes them right about Paterno either."

You might be interested in a letter I was made privvy to sent by a Penn State alum, and a Ph.d to the Board of Trustees.

It follows this.

Marc Rubin said...

Dear members of the Board of Trustees,

Regarding the present debate over the quality of the Freeh report and whether to formally accept the NCAA sanctions, I have a question. Why does the Board appear to see the NCAA issue as a choice between only two options: Either to accept the sanctions as they currently stand, or to take a so-called "death penalty"?

Is there surely not a third option on the table? Why is the Board apparently not considering the third option of fighting the NCAA in federal court? Would Penn State not stand a very good chance of winning such a lawsuit? One would think that a federal court would be sympathetic to Penn State for several reasons. Penn State can argue that the NCAA should be treated as a state actor for these purposes, by virtue of its appearing to now rule on criminal-only matters and by virtue of its national monopoly (it is unreasonable to expect a competitor organization to successfully out-compete the NCAA at the large college level). As a state actor, the NCAA is culpable of not following its own bylaws, of not following due process, and (if attempting to change its bylaws retroactively to justify sanctioning Penn State) of unreasonably changing its bylaws ex post facto. The NCAA also violated its more-democratic infractions procedure, replacing it with
an ad hoc authoritarian system consisting of a single man passing judgment and imposing sanctions. It based its sanctions on a single document, which one of its own authors has stated was never intended for such a purpose, and which has been accused of drawing serious accusations against Penn State from extremely thin evidence. There is also the question of whether the NCAA illegally strong-armed Penn State into a hasty acquiescence. A federal lawsuit would also allow more opportunity and more time for proper investigations to take place. Members of the legal profession across the country are apparently eager to see this play out in court, as they are worried about the precedents that would be set if the NCAA's actions were to go unchallenged.

(MORE)

Marc Rubin said...

(letter cont'd)

You, the members of the Board, may have sound reasons for why you do not think it wise to pursue such a third option. Because this decision impacts the University's reputation in such a significant and lasting way (see below), I feel that you should share with the members of the Penn State community your reasoning against this third option.

If you believe that a lawsuit would further drag down the reputation of our University, I acknowledge that line of thinking, but let me show why I think that should not be a concern -- that, if anything, the reputation would only improve.

I share with you a great concern for our University's reputation, and I am not motivated solely out of love for the University; there are also selfish reasons. I am concerned for my and my fellow graduates' future employability; in multiple occurrences appearing in the media, employers have threatened to fire or to not hire Penn State graduates solely because of a perceived group culpability in the Sandusky affair. The value of our diplomas may also be weakened if the University's stained reputation results in difficulties in attracting a talented faculty, or in attracting research funding.

The Board's actions, thus far, seem to indicate that its members believe that the best way to improve the University's reputation is to "put things behind us" as soon as possible. But there are problems with this approach. In the public's eye, the Board's and administration's actions have been akin to accepting blame. By appearing to accept blame, the stain is not reduced; it deepens, and it PERSISTS. There is a good chance that the University's name would have been partially if not fully cleared, had time been allowed for a thorough, proper investigation to have been conducted -- it is therefore doubly regrettable that a university should "admit guilt" when there may have never been a genuine reason to.

History has shown time and again that when an entity appears to accept blame, its reputation, with regard to the event in question, does not significantly improve. The event will slowly disappear from people's minds over time, but that is true whether blame is accepted or not, and, regardless of the passage of time, people will return to a negative view of the entity whenever they are reminded of the event. History has also shown that people who had, a priori, a negative view towards an entity will simply reinforce that view when that entity appears to accept blame. History has furthermore shown that some people react more emotionally than rationally when it comes to allegations of failing to protect children. For these reasons, it is futile to accept blame without good cause, or to rush to "put things behind us". In essence, there is no pleasing certain people, and therefore one's reputation cannot grow worse by insisting on due process; and
the other group of people, the more rational or sympathetic ones, will be understanding when you call for fairness and the facts in order to make a sound decision.

Marc Rubin said...

