Mark Emmert, president of the NCAA has put out a statement regarding the investigation into the Miami Hurricanes that the NCAA has " found a very severe case of improper conduct" committed by NCAA investigators during their investigation of the Miami Hurricane football program.
The "severe case of improper conduct", according to NCAA president Mark
Emmert, was that the NCAA "improperly obtained information through
a bankruptcy proceeding that did not involve the NCAA".
This admission and clear hypocrisy by Mark Emmert, all but assures that the law suit filed by the state of Pennsylvania against the NCAA seeking to dismiss the sanctions the NCAA imposed on Penn State in the wake of the criminal activity of Jerry Sandusky will almost certainly succeed.
It is ironic that Emmert considers information obtained through a
proceeding that did not involve the NCAA "a severe case of improper conduct" by
its investigators and yet every sanction against Penn State was leveled as a
result of the corrupt Freeh Report, a proceeding, to quote Emmert, " that did
not involve the NCAA".
That all the sanctions against Penn State were based solely on the Freeh
Report, a report that has been discredited and demolished by people
with actual investigative and legal knowledge and rife with evidence of dishonesty,intimidation, misrepresentation, subterfuge and smear
tactics by Freeh substantiated by statements from witnesses interviewed by Freeh that was more pervasive than anything seen in a major investigation outside of
the smearing of the innocent Richard Jewell as the Olympic Bomber in 1996, a
smear campaign also orchestrated by then FBI director Louis Freeh, completely
invalidates the NCAA sanctions against Penn State even on its own terms.
Except for a self serving, incompetent and in many cases, a cowardly and dishonest news media, and those without the
brain power to question anything in the media, (of which there are clearly many) there was nothing
rational or legal about the NCAA's sanctions against Penn State in the first
place, since at the very least the NCAA was guilty of, in the words of ESPN
reporter Dana O'Neill, "going outside the rule book to punish Penn State".
The clear illegality of the Penn State sanctions now contrasted with the developments at Miami and the
admissions by Emmert and his double standard,also makes the quick acceptance of the sanctions by the current Penn
State president and Board of Trustees, not just suspect in terms of
justice and common sense, not just a clear dereliction of their responsibility for doing what was in the best interests of the university,its faculty, students
and alumni, but it is also suspect in raising the question of whether there were
members of the Board of Trustees as well as the current president, who had something sinister to hide and that was the reason behind the almost whiplash acceptance of the sanctions. It was left to Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett to sort out the absurdity of the sanctions and sue the NCAA.
Anyone following the events at Penn State closely knows that their Board of Trustees
were too interested in "moving on" as quickly as possible as their chairperson, Karen
Peetz, kept repeating every time their decisions were challenged or there was any dissent or questioning of their decisions or motives surfaced. These questions were universally dismissed and ignored. Possibly for good
reason from their point of view assuming they had something to hide. Because it is the preposterous degree of the sanctions as well as any sanctions themselves that makes the acceptance by the Board reek of cronyism, collusion, cover-up and dishonest motives.
First, the sanctions against the football program made no sense. The people
who were being punished, the current members of the football team, were eight years old and in the 3rd grade at the
time Sandusky was engaging in the activity for which he was convicted and sent
to prison. Other students at Penn State were also affected by the sanctions both in the form of the fines levied and loss of revenue from bowl games in terms of how that
affects academic opportunities and scholarships, and they too were also about eight years
old at the time of Sandusky's activities.
Secondly, all the sanctions went beyond the bounds of the NCAA's own rules and their authority as anyone
familiar with their rules know, and this was echoed by one of Freeh's
own investigators in an interview with the Chronicle For Higher Education.
The only authority the NCAA has to sanction anyone for anything is if the NCAA found violations and rules that were broken and which gave a competitive advantage to those who broke the rules. There were
no NCAA rules broken in the Sandusky matter and there was nothing even remotely
connected to Sandusky's abuse of boys from Second Mile that gave anyone a
competitive advantage in a collegiate athletic contest or for that matter even related to Penn
State's athletic program other than Sandusky had once been a coach there.
