Monday, July 9, 2012

Penn State trustees hoping report will set them Freeh. It won't.*(comment on the released report follows this article.)




The report based on the investigation conducted by the private security and investigative firm headed by former FBI director Louis Freeh in the wake of the Sandusky incident is scheduled to be released this week and as might be expected, self serving leaks from Freeh are beginning to appear in the news media.

The first thing that needs to be said about Louis Freeh, the former director of the FBI whose firm was hired by Penn State to investigate and issue a report on the Sandusky matter, is that he was probably the least respected director of the FBI since Patrick Gray dumped a briefcase full of documents into the Potomac to help Richard Nixon's obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigation.

Freeh was considered to be a political hack by many members of congress, did not have a distinguished tenure as director of the FBI and does not have the squeaky clean and beyond reproach reputation as an objective observer that one would think Penn State would have insisted on to conduct, what is really nothing more than a PR gesture, a face saving attempt that was designed to ward off the criticism it suffered in the aftermath of the Sandusky revelations. Kind of like a politician or celebrity being caught in bed with a bunch of midgets and then announcing they are going into rehab. In other words the report will more political and PR show than anything else and the leaks coming from the report confirm it.

As recently as April 2012 Freeh was coming under attack by a congressional committee for his handling as a trustee for MF Global an invesment firm which went bankrupt after questionable dealings with its customers funds. Freeh was made a trustee whose responsibility included the return of misused customer funds in the amount of $1.6 billion something that still hadnt been done six months after Freeh became a trustee.

Ironically according to the New York Times report of April 18,2012, Freeh had come under harsh criticism because "he declined to share certain documents with regulators and his fellow trustee, James W. Giddens. In addition, a furor arose when it emerged that Mr. Freeh had been contemplating awarding bonuses to MF Global executives who remained at the firm". This after the firm bilked customers out of almost $2 billion.It is also a matter of record that Freeh was excoriated by the 911 Commission Hearings for his handling of terrorist related intelligence during his tenure as FBI director.  Former Republican governor Tom Kane, chair of the 911 Commission said of Freeh and the FBI under Freeh, " it failed, and it failed, and it failed and it failed". This is who Penn State officials hired to investigate the Sandusky incident, how it was handled and issue a report.

Given the mess already made by Penn State officials, it is almost comical that they would hire someone to do an  investigation by someone who themselves were attacked by a congressional committee for refusing to turn over documents to federal regulators.

Freeh's investigation and the report that will be issued, was entirely unnecessary in the first place. First because there has already been, if you want to believe in the competency of the DA's office and attorney general ( okay if you don't want to believe in their competency you'll find no argument here), an investigation by law enforcement and a thorough grand jury investigation that found no wrong doing on the part of Paterno, but indicted Curley and Schultz for perjury and failure to report child abuse ( adding to the Alice in Wonderland criticism of Paterno for "not doing enough" simply because the people he reported to didn't act on what they were told). And secondly because Freeh simply does not have the credentials or the credibility to conduct the investigation or judge anyone else's conduct.

So it should come as no surprise since Paterno was the cash cow in all this, the name and picture that rang the cash register, goosed the ratings and got the web hits, and since Freeh understands the politics and PR involved more than he understands anything else, it's expected that Paterno will be as much a focus of the report as he was the center of media attention and for the same self serving reasons. Its where the money is. ( if you doubt this, keep in mind that the ratio in the news media between Paterno's name and picture and Sandusky's during the first three weeks of the story was about 20-1 Paterno even though it was Sandusky who had committed the abuse).

The leaks  regarding the report from the Political Mr. Freeh that are starting to surface, primarily given to CNN, make the desperate overreaching of the report and its PR bent already apparent.

One of the aspects highlighted in the report and given to CNN is that emails will show that Paterno preferred to discipline football players who committed violations and infractions rather than turn that over to one time overseer of Student Affairs, Dr. Vicky Tripony, something that clearly infuriated her and made her enraged that her turf was being infringed upon by Paterno.

Tripony was in charge of disciplining students at Penn State and based on the calculated leaks from the report which included her emails, she was clearly the archetype of the disgruntled employee, infuriated that Paterno was allowed to be the one to discipline his players and not her.

The emails leaked by Freeh clearly shows a woman who feels her turf is being stepped on by Paterno and deeply resents it, something that Freeh exploits. In one email she complains to then university president Spanier, " I am very troubled by the manipulative, disrespectful, uncivil and abusive behavior of our football coach".

One can take that two ways. Either that is an accurate portrait of Joe Paterno as a man and coach over the span of 50 years and everyone knows it and just ignored it and covered it up, or Tripony as they say, has issues. Given that her reaction to Paterno is out of character with what everyone else has known about him for 50 years, its more likely Tripony has issues and might consider a newspaper delivered headline down as disrespectful.

Its pretty clear from what was leaked that Tripony had an ax to grind, and possibly with football players.Did she resent their receiving special treatment in other areas as they do at other schools and was looking forward to being particularly hard on them which was thwarted by Paterno? Maybe. And maybe the report will address these things but probably not.

One thing that would validate Tripony is if the report contains similar complaints by other vice presidents of Student Affairs at Penn State. After all Paterno was there for more than 50 years. But if she is the only one complaining, the only one disgruntled, the only one the report cites, then, she may be the one with the problem and everything she says can be dismissed.

Was Paterno protective of his players? Obviously. Overprotective? Possibly. Did any receive special treatment? Possibly. But what any of that has to do with Sandusky who was NOT a player and wasn't even part of the coaching staff at Penn State at the time of the incident having left years before, and making Tripony's tirade a part of a report about the Sandusky incident is beyond comprehension. Unless you realize its politics, PR, and an investigator with a predetermined slant.

Seizing on the ranting of a disgruntled employee who feels that her power was being usurped over an issue that is a million light years removed from the real issues at hand, is, in this situation as in countless others, the product of a political hack. Which is the reputation Freeh had in Washington. And Tripony, if subjected to cross examination on a witness stand, would probably be torn to shreds.

Somehow Freeh wants us to think that Tripony's frustration at her inability to discipline football players with the same authority she had over other students, has something to do with allegations against someone who was not a football player or member of the Penn State coaching staff, his predatory behavior, Paterno's reporting what he was told about it to higher ups, and their failures to do their job and do, according to one email by Curley " what everyone agreed we would do".