(Letter conclusion)

I believed in November of 2011, and continue to believe to this day, that the Board's best course of action for protecting the reputation of the University should have been to stand firm in the face of all onslaughts, from the media or from other quarters. It should have insisted on following due process, and on neither taking action nor publicly voicing opinion until a thorough investigation had been conducted. The Board should never have imposed on itself the conditions it did when it commissioned the Freeh report. It should never have accepted or appeared to accept a report that was so lean on facts and so heavy on inflammatory accusations mostly unsupported by facts. It should have fought any sanctions based on such a flawed report. It should have only attempted to "put things behind us" when all the facts were truly in.

If unwilling to fight the NCAA in federal court, is it possible for the University to issue language such as, "The sanctions of the NCAA are accepted under protest, and without definitive evidence of any wrongdoing on the University's part"?

Sincerely yours,

Chad Hansen said...

Excellent letter. I can't understand how so few don't it see that way. I laughed when I read where Emmert said he was amazed at how thorough the Freeh investigation was. I feel like I'm living in some bizarro world where everyone believes the lies because they gain something from believing the lies while I'm called an apologist for someone I have no allegiance to and never met and who coached a conference rival. You have people critical of those who put Paterno on a pedestal yet argue that Paterno should have basically been the lead investigator in a matter he was not a witness to and has no expertise all because so many assume he was the all powerful Oz at Penn State. I actually had one person argue that if Paterno didn't know........that makes it worse. Just wow. Ultimately, I have nothing at stake here. I just think this whole episode has been an unbelievable rush to judgment based on evidence that once I looked at seemed incredibly weak.

I simply cannot imagine these four men deciding, well we know Jerry is a child rapist but if we tell the authorities, this will cause some dgeree of harm to PSU and its football program for just being associated with this kind of crime even if we are reporting it, that the best course of action is to ignore it, let Jerry continue to molest, and hope know one else ever catches him resulting in the same harm we wish to avoid in the first place plus even more if they ever discover we knew what he was up to. Just seems absurd. Even if a handful of people are too stupid to separate Sandusky and his crimes from Penn State had the four turned him, I would think they would gain as much for reportng one of their own. I just don't see them agreeing to cover it up and I have seen no evidence that they did.

Anonymous said...

Chad Hansen said...
"I just don't see them agreeing to cover it up and I have seen no evidence that they did."

Well, is the PSU punishment for a cover-up or for a lack of action by a group of school leaders and officials? A cover-up would be worse, but we know there was at least a lack of action. That lack of action resulted in more children being molested.

I don't disagree that there have been some rushes to judgement, but what are you arguing here? You say "a handful of people are too stupid to separate Sandusky and his crimes from Penn State" but offer nothing but a hypothetical to back that claim. Did Sandusky not, at the very least, abuse Victim 2 in a PSU locker room shower? I know Marc and others have mountains of hypothetical scenarios to suggest otherwise, but part of Sandusky's sentence is directly related to abuse that occurred on Penn State's campus. The guy used his charity and his position at Penn State (what was it, emeritus status?) as a breeding ground for child molestation. The "humane" decision PSU's leadership came to was to let Sandusky have an all-access pass to the campus and football facilities. Explain to me how I am stupid for associating a child rapist who abused young boys in PSU football locker rooms with PSU.

-MC

Chad Hansen said...

You misunderstood that comment. The point was that I can't imagine they would be so concerned about the the effects of any negative assocation brought by turning him in that they actually decide it was better to ignore the situation altogether. They are accused of a coverup to protect the image of PSU and PSU football.......but why would that image need to protecting if they had turned Sandusky in.........well because there would be idiots who would unfairly link PSU and child rape even if PSU had him arrested. Ultimately, I can't believe they would be more concerned about such idiots that they would choose to ignore stopping a child molestor.

Marc Rubin said...

Did Sandusky not, at the very least, abuse Victim 2 in a PSU locker room shower? I know Marc and others have mountains of hypothetical scenarios to suggest otherwise.."

Really you made me laugh out loud. I have never once offered anyhing hypothetic. It is FREEH and his report that is nothing but hypothesis, innuendo and conclusions based without fact and I challenge you to now prove otherwise in any sense.

You are, from an informational point of view, dyslexic in every way and for reasons known only to yourself, you and people who think like you have a lot invested, (perhaps not wanting to lose faceover issues so obvious?) in clinging to your false beliefs.