Even the lone accusation of sexual misconduct and abuse against Sandusky that allegedly took place in a
Penn State shower was dismissed and deemed not credible by a jury and, while it was the accusation that set off the media frenzy, it was one of three
counts for which Sandusky was acquitted.
Regarding Curley the athletic director and Schultz, VP of Business and
Finance and overseer of Penn State police, there has been no legal finding
regarding pending charges of perjury and they have the legal presumption of innocence before trial and would be irrelevant in any case regarding grounds for sanctioning Penn State. Even if Curley or
Schultz were serial killers, there would be no basis for the NCAA to punish the
Penn State football team or impose fines or any sanctions at all since it would have nothing to do with rules within the NCAA's jurisdiction and nothing about the charges against either that could relate to Penn State gaining an unfair competitive advantage.
Emmert's vacating of Paterno's victories between 1998 and 2010 is also both
a legal and moral joke on which there are no grounds and no basis. The idea that
Joe Paterno had some competitive advantage in violation of any NCAA rules during that
time is an argument the NCAA wont even try to defend and that sanction will no
doubt be vacated by a judge as well for being baseless and outside the purview of
the NCAA. As far as the other nonsense Paterno was accused of by both the media and Freeh, there is still to this day not a shred of proof to substantiate any of it and a mountain of proof to rebut it. It was Paterno's name, his accomplishments and his name alone that drew all the focus and attention and purely for self serving reasons.
For now,the statements coming from Mark Emmert and the NCAA regarding the investigation into the Miami Hurricanes all but insures the law suit filed against the NCAA by Governor Tom Corbett and the state of Pennsylvania to vacate the NCAA sanctions against Penn State will succeed since all the information the NCAA used to levy the sanctions were based on a proceeding in Emmert's own words, "that did not involve the NCAA" - namely the Freeh Report.
For now,the statements coming from Mark Emmert and the NCAA regarding the investigation into the Miami Hurricanes all but insures the law suit filed against the NCAA by Governor Tom Corbett and the state of Pennsylvania to vacate the NCAA sanctions against Penn State will succeed since all the information the NCAA used to levy the sanctions were based on a proceeding in Emmert's own words, "that did not involve the NCAA" - namely the Freeh Report.
Further it exposes the dishonesty, hypocrisy, hysteria and rush to judgement that prevailed during
the height of the frenzy surrounding Penn State and Sandusky which only became a
frenzy because of the name, accomplishments and stature of Joe Paterno, which
everyone from Sean Gregory at Time, almost everyone at ESPN, CNN and most media outlets and the
NCAA themselves, used like vultures to ring cash registers, try and elevate
their own statures, and who. cared most about what was in it for them. (There have been no front page full page pictures in the Philadelphia Daily News of the priests currently on trial in Philadelphia for years of child sexual abuse with the word "Shame". Or the monsignor serving 6 years in prison for covering it up).
It must be remembered that the current NCAA investigation of Miami is being conducted solely by NCAA investigators to determine violations of NCAA rules which in turn will determine sanctions. In the case of Penn State, there was no NCAA investigation of any kind. None. It relied solely on the Freeh Report. There was none because Emmert and the NCAA knew there was nothing involving NCAA rules and Penn State or anything related that was within their purview. Yet, more interested in jumping on a bandwagon, they violated their own rules, their own jurisdiction and imposed Draconian sanctions that the Penn State Board of Trustees and president accepted without blinking an eye.
It must be remembered that the current NCAA investigation of Miami is being conducted solely by NCAA investigators to determine violations of NCAA rules which in turn will determine sanctions. In the case of Penn State, there was no NCAA investigation of any kind. None. It relied solely on the Freeh Report. There was none because Emmert and the NCAA knew there was nothing involving NCAA rules and Penn State or anything related that was within their purview. Yet, more interested in jumping on a bandwagon, they violated their own rules, their own jurisdiction and imposed Draconian sanctions that the Penn State Board of Trustees and president accepted without blinking an eye.