Unless the Freeh investigation results in new, substantial and heretofore unreported facts that are actionable, the report is nothing more than a political stunt and PR gesture bought and paid for by Penn State officials who have handled the entire affair miserably from the beginning.

Regarding the cache of emails recently discovered and the leaking of one in particular which CNN publicized and twisted for their own gain and profit, then pulled after 2 days, Don Vannata of ESPN Magazine reported that a source who has seen all the emails ( clearly someone either inside the DA's office or Freeh's organization) told him emphatically that the leaked email was "definitely taken out of context", and was selectively chosen because it was the one email that" put everyone in the worst possible light". Sounds like Freeh.

So there is no reason to believe that any "report" coming from Freeh is going to be free ( no pun intended) of politics, manipulation, public relations and bias. That, according to leaks,  the report is going to focus mostly on the Penn State football program going back decades and is going to be critical of the culture of the football program under Paterno, is pretty much proof that Freeh's report had nothing to say regarding anything that matters. Just pad it with irrelevancies so Penn State can think they got their moneyworth.And let it adhere to the already established storyline.

If anyone believes the culture of the football program had anything with do with Sandusky's predatory behavior and had anything to do with how Curley, Schultz and Spanier handled what Paterno and McQueary told them, good luck. And never play poker. Sandusky had been severed from the football program for years before the shower incident took place and almost all the victims Sandusky came in contact with came to him from his Second Mile charity.

If all the report has to talk about is the Penn State football program going back decades then it has nothing to talk about and has nothing to say about any of the facts that matter. And why this matters beyond Paterno and Penn State is because the news media has ruined politics and policy in this country for decades because they have an agenda that is designed more for their own money making self interest than anything else and fact don't matter.  And second rate politicians always play along. Paterno and the media's treatment of his role is just the most recent and visible example.

The issue in question was what McQueary witnessed in the shower, what Paterno told Curley and Schultz and what was and was not done about it. Not what the culture was at Penn State football twenty years ago. Or for the past 50 years for that matter. Again if that's all Freeh has to talk about he has nothing to talk about ( and let's not forget that what McQueary testified to under oath at Sandusky's trial was so vague and inconclusive, the jury acquitted Sandusky of the count against him based on what McQueary saw in the shower while convicting him of 45 other counts. One can only imagine how vague the account was he gave to Paterno).

If Freeh presents evdience that Paterno influenced Curley and Schultz not to report what McQueary said he witnessed, (which every shred of evidence collected by law enforcement, Paterno's grand jury testimony and public statements disputes) then Paterno would be guilty of not reporting child abuse and more  If Paterno did talk Curley into dealing with Sandusky "internally" which contradicts Paterno's public statements and grand jury testimony ( something that borders on the preposterous) he would be guilty. But one would think that under those circumstances, Curley and Schultz would have testified to that to the grand jury .

But the comment Paterno made that addresses this very issue was " with the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more" ( not,by the way, that he "didn't do enough".) Being instrumental in keeping the allegation against Sandusky quiet and "internal" and talking Curley and Schultz out of reporting it when they had agreed they would is admittedly is a far cry from wishing he had done more. But if there is no evidence of that, then the Freeh report is a far cry from anything of value and is just a PR stunt and a waste of Penn State's money.

That Freeh turned up anything substantial or that will contradict what we already know regarding Paterno's actions which was part of  the key issue he was supposed to be investigating, is not likely considering he had no subpoena power,  no authority to investigate, could not compel cooperation from anyone, could not seize or even look at documents without the permission and cooperation of those in possession of those documents,( the emails of Schultz and Curley were the property of Penn State)  and anyone who wanted to tell him to go jump in the lake could have without any legal repercussions. That he came up with nothing new is why the advance word is that Freeh's report will focus on 50 years of the Penn State football program under Paterno.

There is no way the Freeh report is going to be objective about Paterno because Freeh being the political animal that he is,  will not leave himself open to media criticism that he let Paterno "off the hook". The media has their ground to defend, so do the trustees and Freeh, being a product of Washington DC politics, and not exactly revered for his objectivity during his tenure at the FBI, knows it. It is also beyond comprehension that he didnt interview members of the Paterno family, that they had to ASK to be interviewed and that he declined.

Freeh is very aware that the report will be the biggest news story in the country the day it's released, will be widely disseminated, widely read, reported on, picked apart and analyzed by the media in print, TV and radio, and talked about for days. His already shaky reputation and that of his business has a lot riding on the public  reaction to the report which will be publicly defined by the media.

So it goes without saying he is not going to issue a report that in any way deviates from the storyline already established by the press or risk criticism by the media. That would be a PR nightmare for him and his business. If you think otherwise you are exactly the kind of person the report will be designed to influence -- the press and people who cant or wont think for themselves. And as Freeh knows, and as we've already seen, there are a whole lot of those.

There is one overriding fact that needs to be kept in mind throughout all this. All of the criticism leveled at Paterno by the media stemmed from just one thing --  the idea that Paterno "didn't do enough" with what McQueary told him about the shower incident he witnessed, in "only" reporting it to Curely and Schultz.( though not one Paterno critic anywhere at anytime ever said what they thought was "enough".)

Yet a jury of 12 men and women, presented with all the facts in a court of law, more facts than Paterno ever had and who heard McQueary's full unsanitized testimony under oath, not the sanitized  version he says he gave Paterno-- those 12 men and women after hearing McQueary's testimony acquitted Sandusky of the charges of child sexual abuse against him stemming from the shower incident at Penn State that McQueary says he witnessed.

If 12 jurors after hearing McQueary's testimony, after being given all the facts, after convicting Sandusky of 45 other counts of child sexual abuse, and having all the time they needed to  deliberate, decided that Sandusky was not guilty of the criminal conduct in that shower that was behind all the media frenzy, what exactly was Paterno supposed to do with even less information  beyond what he did -- -- report what he was given by McQueary to Curly and Schultz as per Penn State guidelines and protocols within 24 hours and arrange for McQueary to tell them his story face to face.

 For anyone missing the common sense or honesty to answer that for themselves , 12 members of a jury answered it for them. And that answer was as valid six months ago when all this became public, ten years ago when the incident occurred, in 2009 when the grand jury began investigating and now. And the answer is: nothing more.

And for those who still insist on claiming that Joe Paterno himself said he "didn't do enough", that's not what he said. He said "with the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more." Which when it comes to being accurate and honest about what was written about Paterno, and honestly reporting the facts, is what every member of the media should be saying to themselves now. And they don't need a Freeh report to know it The real report is already in.  Now with the Freeh Report, its time to send in the clowns.