Freeh's report is actually less than hypothesis -- it is an intentional and venal misrepresentation and if you dont think so explain why Businessweek published an article in 2000 saying the very same thing about him as FBI director and chronicled his "trampling on civil liberties" in their words, and intentionally "misleading investigators and judges" in cases brought to trial.

Why is it that those who trash the Freeh report have logic and facts on their side and people on your side have nothing?

As for the boy in the Penn State shower: you have no facts about that either -- none. Only your beliefs. I dont care about your beliefs I only care about facts and if you care about other things and say facts dont count what does that make you?

and the only facts I know and the only fact YOU know are this:

Fact 1) McQueary told so many different stories to so many people no one knows what happened other than Sandusky was in the shower with the boy, something everyone agrees was innappropriate.

Fact 2) the boy in the shower had seven years to say something to somebody about Sandsuky and unlike Sandusky's other victims never did.

Fact 3) the same boy refused to testify against Sandusky at the grand jury hearing ( the "boy" is now in hsi 20's so its not a question of intimidation) and he also refused to testify against Sandusky at his trial.

Fact 3) After the Freeh Report came out his attorney announced he was suing Penn State but is NOT suing Sandusky.

Youre assumptions about what happened in that shower and that the boy was abused at all ( aside from what all agree on -- Sandusky did in fact abuse others and may well have been using that shower to "groom" as experts have testified)is factually deficient and Id suggest you give up your assumptions in place of facts, and not "project" on to anyone else as psychologists say, your own belief in the hypothesis of others as a substitute for facts.

Marc Rubin said...

"The guy used his charity and his position at Penn State (what was it, emeritus status?) as a breeding ground for child molestation. The "humane" decision PSU's leadership came to was to let Sandusky have an all-access pass to the campus.."

Again your assumptions without any facts. You base this on your assumption that you KNOW what McQueary told both Curley and Schultz. THEY claim he never told them of any rape or even sexual molesation, but claim he told them he saw some "horsing around". Is it true? I dont know. I also know YOU dont know either. But you just cant wait for a trial to see whats true.

If McQueary told them he even THOUGHT he saw ANYTHING sexual going on, id agree with you on that one point. On the other hand if he didnt, you are not taking into consideration that denying Sandusky access to Penn State athletic facilites is denying them to the underpriviliged boys he was bringing there which was obviously a benefit to them. Certainly if anything related to any sexual activity was reported by McQueary,they were grossly negligent and so was Spanier in not banning him, and not re-opening the investigation. On the other hand if their assertions are true ( and I dont know if they are) that McQueary NEVER told either of them that anything sexual was going on ( he didnt tell family friend Dr. Dranov that either even though he was asked point blank if he saw anything sexual and McQueary said "no"), then its a whole different ball game isnt it? And all this would be for nothing.

That aside, with regards to Paterno, there is still not a single peice of proof of any kind anywhere, that he knew about the 1998 investigation or that he had anything to do with Curley's decision not to report. And before you dispute that, read the dictionary definition of "proof".

Marc Rubin said...

"Did Sandusky not, at the very least, abuse Victim 2 in a PSU locker room shower?"

One other fact I left out of my reply disputing your assumptions which are all based on hypothesis and not facts is, that a jury of 12 after hearing all the evidence, acquitted Sandusky of the counts against him regarding abuse of victim 2 in the Penn State shower after convicting him on 43 other counts, all of which involved Second Mile and none of which involved Penn State.And keep in mind as I pointed out, Victim 2 never spoke out against Sandusky, never testified against Sandusky at the grand jury ( even though he is now in his 20's) and refused to testify against him at Sandusky's trial. So we've never heard from him. And so we really dont know what went on in that shower. "Victim 2" was only identified as victim 2 at all because of what McQueary said he thought he saw, which has changed more times than Madonna's wardrobe.

But regarding what actually took place, no one really knows. So what you do think you know that a jury who deliberated for hours didnt? Your hypothesis?

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin said...
"Really you made me laugh out loud. I have never once offered anyhing hypothetic. It is FREEH and his report that is nothing but hypothesis, innuendo and conclusions based without fact and I challenge you to now prove otherwise in any sense."