It remains to be seen once all the current legal proceedings have run their course and the sanctions are vacated, whether the Paterno family, Penn State alumni or anyone else adversely affected will ring some cash registers of their own and sue both the NCAA, the Penn State Board of Trustees, and the current president of Penn State for gross negligence in accepting the NCAA's illegal sanctions and even Freeh himself for defamation, libel and investigative
misconduct. If that happens then the record will have finally been set straight.
Posts
49 comments:
An incredible article! I commend you for writing what some people have believed since Day 1!!
Thank you.
Your article is, as usual, spot on and points out the well know fact that the Freeh Report, upon which the NCAA based its decision to sanction Penn State, is a ludicrous piece of fiction based, in part, on reality. Ray Blehar released today another analysis of the failures of the Freeh Report. In it, he points to the biases and inaccuracies in Freeh's report that are for the sole purpose of directing blame at PSU officials and away from PA child welfare agencies who broke the law and completely botched the 1998 investigation into Sandusky. Mr. Blehar correctly points out that while the world is busy shaking their heads about Joe Paterno's "failures", the children of PA are still at risk due to a broken system of child protection. Please see Ray's report linked herre and thank you for your continued support of the truth in this story! http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/01/press-release-freeh-report-suffers.html
Thank you for a great article. Nice to see that there are people out there that feel what happened to PSU is ludicrous and at the least illegal. I think the Paterno family will not file to fill their pockets from these allegations. They are better than that and will be just content to know that Joe did nothing wrong and his hard work and commitment to the school and the students was not lost on such rubbish.
"I think the Paterno family will not file to fill their pockets from these allegations."
I dont think will file to fill their pockets either and if they did win a financial settlement Im sure some if not most would be donated to child protection causes, but the injustice of Paterno having ten years of his victories vacated needs to be set right and those who imposed that ridiculous and unjust and unwarranted sanction need to be held accountable. I'm sure a public apology would do just as well as a monetary punishment but Id like to see both.
Thank you. Now if we could just figure out a way to make this mandatory reading at every NCAA and PSU Board meeting we might get somewhere!
One problem with your argument: the reason the NCAA did not have access to those bankruptcy records was because the judge sealed the records during the investigation. This means that someone in the NCAA illegally obtained that information.
The Freeh report was a document released to the public so the NCAA could use that information in deciding it's punishment.
"One problem with your argument: the reason the NCAA did not have access to those bankruptcy records was because the judge sealed the records during the investigation. This means that someone in the NCAA illegally obtained that information."
I under your point but it was not Emmert's. Emmert is a big boy and if that were the case he would have no trouble saying so. Emmert SPECIFICALLY cited the fact that the information that was obtained
"did not involve the NCAA". Meaning it had nothing to do with the NCAA or it's investigators. Just like the Freeh Report and just like the criminal conduct of Sandusky that also "did not involve the NCAA". Keep in mind that not only would crimina conduct in and of itself be outside the purview of the NCAA (they are hardly a law enforcement organization) Sandusky wasnt even a coach or an employee of Penn State when he committed the conduct for which he was convicted.
Any information that was a violation of a court order in a judicial proceeding is a matter to be dealt with by the judge. It was not the reason Emmert called it "severe and improper conduct". The reason he cited was that it information that "did not involve the NCAA" and that was true both in the nature of the information which was outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA and the fact that it was not the result of work by NCAA investigators. Neither was the Freeh Report itself or anything it was reporting on.
An excellent article that says exactly what I've been thinking since those sanctions against Penn State were first mentioned. The punishment of current players is obsurd and the vacating of wins is just a way for the NCAA to stick it to Paterno. Sandusky's actions in no way gave the football team an advantage on the field therefore, there is no reason for the NCAA to concern itself with this issue just because it involved a football coach.