ON THE REPORT:

The report was released this morning. As expected most of the conclusions drawn from the report are based solely on opinion, most of it laughable and wouldnt be admissable in a court of law. However there is one sentence that matters: According to the written report (most of which by the way reads like the political hatchet job that was expected),  "Curley consulted with Paterno following sex abuse allegations against Sandusky and they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities".

As written earlier, if that turns out to be true then yes, Paterno would be guilty of covering up and would have been derelict in his responsibilities. However all the concrete evidence does not, repeat,does not, support that  in any way, and that includes all the evidence, testimony, grand jury testimony and fact finding by Pennsylvania law enforcement.

Unless there is concrete evidence, and I mean evidence, not opinion, and not the kind of conclusion based on opinion that would be thrown out of court, unless there is proof of this beyond a reasonable doubt, the dishonesty of that sentence discredits the entire report and discredits Freeh as a political hack more than he already is.

That sentence if true,  if there are heretofore unreported facts and evidence to back it up, ( and given the report is 200 pages it will take time to see if there is), it would make the attorney general, Pennsylvania law enforcement and the DA a collection of incompetent clowns, make Joe Paterno a liar and make Curley and Schultz flat out guilty of perjury and child endangerment along with Spanier. Either that will be the case,  or  the incompetent clown who failed in his responsibilites will be Louis Freeh.

If that conclusion is based solely on a questionable,  intentionally self serving and distorted interpretation of that one email from Curley to Spanier that was leaked to the press and nothing else, if Curley, Spanier, Schultz and Paterno's family all deny there was a second meeting, if McQueary knew nothing about it, if there is no evidence of it, if Curley denies a second conversation with Paterno and denies he had anything to do with Curley changing his mind, if there is nothing but that email to assert that allegation,  then this report becomes one of the most insidious, discredited dishonest hatchet jobs and peice of self serving garbage in recent memory related to a public event and Louis Freeh's reputation will be mud for all time.

If on the other hand, the report contains evidence, the kind of evidence that would stand up in court, that this assertion is true, and not the product of self serving twisted speculation,  that with Paterno's knowledge and influence, the plan to report the abuse was changed and Paterno was complicit in the decision not to report the abuse to authorities contrary to his public statements then, while it does nothing to exonnerate the news media for its factually dishonest reporting on everything else in the past, it will be a sad day for Paterno's legacy.

But,on face value, given Paterno's lifelong reputation and integrity, and given Freeh's history of incompetence, lack of integrity, and reputation as a Washington game player,  the report will have to have concrete evidence, the kind of evidence that we, as a jury will find to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, and  not the opinion of a previously discredited political hack, that will decide that question.














60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I have this right. You are outraged over the Freeh report and the media response. You are SO outraged that you cannot wait to read the report or the media response before expressing your outrage. Is this some sort of psychological "preemptive strike"? Obviously, you expect the Freeh report to contain criticism of Paterno. Your inability to tolerate the slightest criticism of Paterno has upset you to the point where you must defend him against attacks which exist at the moment only in your mind.

Why do you attribute the worst of motives to everyone, Freeh, the BOT, ESPN, NYT, WSJ, the Kamchatka Picayune, the Grand Jury, the PSU administration, in fact, everyone except Joe Paterno? Why have you placed a single human being, who, I'm sure, didn't know you from Adam, above all mammals on the planet? Creepy.

Aurabass said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PSU85Dave said...

If I remember the Vicky Triponey issue correctly, she wanted to be sole judge, jury and arbitor of all student discipline. Joe stepped up to the plate for all students, not just football players, so that a valid appeals process remained in spite of her reign of terror over students.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to you, I don't have to waste time reading the Freeh report or even articles about the Freeh report. I can just wait for the movie version, "Rape Time in Happy Valley". Is there any chance that you could do the same psychic spin on the Presidential debates? You know, tell us what they'll say and whether it's true or not. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in politics and the debates often conflict with half-decent mid-week MAC games on ESPN.

Also, can the last-ditch Joe supporters give up their endless fascination with whether McQueary heard the sounds of "ass slapping", "ass tapping", "ass smacking" or "ass flapping" in that shower? I'm uncomfortable with all this "ass talk". Let's all agree that Sandusky and that kid weren't making corn dollies.

Aurabass said...

Incredibly insightful post Marc. Since the release of the blatant LIE that was the Grand Jury Presentment the media narrative had it that Mike McQueary SAW anal intercourse and told Joe, the AD and the VP that.

McQueary himself under oath has denied that he ever used those words and that his observation was 1 or 2 second glances and 2 or 3 slapping sounds he thought were "sexual" McQueary's actual testimony is here for anyone who wishes to know the truth. http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/07/let-mikey-try-it-or-mm-dilemma.html

Aurabass said...

Too bad Anonymous couldn't take the time to read the actual testimony of Mike McQueary to find out for himself. Mike caught "one or two second glances" and heard "2 or 3 slapping sounds" that could have been feet on a wet floor or hands on a wet wall or a palm against a stomach or thigh.
Based on those 2 or 3 slaps Mike said
"I already made a mental note and visualizations came into my mind. I didn't want to be there and wanted to get out quickly" BEFORE he even glanced at the backside of Sandusky through a mirror. He expected to see sex with two adults. He visualized it.
When the boy showed no pain or distress and did not cry out or ask for help McQueary was confused and baffled and he fled the scene.
So you chose to believe this muddled account by a 27 year old man who would leave a rape victim in a shower with his accuser over 3 very accomplished and conscientious professionals? In 2001 before you knew of any of this you think McQueary would be more credible with his brief glances and slaps that a charity founder and foster father of SIX?
READ THE DAMNED TESTIMONY PLEASE
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/07/let-mikey-try-it-or-mm-dilemma.html IT ONLY TAKES MINUTES TO BE INFORMED

Anonymous said...

For Godsakes, leave that poor kid's ass alone! How would you like a bunch of Penn State alumni talking endlessly about YOUR ass?Don't you have something else to talk about? What is this obsession with the pre-adolescent ass?

Aurabass said...

This adolescent you seem to be so concerned about has never been identified. And it seems quite clear his ass was never abused. At least that was the verdict of the jury.

You seem very concerned about this unidentified boys ass. Yet you refuse to read the testimony of the main witness against Penn State and Joe Paterno - and Tim Curley and Gary Schultz?