Marc - I already did went through this with you. You challenged me to prove to you that I called you out on Schultz not being the "head of police services". When I provided proof from multiple posts and your responses to those posts, you offered nothing in response besides the usual Freeh report bullshit. I have never nor will I ever used the Freeh report in any of my arguments. You insistence to go back to that every time shows how infantile your arguing techniques are at this time.

Here is one of your hypothetical scenarios on why "coach" means Sandusky, not Paterno: "There is no getting around the fact that Sandusky had to have wanted to know what was going on with the investigation and his only conduit would have been Curley. If there are other emails or documentary evidence that clearly shows other attempts by Sandusky to find out, that might have been evidence that "Coach" could be Paterno."

Had to have wanted to know... That's almost as convincing as Freeh's assumptions.

Here's another from that same post about why Paterno could not have wanted to keep it quiet: "The other preposterous point of the report deals with Paterno keeping it quiet to protect Penn State from bad publicity. How would Paterno be able to keep the investigation quiet with a full blown police investigation in progress and state psychologists from DPW already involved?"

This is misleading in that you are crossing the 1998 incident that was investigated withe the 2001 incident that was kept quiet. You then go on to elaborate on your hypothetical situation with another sentence that contains the words stupid and Les Miserables...

You also offer this one in a comment on July 16: "by the way, if Paterno was so powerful and wanted to shield Penn State from bad publicty why report it all? Why set up a meeting with McQueary and Schultz? Why not just tell McQueary, "I'll take care of it" and then do and say nothing?There is no answer from the mini-brownshirts because the premise is preposterous."

You preach facts but your typical response is either of this question without answer nature or a hate-filled rant.

"You are, from an informational point of view, dyslexic in every way and for reasons known only to yourself, you and people who think like you have a lot invested, (perhaps not wanting to lose faceover issues so obvious?) in clinging to your false beliefs."

Marc - You challenged me to point out a a few things. I have done that. I would now like to challenge you to find my false beliefs. Please post them without commentary. Just a simple "MC said... That is false".

"Freeh's report is actually less than hypothesis -- it is an intentional and venal misrepresentation and if you dont think so explain why Businessweek published an article in 2000 saying the very same thing about him as FBI director and chronicled his "trampling on civil liberties" in their words, and intentionally "misleading investigators and judges" in cases brought to trial.

Why is it that those who trash the Freeh report have logic and facts on their side and people on your side have nothing?"

You are so righteous, Marc. Loosen up that turtle neck a bit and have a grown up discussion for once. I never cited the Freeh report in my response. I asked Chad what he was arguing about and why people who associate the Sandusky crimes with PSU are stupid. Did crimes not take place on PSU's campus? Was Sandusky not allowed to roam free for a decade on that campus when leaders there knew he abused children?

-MC

Anonymous said...

"Marc Rubin said...
As for the boy in the Penn State shower: you have no facts about that either -- none. Only your beliefs. I dont care about your beliefs I only care about facts and if you care about other things and say facts dont count what does that make you?"

Okay, so Sandusky was not convicted on all but one count related to victim 2 in the shower at PSU? Am I missing something?

"Fact 1) McQueary told so many different stories to so many people no one knows what happened other than Sandusky was in the shower with the boy, something everyone agrees was innappropriate."

Is that really your idea of a "fact"? McQueary testified that he did not see penetration but saw Sandusky with a boy pressed up against the wall in the shower. He told his friend that he heard sexual sounds but did not see a sex act. That sex act would have been penetration, which is why Sandusky was not guilty on the first charge.

"Fact 2) the boy in the shower had seven years to say something to somebody about Sandsuky and unlike Sandusky's other victims never did."

Right, because we all know sexual abuse victims come out of such horrific events in great health and spirit, ready to tell everyone about what just happened to them. How does that advance your case at all?

"Fact 3) the same boy refused to testify against Sandusky at the grand jury hearing ( the "boy" is now in hsi 20's so its not a question of intimidation) and he also refused to testify against Sandusky at his trial."

Not a question of intimidation, Marc? The kid was abused by a grown man. I don't recall which victim it was but didn't one say he was threatened by the community because of his claims towards a beloved PSU coach?