I wrote to John Ziegler about this last Thursday when the story broke. There was a VERY telling quote in the AP story that I would like to discuss. It (the story) goes like this:
"The NCAA said its investigation was based, at least in part, on information that it should not have had access to, the testimony of those who appeared under subpoena to be deposed in the bankruptcy case involving former Miami booster Nevin Shapiro, one of the most notorious Ponzi scheme architects in history.
The NCAA does not have subpoena power. Shapiro's attorney did, and used it - and apparently entered into some sort of contractual agreement with the NCAA, one that apparently either was not or should never have been approved.
''We cannot have the NCAA bringing forward an allegation ... that was collected by processes none of us could stand for,'' Emmert said. ''We're going to move it as fast as possible, but we have to get this right.''"
When the PSU sanctions came down, and people started asking uncomfortable questions of Mark Emmert about the blatant innaccuracies & suppositions, & outright falsehoods contained within the Freeh report, Emmert's reply was that they (the NCAA) were under the impression that Freeh did have subpeona power for the purposes of investigating & creating the report. In other words, Emmert KNOWINGLY planned to use an investigative tool that the NCAA would not have been able to create in an effort to punish PSU. [Even though as we all know, Freeh did not have subpeona power, if the NCAA thought they did, then they violated their own policy in order to punish PSU. If they did in fact know better, & Emmert brushed off the question with a lie in order to absolve the NCAA of the mistakes that were made in the process, then it only proves that the NCAA was more interested in looking good than in getting to the truth. Either way, the NCAA does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to the way they mishandled the PSU "investigation".
"Either way, the NCAA does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to the way they mishandled the PSU "investigation"."
Everything you point out is true. First, if Freeh had subpoena power any information the NCAA used based on the Freeh Report would be as invalid as the information obtained in the Miami investigation. But even worse, Freeh did NOT have subpoena power and therefore his entire "investigation" was suspect and incomplete. Further, Freeh declined to even interview Paterno who had requested numerous times to be interviewed for the investigation, and yet Emmert and the NCAA still leveled sanctions against Paterno even though not only didnt Freeh want to interview hi, no one at the NCAA interviewed Paterno to get his side and they sanctioned him anyway.
The real question is why did the Penn State university president, and the Board of Trustees who have on their Board John Surma, CEO of US Steel and Karen Peetz who was a Vice Chairman at Bank of New York Mellon, why did these people not only accept the sanctions without a whimper but then tried to deflect any questions regarding both the Freeh investigation and the sanctions? To say it smells fishy is a gross understatement and if there was investigative reporter with any talent and a backbone (which there isnt) and this matter was looked into and rocks were overtuned,big careers would be ruined and there could even be criminal culpability and none of the culprits would be named Paterno.
What the NCAA should do (but we're unlikely to see it happen), is reverse the sanctions, announce that everything done up to this point has been aimed at discrediting a decent man, & announce the launch of a new & invigorated investigation into the BOT directed investigation that was intended to mislead & misdirect the NCAA from the truth of the matter.
Interesting article underscoring the absurdity of justice in the USA, which is often tainted by a news media with an agenda, by other interests and by big money? Typically Lady Justice has her blind fold lifted so she can peek out and select winners and losers based upon interests instead of an objective determination.
My opinion……. Children were molested by Sandusky. The organization Second Mile was complicit because they knew and he used children from the organization. There were individuals at high levels in PA government, in the university, BOT, the SM, possibly local prosecutors, law enforcement (local and state) that had heard rumors about Sandusky and what was going on, or were suspicious, but it was covered up to protect the “interests” of the PSU football program.
When finally the spotlight and glare became too bright to ignore, those in positions of influence felt something had to be done now to protect themselves, and like most political opportunists, use the tragedy for their own advantage.