Some facts would do you a world of good but you have to read them to get the benefit of the TRUTH
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/07/let-mikey-try-it-or-mm-dilemma.html

Marc Rubin said...

"For Godsakes, leave that poor kid's ass alone! How would you like a bunch of Penn State alumni talking endlessly about YOUR ass?Don't you have something else to talk about? What is this obsession with the pre-adolescent ass?"

Good question. Why don't you ask it of Sean Gregory at Time magazine, ESPN, the Philadelphia Daily News and every other news outlet in the country

Aurabass said...

And by the way Anonymous - I'm not some Penn State Alumnus. I am a graduate of the Univ of Tennessee with no ties to PSU and no love for Paterno.
I do however value the truth and despise officials like AG Linda Kelly who abuse their positions for political gain.
Copy and past this into your address window and LEARN http://notpsu.blogspot.com/

Marc Rubin said...

"Let me see if I have this right. You are outraged over the Freeh report.."

No you dont have it right and you managed to get it wrong right from the beginning after only 15 words.

Funny how people like you substitute their own delusions or outright distortions and misreprentations of what was actually written, make up your own version instead of whats right in front of your face, get it all wrong, then comment on your version as if that was what was presented and do it with incredulity. Its a microcasm of everytying the media did and got wrong about the entire Sandusky matter with regards to Paterno. Maybe you should be a journalist.

Marc Rubin said...

"Thanks to you, I don't have to waste time reading the Freeh report or even articles about the Freeh report. I can just wait for the movie version, "Rape Time in Happy Valley" "

Based on the level of your reading comprehension displayed in your comment I dont think reading anything will do you much good.

Aurabass said...

http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/

The independent report by Judge Louis Freeh and his law firm, Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP, into the facts and circumstances of the actions of The Pennsylvania State University surrounding the child abuse committed by a former employee, Gerald A. Sandusky, will be published on this website at 9 a.m. Eastern on Thursday, July 12, 2012. Please visit this website at that time.http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/

I'm sure we all can't wait for this crap to hit the net.

Anonymous said...

"If 12 jurors after hearing McQueary's unsanitized testimony, after being given all the facts, after convicting Sandusky of 45 other counts of child sexual abuse, and having all the time in the world to deliberate, decided that Sandusky did nothing in that shower that rose to the level of criminal conduct what exactly did the mindless media think Paterno was supposed to do with even less information beyond what he did -- -- report what he was given by McQueary to Curly and Schultz as per Penn State guidelines and protocols within 24 hours, a version less specific and less detailed and more vague than the version McQueary gave a jury of 12 who acquitted Sandusky of charges from same incident in the Penn State showers."

Your statement above that the jury decided that Sandusky did nothing in the shower that rose to the level of criminal conduct is a lie. You and the other Penn State alumni who keep repeating it should be ashamed of yourselves. The jury acquitted Sandusky of only one of the five counts relating to Victim 2, the shower kid; he was convicted of the other four counts as follows:


VICTIM 2

Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty

That this lie in being spread all over the internet by Penn State alumni is despicable. Stop it.

Anonymous said...

In order to excuse Paterno's conduct, is it necessary to lie about what happened to that kid in the shower? Will nothing less than Sanducky's innocence in the shower rape absolve Paterno? If so, what do the Paterno cultists do about the guilty verdicts in Counts 8-11? They lie about them. That's what they do. You guys make me sick.

Aurabass said...

M1EK from BSD has found his way here to repeat the same misleading claim.

The charge of indecent assault - a misdemeanor is upheld because the jury was convinced by the testimony of 8 real victims that Sandusky used the showers as part of his grooming behavior. A prelude to sexual intent.
The same is true of the endangering, corrupting, and unlawful contact charges. They all are confirmed by his presence with the boy in the shower based on a pattern of behavior established by the victims.
Sandusky being in that shower with the boy without the other victims and the pattern of grooming behavior would have been acquitted if the non-existent unidentified victim was the only case.

M1EK knows this and his claim here is without any merit. His claim is the LIE

Aurabass said...

"In order to excuse Paterno's conduct, is it necessary to lie about what happened to that kid in the shower? Will nothing less than Sanducky's innocence in the shower rape absolve Paterno? If so, what do the Paterno cultists do about the guilty verdicts in Counts 8-11? They lie about them. That's what they do. You guys make me sick."

Your illness has nothing to do with facts or Mike McQueary's testimony under oath. Mike's one or two second glances and 2 or 3 slapping sounds were insufficient evidence of any crime in 2001.

The evidence of it being a crime came from a pattern of behavior established by the 8 victims - not the unidentified boy involved in 2001.

You get sick because your insistence that Joe Paterno or the AD or VP were not convinced by Mike's 1 or 2 second glances and his inability to confirm what he thought he might have visualized?

I guess I could get pretty sick of anyone who wished to see good men maligned over such an incident. If McQueary actually witnessed a child being raped I would be pretty sick knowing he did nothing to stop it.

Anonymous said...

Where in the words Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, do you find all this reliance by the jury on "grooming" evidence? Are you as psychic as the guy who did a psychic reading of the unpublished Freeh report and found it biased? You pulled this despicable lie about that poor kid out of your ass. Stop it.

Anonymous said...

The obvious answer to everyone's questions is for Penn State alumni to set up one those 900 number "telepsychic" lines. Then, we won't be limited to psychic readings of unpublished reports and "mind melds" with the Sandusky jury; we can hold a "teleseance" with Joe himself.

Anonymous said...

This just in from Miss Cleo, the Jamaican Telepsychic : There is a typo on page 68 of the Freeh report, "beggary" should read "buggery". Are the Happy Valley psychics on this blog getting the same message as Miss Cleo?

Aurabass said...

"Where in the words Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, do you find all this reliance by the jury on "grooming" evidence? Are you as psychic as the guy who did a psychic reading of the unpublished Freeh report and found it biased? You pulled this despicable lie about that poor kid out of your ass. Stop it."

Obviously anyone with a modicum of intelligence will find it in the testimony, the facts of the case, and a working knowledge of the Dranov and McQueary Testimony.

Aurabass said...