"Youre assumptions about what happened in that shower and that the boy was abused at all ( aside from what all agree on -- Sandusky did in fact abuse others and may well have been using that shower to "groom" as experts have testified)is factually deficient and Id suggest you give up your assumptions in place of facts, and not "project" on to anyone else as psychologists say, your own belief in the hypothesis of others as a substitute for facts."

What did I project on you or others, Marc? That Sandusky is in jail for indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors and endangering welfare of children related to Victim 2? I am sorry for projecting such assumptions onto you. I know it must be hard to defend you "NO SEX ABUSE TOOK PLACE ON PSU'S CAMPUS" claim when a man is in jail for just that.

-MC

Anonymous said...

"The guy used his charity and his position at Penn State (what was it, emeritus status?) as a breeding ground for child molestation. The "humane" decision PSU's leadership came to was to let Sandusky have an all-access pass to the campus.."

Marc Rubin said...
"Again your assumptions without any facts. You base this on your assumption that you KNOW what McQueary told both Curley and Schultz. THEY claim he never told them of any rape or even sexual molesation, but claim he told them he saw some "horsing around"."

Okay, so Sandusky was guilty of 4-of-5 counts against him relating to Victim 2 in the PSU shower, right? You are allowed to use things like grand jury testimony as "facts" but I am not allowed to use verdicts in a criminal case? Doesn't make much sense.

"Is it true? I dont know. I also know YOU dont know either. But you just cant wait for a trial to see whats true."

What do I need to wait for the trial for? We are going to hear the testimony of two men who are on trial for PERJURY. Of course they and their lawyers are going to deny any knowledge of sexual abuse. We already had a trial where an eye witness testified that he saw Sandusky pressing a young boy up against the shower walls on PSU's campus.

"Certainly if anything related to any sexual activity was reported by McQueary,they were grossly negligent and so was Spanier in not banning him, and not re-opening the investigation. On the other hand if their assertions are true ( and I dont know if they are) that McQueary NEVER told either of them that anything sexual was going on ( he didnt tell family friend Dr. Dranov that either even though he was asked point blank if he saw anything sexual and McQueary said "no"), then its a whole different ball game isnt it? And all this would be for nothing."

McQueary told his friend that he heard sexual sounds. He did not tell his friend nor the jury that he saw penetration, rather a grown man pressing a boy up against the shower wall. If the lack of seeing penetration is all you are basing your argument on, best of luck to you.

-MC

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin said...
"That aside, with regards to Paterno, there is still not a single peice of proof of any kind anywhere, that he knew about the 1998 investigation or that he had anything to do with Curley's decision not to report. And before you dispute that, read the dictionary definition of "proof"."

Thank you, Marc. Your guidance through these discussions have opened my eyes to things like "proof" and "facts" and "fascists" and "idiots". When did I say anything about 1998? And what are you arguing? Did Paterno not know about 2001? Did he and a group of "leaders" not decide to keep this information from authorities? Was Jerry not allowed to roam free on PSU for another decade? For the 20th time - Should Paterno have kept his job? That is where your original argument stems from and you have never answered that question straight up.

-MC

Marc Rubin said...

"Okay, so Sandusky was not convicted on all but one count related to victim 2 in the shower at PSU? Am I missing something?"

Yes, your missing that what you think you know about what happened in the Penn State shower, your hypothosis or assumption that you know that Sandusky committed an abuse there is based on zero. Nothng. You know nothing about it.You dont know what actually happened.No one does. Except Sandusky and the boy and the boy now in his 20's had decided he doesnt want to talk. So your assumption that you do know what happened in that shower is nonsense. Thats what your missing.

Marc Rubin said...

"Did Paterno not know about 2001? Did he and a group of "leaders" not decide to keep this information from authorities?"

Thank you for proving my point about gullible people unable or unwilling to think for themselves.

What do you know about what Paterno knew in 2001?What do you know about Paterno deciding to "keep this information from authorities"? the answer is you know nothing. you dont have one shred of proof of that. You have Freeh saying it because he says it and you swallow it like a trained seal on a pedestal. You actually pretend like you dont need a definition of the word "proof" then like a parrot on Freeh's shoulder, simply say something as if it were fact and there WAS proof when there isnt and you dont have any.