That a special prosecutor with full subpoena powers and without any political ties, or connections to the community or PSU was never assigned, should be quite telling. Instead the only comprehensive “investigation” was by a private detective agency. Even that was tainted and a farce because it was paid for by PSU as one of the potential defendants, instead of being run by an assigned special state or federal prosecutor.
"What the NCAA should do (but we're unlikely to see it happen), is reverse the sanctions"
Tom Corbett and the State of Pennsylvania is already suing the NCAA to get the sanctions reversed. I think they'll win. The only grounds the NCAA has is that the Penn State president and Board of Trustees accepted them. What needs to happen is an investigation and state hearings calling all the Board of Trustees and have them testify under oath as to why the sanctions were so readily accepted. Something doesnt add up.
"That a special prosecutor with full subpoena powers and without any political ties, or connections to the community or PSU was never assigned, should be quite telling."
Thats right, the state of Pennsylvania should have done just that. And you want to know why they didnt? Because the current governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett happened to be the attorney general of Pennsylvania in 1998 during the first Sandusky investigation, was given ALL the reports and evidence on the investigation which many thought was enough to prosecute but Corbett declined to prosecute.
How's that for a conflict of interest? Think the news media cared?
I am sympathetic to the argument that Penn State football received a competitive advantage for the last 10 years of Joe Paterno's tenure because there was no "bad reputation" to adversely affect recruiting. In that sense and that sense only could an argument be made that an NCAA had grounds to step in.
It is dismaying that the destruction of something called a "football culture" should single out Penn State -- one of the only top division schools to have never been sanctioned -- yet a similar culture is justifiable at Alabama, USC, Florida, Duke basketball, North Carolina basketball, and anywhere else you might want to name. It makes me believe that the entire process was driven by envy of Penn State's reputation and anger at Penn State's self-righteousness.
Also, I find it ridiculous that I have seen barely a whisper that what the NCAA did was tantamount to extortion. They basically threatened Penn State, saying if you do not accept our judgment and these sanctions, we will eliminate the football program for at least 4 years. That isn't a legal process, that's a power play.
My bile for the NCAA notwithstanding, I do wish the entire board of trustees had the character to step down and be replaced. It is unsettling to think they are all perfectly not complicit in the cover up.
I am sympathetic to the argument that Penn State football received a competitive advantage for the last 10 years of Joe Paterno's tenure because there was no "bad reputation" to adversely affect recruiting."
there was no "bad reputation" nor should there have been because there is not one iota of evidence, not one, that Joe Paterno ever did anything that would have resulted in "bad reputation" and i defy you to present one iota of proof to the contrary. The fact that you blindly swallow the Freeh Report which did not contain a single iota of proof of anything which the NCAA along with many people who simply will believe anything they read is the core of the problem.
Again I defy you to present one single iota of proof that there was anything, one thing, that would justify any of the criticism of Penn State or Joe Paterno or proved Paterno did anything wrong. If you can, contact John Zieglar at talktozig@aol.com who has offered a $10,000 wager to anyone in the news media who can provide proof and if they cant to pay him $10,000. So far no one has. If this suprises you then you have to look at yourself and see why it is you were so easy to deceive and so readily accepted "facts" all of which turned out to be untrue.
Goodness! Perhaps I wasn't clear. I have not swallowed any of Freeh's report and believe overall Penn State has been treated unfairly.
All I meant to say is that by not coming forward immediately with all knowledge and information when the allegations were first raised can be seen as an attempt to avoid bad press which could have negatively affected recruiting.
I thought the rest of my post indicated that I am no lover of the NCAA and I am a proud Penn Stater saddened and maddened by this entire affair.
"All I meant to say is that by not coming forward immediately with all knowledge and information when the allegations were first raised.."
the more one delves into the facts the more it becomes clear that there were no allegations raised. The entire explosion involving Penn State and Paterno involoved McQueary and what he saw. As it turns out under questioning at trial which he never had to undergo for the grand jury he saw nothing. Which is why the jury aquitted Sandusky of the charge emanating from McQueary's testimony. And he said himself the summary of the grand jury presentment misquoted him and he never said to anyone that he witnessed any sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy known as Victim 2. And Victim 2 in a face to face interview with the attorney Amendola confirmed this which is why he never came forward. Which is why this entire episode involving Penn State and Joe Paterno is such a miscarriage of justice.