The Dranov and McQueary testimonies were the only ones requested to be re-read by the jury.
Dranov said Mike told him about seeing a boy come out of the shower and an arm reach out and drag him back in.
He also testified that the boy showed no fear or shock
He also said he asked Mike 3 times if he had seen a sex act and Mike said no – that he heard a sex act.
The jury then voted NOT GUILTY on the main McQueary claim of intercourse but they upheld the grooming charges based on the pattern established by all 8 real victims. They believed that JS presence in the shower with that boy was proof of an intent to groom him for later sex acts.
It’s really quite that simple.

Aurabass said...

It's a clear choice
Either believe the bs of some anonymous internet poster
or
rely on the good judgement of 3 men who heard McQueary's muddled account of 2 or 3 slapping sounds termed "sexual" and a couple of 1 or 2 second glances and found it not credible evidence of anal intercourse.

For me that's a very easy choice. I've read and studied McQueary's testimony. I know what it says and it is not credible evidence of intercourse.

It's just that simple.

Aurabass said...

This just in from Miss Cleo, the Jamaican Telepsychic : There is a typo on page 68 of the Freeh report, "beggary" should read "buggery". Are the Happy Valley psychics on this blog getting the same message as Miss Cleo?

Who's the Happy Valley Telepsychic?
Since I'm a U of TN grad who has written over 50 articles on this subject that thoroughly study the testimony: http://notpsu.blogspot.com
and you are the anonymous poster who is blathering on without a shred of back up for your position?

I'll bet most readers will favor the opinion of the most informed and those that don't aren't worth a lick of concern.

Anonymous said...

So let's see. Jerry wasn't buggering that kid. As suggested by one bright soul on this blog, Jerry was actually simultaneousy slapping one hand against the wall, slapping the other hand against his own stomach and slapping both of his feet against the floor of the shower. I can understand this. I understand that pedophiles often do a Maori war dance in the shower as a tribute to their victim.

Aurabass said...

A STATEMENT FROM THE PATERNO FAMILY

Over the last nine months Joe Paterno has been praised by some in near saintly terms and criticized by others as a villain. He was neither.

As the people who worked closely with Joe know, he was tough, aggressive, opinionated and demanding. He was also highly principled, uncompromisingly ethical, dedicated to his job at Penn State and committed to excellence.

When the Sandusky case exploded last fall, Joe’s first instincts were to tell everything he knew. He assumed the University would want to hear from him, but he was never given the chance to present his case.

He planned to hold a press conference, but University officials ordered him to cancel it. And then the various investigations started and the legal process took over. On top of everything else, Joe was diagnosed with lung cancer. Two months later he was gone. The end result is his story has never fully been told.

As this situation unfolded, Joe cautioned everyone not to jump to conclusions. He believed that a rush to judgment and a disregard for due process would ultimately result in conclusions that would not stand the test of time. To be clear, he did not fear the truth, he sought it. As much as anyone he wanted to know exactly what Jerry Sandusky had done and he wanted to understand how it happened.

The hiring of the Freeh Group is the single most important action the Board of Trustees has taken. Joe supported this decision with the hope that it would result in a thorough, balanced and thoughtful assessment of the Sandusky tragedy. Unfortunately, recent events have raised questions about the fairness and confidentiality of the investigative process.

Over the last several weeks there has been a virtual torrent of leaks about the Freeh Group’s work. To be clear, we do not know the source, or sources, of the leaks. What cannot be disputed, however, is that select emails intended to smear Joe Paterno and other former Penn State officials have been released. Testimony from witnesses highly critical of Joe has been revealed. And purported conclusions condemning the culture of the football program have been widely disseminated. The Board promised a fair, transparent and impartial process. These developments are a threat to their stated objectives.

When these leaks first started we appealed to the Freeh Group, the Board and the Attorney General to condemn the leaks and caution the public that it would be wrong to reach any conclusions from selectively released materials. We then asked that all emails and other documents be released so a full picture of their research could be understood.

As purported conclusions started leaking out, we followed up with the Freeh Group to ask for the right to respond. Since Joe Paterno never had an opportunity to present his case, we believe we should have a reasonable time to review their findings and offer information that could help complete the picture. We were told we could offer responses to the publicly reported allegations, but the Freeh Group declined to confirm that these allegations are in the final report. It is our firm belief that the report would be stronger and more credible if we were simply given a chance to review the findings concerning Joe Paterno in order to present the case he was never allowed to make.

Since the outcome of this process appears set in stone, we have no choice but to wait for the report and respond as best we can. Given that the report is estimated to be between 100-150 pages it will understandably take us some time to study it and prepare a comprehensive response.

Aurabass said...

PATERNO FAMILY STATEMENT CONCLUDED

In advance of the release of the report, there are a few facts we want on the record:

We would still welcome a chance to meet with the Freeh Group to review the findings and offer a response. We do not seek or expect the right to edit the report; but we believe our voice should be reflected in its conclusions.
To this point, Joe Paterno is the only person who publicly acknowledged that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he had done more. This was an honest and courageous admission that a true leader must assume a measure of responsibility when something goes wrong on his watch.
The sad and frightening fact is Jerry Sandusky was a master deceiver. He fooled players, coaches, law enforcement officials, child service professionals, Penn State Board members, University leaders, neighbors, donors, staff and supporters of Second Mile and his family.
With respect to the email from Tim Curley which stated, “After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps,” the media spin that this is proof of some sort of cover up is completely false. When the facts come out, it will be clear that Joe Paterno never gave Tim Curley any instructions to protect Sandusky or limit any investigation of his actions.
Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky. Joe Paterno did not know that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile. Joe Paterno did not act in any way to prevent a proper investigation of Jerry Sandusky. To claim otherwise is a distortion of the truth.
If he were with us today, we are certain Joe Paterno would say that he wished he had done any number of things differently. We also believe he would make it clear that he was not an investigator, law enforcement officer, child services professional or a member of the Board of Trustees. Joe would accept his responsibility, but he would expect others to step forward as well.

Aurabass said...

So let's see. Jerry wasn't buggering that kid. As suggested by one bright soul on this blog

Actually we will never know what he was doing with that kid. What we do know is that Mike's one or two second glances and 2 or 3 slapping sounds were insufficient to know what he was doing. So said the jury and so says Mike's testimony.

Aurabass said...

ANONYMOUS - any and all of you

If you wish to continue discussion of your position and mine I offer this site where discussion is much less restricted. Where images and quotes and links can be provided. And you don't have to decipher those ridiculous words and numbers to post.

Join me there if you want a reply
Copy and paste this into your address window.

http://notpsu.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1&page=1

Anonymous said...