You and people who think like you would have made a great German in 1939.

If you think thats wrong and you have "proof" of otherwise, then show the proof that Paterno had anything to do with any decision not to report to authorties.And when you cant do it, then maybe you should do what i suggested in the first place -- go look at a dictionary and educate yourself as to what the word "proof" means. You could use it.

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin said...
"But regarding what actually took place, no one really knows. So what you do think you know that a jury who deliberated for hours didnt? Your hypothesis?"

What took place, based on what you have always used as evidence/proof/facts:

- Indecent assault
- Unlawful contact with minors
- Corruption of minors
- Endangering welfare of children

All of this happened naked in a PSU shower with an old man and a 10 year old boy. That was based on testimony where an eye witness reported he saw something extremely sexual. The jury who deliberated for hours says so. I am not hypothesizing.

"One other fact I left out of my reply disputing your assumptions which are all based on hypothesis and not facts is, that a jury of 12 after hearing all the evidence, acquitted Sandusky of the counts against him regarding abuse of victim 2 in the Penn State shower after convicting him on 43 other counts, all of which involved Second Mile and none of which involved Penn State."

This should not be one sentence. Your comma usage is far from perfect as well. As for your response - name one assumption I have made in this thread based on my hypothesis. How are you seriously trying to say Sandusky was acquitted on all counts of abuse in the PSU shower? Assault. Unlawful contact. Corruption. Endangering welfare. Criminal acts have proven to have taken place in that PSU shower.

-MC

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin said...
"Yes, your missing that what you think you know about what happened in the Penn State shower, your hypothosis or assumption that you know that Sandusky committed an abuse there is based on zero. Nothng. You know nothing about it.You dont know what actually happened.No one does. Except Sandusky and the boy and the boy now in his 20's had decided he doesnt want to talk. So your assumption that you do know what happened in that shower is nonsense. Thats what your missing."

All right. So I have to wait on the testimony of men who are on trial for perjury to know something. However, you are allowed to make statements like no one knows what happened when a jury convicted Sandusky on four accounts thanks to McQueary's testimony? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin said...
"Thank you for proving my point about gullible people unable or unwilling to think for themselves."

Marc - Half of your responses lately have been in the question form. Think for YOURself or answer your own questions.

"What do you know about what Paterno knew in 2001?What do you know about Paterno deciding to "keep this information from authorities"? the answer is you know nothing. you dont have one shred of proof of that. You have Freeh saying it because he says it and you swallow it like a trained seal on a pedestal."

Hahahaha. Now I am beginning to think you aren't even serious. I have said a number of times that I have not cited the Freeh report or any of its findings once here. Your childish reliance on argument tactics such as this are more proof why you're about as credible as Freeh himself.

"You actually pretend like you dont need a definition of the word "proof" then like a parrot on Freeh's shoulder, simply say something as if it were fact and there WAS proof when there isnt and you dont have any."

Point out one thing I said that was not backed by proof.

"You and people who think like you would have made a great German in 1939."

Back to your history lessons when you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

"If you think thats wrong and you have "proof" of otherwise, then show the proof that Paterno had anything to do with any decision not to report to authorties."

I DO NOT HAVE TO! For our argument, it does not matter whether Paterno had anything to do with that decision not to report the incident to authorities. HE DID NOT REPORT THE INCIDENT TO AUTHORITIES. You used to try and say otherwise by claiming Schultz was "head of police services". Schultz did not report the incident to authorities. Curley didn't. Spanier didn't. McQueary didn't. What is your argument? Should Paterno have kept his job? Don't give me the argument that he was a sweet old man who must have done the right thing because his character said so. Should he have kept his job? Paterno admitted he knew about the allegations McQueary reported to him. They were serious enough to go to his "superior". They did NOTHING with the information.

To me, it can only get worse for your side. The BEST case scenario is that these guys knew but did nothing. That's awful.

-MC

Amarjeet Prasad said...

Very good and informative content. I really pleased with it.

private investigator licensing
private investigator license california

micheal clark said...

Great Post! It's very nice to read this info from someone that actually knows what they are talking about. Westlake Village Insurance