As a Penn State football alum, I am ashamed to admit that my teammates and I laughed at what we called "Coach Jerry's Slap Happy Dance". We were just kids. We had no idea that we were witnessing a Maori War Dance (with authentic grunts), a heart-felt salute to the indigenous people of New Zealand. I cringe when I think of how we mocked Coach Jerry behind his back, of how, after Coach left the shower, we became a bunch of gruntin', foot-stompin', ass-slappin', ball-flappin' maniacs. Can you forgive us, Coach?

Anonymous said...

Reports are that McQueary has repeatedly asked to speak with Freeh, and Freeh refused.

Interesting.



PSU7882

Anonymous said...

"I'll bet most readers will favor the opinion of the most informed and those that don't aren't worth a lick of concern"

That's the spirit - believe me or you are an idiot. No need to understand other points of view when you can just blog about your own, ignore all others and bask in the glory of the 164 non-unique page views you tally up. Bravo.

Marc - the post itself is better than before. I don't believe Schultz is referred to as the Head of Police so we can finally agree that Paterno and company never went to authorities.

The wish I had done more vs. he did enough debate is reaching at best. Paterno is by no means the villain. He and a few other leaders learned of potential sex abuse and never passed that information on to authorities. Plain and simple. We all have our own definitions of enough and more but those are the facts.

You still have not stated your case on what should have been done with Paterno. Assuming he did "enough" by your estimation, should he have kept his job? Where did the 20-to-1 Paterno to Sandusky ratio come from btw? Estimation? Credible research? Just curious.

The one part I had a problem with was this: "Sandusky had been severed from the football program for years before the shower incident took place and almost all the victims Sandusky came in contact with came to him from his Second Mile charity." What do you mean by "severed"? Relieved of his coaching duties but granted access to every PSU facility without restriction?

The half-truths used by yourself and Aurabass are evidence of your need to be right and display a general unwillingness to listen. You two are so obsessed with being the righteous ones but offer no alternative to the outlined problems at hand. Aurabass - you have all the answers... What happened in that shower and how should the university have handled leadership of the football team and others?

Anonymous said...

I can't believe anyone would try to say that kid in the shower wasn't raped. I think it is a perfect example of the cult of Penn State football that led to this terrible incident.

Ross Henry said...

It's curious to me why the people that are against Penn State in this column hide behind their anonymity, but those that are arguing for our school proudly put their names on their comments.

Anonymous said...

You refer to whether Joe was complicit in the decision not to report "the abuse" to the authorities. Does this mean that you now acknowledge that Victim 2 WAS abused in the Penn State shower? Have you abandoned your "Maori War Dance" defense of Sandusky's actions in that shower? Thank God. On one level, the preoccupation of Penn State alumni with "ass" noises in the shower seemed like harmless fun. But on another level, it was a poisonous denial of the suffering of that boy in the shower. I commend you for splitting from your fellow alumni in this regard.

James Ala said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Penn State alumni who put forth childish media-bias defenses of Paterno and Sandusky are beginning to infect the student body. Just today, the Daily Collegian reported that 30 "student leaders" at Penn State consider the Sandusky affair, the rapes, the cover-up, to be a "little glitch" in the glorious history of Penn State.

A little glitch.

Student leaders.

Weep for Penn State.

James Ala said...

Sigh, just about par for the course. An ad hominem abusive attack from Mr. Rubin and an unleashing of non-sequiturs from Rubin's Mini-Me Arabass.

Shall we drill down and look at the results of the trial so we have a notion of how serious Mr. Sandusky's fifteen year not-so-excellent misadventure was? Yes, let's.

Guilty of 45 of 48 charges. For baseball fans that is an unheard of .937 batting average. There is a good chance that Sandusky will never leave prison, will only exit via the grave. Looked at this way, Sandusky was guilty of a series of crimes that netted life in prison. That is fairly serious stuff.

It would have been more than wonderful that Pa Joe was able to give an account of those fifteen years. I do wonder why Pa Joe was not a little more curious about what was going on in his sports complex. I'm a little curious why Pa Joe never bothered to get the full details from Sandusky or the minor.

By the time the story exploded on the national media (causing no small amount of collateral damage to Jo Pa, Penn State, State law enforcement, College football, etc, etc, etc,) it was no longer a matter of Jo Pa getting his story out because:

1. Hello, criminal complaint, we have an alleged pedophile to try, we will get to your "issues" later.

2. Oops-aw-shucks, Jo Pa died. Unfortunately our law being what it is, dead people can not be slandered or libeled. On the up side, they can not be prosecuted either.

I do find it passing strange that Penn State wanted a report in which:

"The results of a seven-month investigation by former FBI Director Louis Freeh spare no one at the top of the Penn State hierarchy and could open a wave of legal action against the university three weeks after Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts of molesting 10 boys over a 15-year period.'

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155909/louis-freeh-issues-blistering.html

That's an odd bit of PR / Spin / Whitewash that opens you up for every Ambulance chaser in the state to sue you to smithereens.

Tell me oh twice wise muses two, how " “Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State,” Freeh said in the report. “The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children.”

Those men included Paterno, former president Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz. The report’s authors concluded that the four men “never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky’s arrest.” comes up roses for Jo Pa.

The basic story reported by the media was right Marc. The basic story is that things were rotten in Happy Valley for a long time. The basic story of the rot reaching up to the very highest levels of Penn State, and its Athletic Program, lead by Jo Pa, was correct. There is enough evidence to support moral turpitude on Joe Pa's part. There is more than enough evidence to show that even the great Jo Pa had a blind spot, a gap in his moral compass. And that blind spot, that gap, utterly ruined the man in the end.

Remember, all it takes is one really disastrous oops-aw-shucks to turn a golden legend to lead. The Jerry Sanders affair was that oops for Jo Pa.

Paterno failed to do due diligence, he failed to investigate what was going on in his own facilities. He allowed Sanders to run amok. Paterno never checked up what was going on in those showers, never bothered to ask. He was deep in the sin of Omission.

Jerry Sanders may have steered the vaunted Penn State Football Program on to the rocks, but Jo Pa, the captain of that ship, is still responsible because Jo Pa gave Sanders the wheel.

The rot at Penn State began and was most advanced at the head; that head was Joe Paterno. You can't blame the media for smelling the rot, only for possibly exaggerating the oder.

Anonymous said...

So, Jerry Sandusky was convicted, but you think his name is Jerry Sanders.

Which proves you know absolutely nothing about this.

Literally nothing.

Anonymous said...

So because you bought into the false persona of Paterno you now wallow in denial. Ignore the evidence and testimony because you want to believe the FACTS don't matter if they come from people you don't hold in the same regard of the failure of a human being that was Joe.

Sorry but it's a fact Paterno enabled and empowered one of the worst child predators of our time. If you can't see how f'ing horrific an act that is then you are pretty much worthless as a human being.

Anonymous said...

There was one sentence that jumped out at you, Marc.

There was another that jumped out at me. It concerned the 1998 investigation, and why no charges were filed then. After mentioning that Ray Gricar is (presumably) no longer with us, it mentions another prosecutor, though not by name:

"The prosecutor assigned to the Sandusky case declined to be interviewed by the Special Investigative Counsel"

Huh? Does this prosecutor have a name? A boss? (Ultimately, that would be Corbett, right?)

This all could have been over in 1998. No coverup, the police and prosecutors were on it. And ... nothing.

Without this, we know nothing.



PSU7882

Anonymous said...

"Sanders" was Sandusky's "nom de sodomie" within the Penn State pedophile community. If you don't know this, you know nothing. Literally nothing. Try to stay up with the rest of the class.

Anonymous said...

I didn't think much of that report was very ground-breaking. I have said all along that going to a VP who has 1/1000th of Paterno's prestige/power/influence (and no police oversight, despite what Marc will write) with something like this and never following up is lazy, irresponsible and more than justifies the firing.

I have yet to see a Paterno backer lay out a plan for what the BOTs should have done other than clean house. In all honesty, that move might have saved the program and I think you will look back on it in a different light some day. Who's left to punish? Any sanctions to the current leaders and players would be a waste of time. Sandusky and the leaders who failed these young boys are going to jail for a long, long time. Beyond that, I see a football program that can likely begin repairing it's image as early as tomorrow.

As for Marc and Aurabass and others still backing Paterno... Do so for the right reasons. Back him for being a great coach who led an excellent team; not for "rising to the occasion" in the case of victim 2. He simply did not. There is no more hiding behind the half truths regarding the "head of police services" or the acquittal of one charge stemming from victim 2 or using the word purported over and over again. Schultz was a VP. Victim 2 was abused whether McQueary saw penetration or not. The emails are real. Paterno knew as early as '98. Sandusky was never severed from PSU. In fact he was treated very well and given access everywhere.

Again, the Freeh report doesn't change much for my stance. I am not pretending to be the omnipotent/righteous fact-lover that you and Aurabass are. I call it how I see it and Paterno failed here. Suggesting everyone else is to blame for the firing is simply irresponsible and you offer no alternative.

Anonymous said...

As a faithful follower of this blog, I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say, that Judge Freeh did not include an in-depth analysis of the slapping noises in the shower. In fact, His Honor was openly contemptuous of the Gang of Four's defense that nothing sexual was reported to them. Is he completely unaware of the Maori War Dance Theory, a theory beloved by Penn State alumni everywhere? Yes, the difference between the sound of wall slapping and the sound of ass slapping may be slight, but an experienced jurist like Freeh should be able to tell the difference. Thank God for fora like this one, where Penn State "Zen masters" can contemplate the sound of one ass clapping.

Anonymous said...

"But,on face value, given Paterno's lifelong reputation and integrity, and given Freeh's history of incompetence, lack of integrity, and reputation as a Washington game player,  the report will have to have concrete evidence, the kind of evidence that we, as a jury will find to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, and  not the opinion of a previously discredited political hack, that will decide that question."

What are you defending here? Aside from the poor sentence structure I see nothing of note in your response to the report. You do not refute claims with evidence, yet you cry out for cold hard facts from the other side. Your only defense (which would not hold up in the court of law) is that Freeh is a hack. You never go after the fact that Paterno knew about the '98 and '01 incidents but did nothing beyond go to his VP. I see no responses on this thread that even hint at the "after talking it over with Joe" comment as being evidence of a Paterno cover-up. You are assuming others are thinking that.

This is simply more finger pointing from a blogger who is down to his last resort. Help us understand your point of view by stating it. We know you idolize Joe and hate every person who has every written for any news outlet with more than 100 followers. You also see Freeh and his team's report that PSU commissioned as bogus on the basis that no evidence was uncovered. However, there are emails suggesting the leaders all knew and followed the 98 and 01 investigations. Are you claiming those were made up? Should Paterno have kept his job?

Aurabass said...

You never go after the fact that Paterno knew about the '98 and '01 incidents but did nothing beyond go to his VP.

and that is important? How?
Sandusky was cleared in the 98 investigation and that makes 98 exculpatory not incriminating.

Or do you think "Cleared" and "NO Charges" really mean guilty?

Aurabass said...

The half-truths used by yourself and Aurabass are evidence of your need to be right and display a general unwillingness to listen. You two are so obsessed with being the righteous ones but offer no alternative to the outlined problems at hand. Aurabass - you have all the answers... What happened in that shower and how should the university have handled leadership of the football team and others?

Sadly we will never know what happened because the one person who could have made all the difference failed to observe for more than 2 seconds. If Mike had only observed for 30 seconds instead of 2 he could have been certain and convinced other's. He could have gone into that shower and grabbed the kid by the hand and driven him to the police station.
But a 30 second observation would have removed all doubt.
You don't convince people who know Sandusky as a "saint" and benefactor of children with 3 slaps and 2 second glances. It's as simple as that. Mike didn't give those men reason to believe him even if he did tell them he saw a sex act. From what he told his dad, and doctor and Joe - I seriously doubt he told Tim and Gary about sex either.
But how does a 27 year old man go a decade without speaking up. How could he have witnessed a child rape and do that? I don't think he could and therefor I'm quite convinced that he was not convinced
That's how I believe Tim and Gary could react as they did. They simply thought Mike was confused by his insistence that the 3 slapping sounds were sexual.

Aurabass said...

I can't believe anyone would try to say that kid in the shower wasn't raped. I think it is a perfect example of the cult of Penn State football that led to this terrible incident.

How can you say he was? What do you know that we don't. How does a 6'4 225lb 57 year old rape a 10 year old 70 lb boy who's head comes up to his pectorals with both standing upright with feet on the floor?
Even if that were possible - and it is not - how could the boy not show pain, distress or fear or not cryout and look to MIke for help?

Aurabass said...

James Ala ????

Good Grief - all those words about Jerry Sanders?

Sorry I couldn't even get past that.

Aurabass said...

However, there are emails suggesting the leaders all knew and followed the 98 and 01 investigations. Are you claiming those were made up? Should Paterno have kept his job?

Read exhibits 3D and 3E in the Freeh Report. Not only could Sandusky have kept his job in June of 98 following being cleared of all charges in that investigation. He was offerd a job as assistant Athletic Director.
See when someone is cleared and not charged in an investigation it means just that. Unless you are the type that thinks people who are cleared are really guilty.

Anonymous said...

Aura you are the pefect example of a blind homer Penn State fan. The fact is kids were raped, even the kid the shower that you seem so eager to deny. Saying he wasn't is disrespectful to victims of rape. When a child is raped they r terrified and confused & you can't use reason to explain an unreasonable action. But, lets go with your idea and say he wasn't raped...ok, at the very least a totally inappropriate action occurs in that shower. An action that prompted someone to report it. And prompted others to lie and put other children at risk.

Also how do you explain that Joe told the Grand Jury that he had no knowledge of Sandusky's actions until 2001 when it is clear he had intimate knowledge since 1998? He, and many others, lied to protect a football program. At Penn State, football > children.

Aurabass said...

Aura you are the pefect example of a blind homer Penn State fan.
RESPONSE: You might do better sticking to something you know about. I'm a Tennessee grad and fan living in Knoxville with no ties to PSU and no love for Paterno

YOU:Also how do you explain that Joe told the Grand Jury that he had no knowledge of Sandusky's actions until 2001 when it is clear he had intimate knowledge since 1998? He, and many others, lied to protect a football program. At Penn State, football > children.
MY REPLY: Show me where Joe told the Grand Jury he had no knowledge of Sandusky's actions. You will find his GJ testimony in the Perjury Hearing Transcript page 175. Since it's clear you don't have a clue about the facts you should quit posting until you've learned something to talk about.
try http://notpsu.blogspot.com/
Everything you need to know about the facts is there.

Anonymous said...

Penn State alumni's fascination with the minutiae of anal rape, the slapping sounds, the pained expression , the screams of penetration, etc is more than a little disturbing. Can't you find comfort in some other contrived defense of Joe that doesn't deny that poor boy's humanity? That doesn't exonerate Sandusky?

Now that the world (at least the world minus a few square miles in Cental PA) has accepted the guilt of Sandusky and the Gang of Four,
Penn State alumni's refusal to "get off" that kid's ass is profoundly cruel.

Do you think that you're doing Penn State students a service with this nonsense? Just what do you think would happen to a young Penn State grad if he announced to his office colleagues that we "don't really know what Sandusky did in the shower with that kid"?

People on this blog and elsewhere who stoop to argue with the Penn State "analists" should just let them wallow.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps PSU's legacy will be to provoke other organizations to stop hiding their pedophiles from prosecution for the sake of their organizations.

The Catholic Church, the LDS Church, Boy Scouts of America and other organizations have all been doing what PSU did.

ChicagoWonderBoy said...

Anonymous go out and do something good in the world - your care for children is astounding and can be put to better use throuh volunteering instead of playing keyboard.

Anonymous said...

The NCAA will not get involved with this and shut down the football program. This is increasingly embarrassing to read over and over again from people that don't understand what this situation is about. They see the victims and they see PSU football and they say "shit it down." It's simply not a football issue. It is about the issues and selfishness of 4 men. They will get/have gotten what is coming to them, but this is outside of NCAA jurisdiction. Get over it people who want to strike out at the first thing they see in vengeance.

The DOE will lay penalties on PSU, but will not take away accreditation and will probably put PSU on probation. Regardless the value of a PSU degree will stay the same, Wallstreet has my back on that one.

As a college PSU is already making improvements to make sure this and other travesties do not happen. I'd say PSU is the safest place in the world for a child at this point with all the changes.

And the victims, they will benefit from the best counseling available (paid for by PSU) and a large sum of money for the civil suits. Thankfully they will get as much support as they need in the future. Despite the fact that PSU could win a few of the civil suits and pay nothing, I think they will decide to pay anyway. These payment will hurt but not kill PSU by any means. Based on heh payouts for the victims of the Catholic Church scandal, and doubling it due to media exposure, PSU will probably pay around a total of $50 million combined.

Nari said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/joe-paterno-got-richer-contract-amid-jerry-sandusky-inquiry.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&smid=fb-share


So the whole grand announcement by Paterno in November that he would retire at the end of the season.. was already a negotiated contract in place.. And guess why, because he had already been asked by the grand jury at that time.

This is why he also sold his house to his wife for $1 in summer, to protect liability. Paterno was so so cunning and you are praising him as some hero. NO. NO. NO.

And you character assasination of Freeh is pathetic.

Anonymous said...

"You never go after the fact that Paterno knew about the '98 and '01 incidents but did nothing beyond go to his VP.

and that is important? How?
Sandusky was cleared in the 98 investigation and that makes 98 exculpatory not incriminating.

Or do you think "Cleared" and "NO Charges" really mean guilty?"

Jerry Sandusky is a convicted child molester doing life in prison. If you and Marc want to write off the 1998 incident because of interviews a psychologist conducted with Sandusky, go right ahead. The first incident is important in this case because it could have served as a red flag the second time Sandusky's name came up regarding sex abuse. This time a grown man was the witness, not a fearful, impressionable child who was groomed by a rapist.

Your defense of Sandusky based on his and victim 2's size is a major reach. You still didn't answer either question - what do you believe went on in that shower (and why Sandusky was convicted on counts not related to seeing penetration) and should Paterno have kept his job?

Anonymous said...

And your tactics are as transparent as Marc's - your defense of Paterno is based on redirecting blame at McQueary. McQueary's inaction is just as disturbing as Joe's. One saw a grown man abusing a boy in a PSU shower. The other learned of this and simply reported it to a university VP. No follow ups took place as far as we know now. We are talking about a decade, mind you.

There is no finger to point or redirect away from Joe. All adults and leaders were at fault and fired. The university is in a better position to move on because they cleaned house. Post an alternative to Joe's firing or move on. You aren't getting my click by cherry-picking facts and fishing for visitors here.

ayumi said...

wonderful work! the way you discuss the subject i'm very impressed. i'll bookmark this webpage and be back more often to see more updates from you.

ayumi
www.brfe.net