"All I meant to say is that by not coming forward immediately with all knowledge and information when the allegations were first raised"
To illuminate this a bit more -- McQueary testified that he heard "slapping sounds" coming from the shower that he interpreted as being some kind of physical contact with Victim 2. In his interview with Amendola ( for the record I might add) Victim 2 who was ten years old at the time explained what these "slapping sounds" were without being prodded. When asked what went on in the shower he said that he (Victim 2) was running back and forth the length of the shower,which was wet at the time and it was the sound of the boy's feet slapping against the wet floor running the length of the long shower that is the sound McQueary heard.
This iluminates the degree of absurdity,incompetence and dishonesty on the part of the media, the NCAA, Freeh and the Board of Trustees in this whole episode and why hopefully all will be held accountable.
Joe testified under oath that MM reported to him in 2001 that an interaction of a "sexual nature" (Joe's words) between JS and a child had taken place in a Penn State shower. Thereafter, JS was free to continue to molest children for the next decade. These two facts are the basis upon which the American public has villified Joe. No one cares whether Joe reported it to his superiors (who were his co-conspirators, according to the prosecutors). No one cares what MM told anyone else about the incident. Frankly, no one cares whether the incident in the shower took place at all. As far as Joe's reputation is concerned, all that matters is that he was aware of an ALLEGED sexual incident involving JS and a child in 2001 and JS went free. In the public mind, anyone, Joe, Spanier, Curley, ANYONE, who knew about the alleged assault in 2001 is damned. There is no acceptable excuse for word of the allegation not being reported to anyone outside Penn State and Second Mile, the very organizations blamed for the scandal in the first place.
There's nothing to be done with Joe's testimony. It just sits on the record condemning him.
"Joe testified under oath that MM reported to him in 2001 that an interaction of a "sexual nature" (Joe's words)"
Where are you getting your information from? Did you read the grand jury testimony?Sor are you relying on people as uniformed as you are?
Paterno must have said 2o times in his grand jury testimony he wasnt exactly sure what McQueary told him, he didnt quite remember he THINKS McQueary MAY have said something of a sexual nature. And we have learned subsequently that it is almost a certainty McQueary told Paterno no such thing and we know this from the testimony of Dr. Dranov.
Your false and phony assertion that Paterno knew of an allegation of a sexual incident makes you as bad as the greedy medieval witch hunters in the press. Produce one single peice of PROOF assuming you understand the definition of the word that Paterno knew of a sexual allegation and prove it beyond even a 51% preponderance which is all that is needed in a civil suit.
In order to believe any of the nonsense you claim, you or any of the equally nonsensical press you have to believe that Paterno, Spanier,the president of the University,Tim Curley and Schultz the VP over seeing Penn State police were told Sandusky had anal sex with a ten year old in the Penn State showers and their response was, well tell him not to bring kids to the shower any more.
It is not just a case of having to be an abject idiot to believe that (a state that seems to have a large population), it is a case of not even being rational and believing what youre told because your told to believe it. And you do perhaps because you, as others, have some emotional investment in believing it as so many who wanted to jump on the bandwagon did.
"No one cares what MM told anyone else about the incident. Frankly, no one cares whether the incident in the shower took place at all. As far as Joe's reputation is concerned, all that matters is that he was aware of an ALLEGED sexual incident involving JS and a child in 2001 and JS went free."
Again you are pathetically uniformed. Paterno arranged a meeting for McQueary with Curley and Schultz to tell them what was bothering him and that is all he had to do. There is still no proof, that McQueary told Paterno that he saw Sandusky involved in any kind of sexual conduct because we know there wasnt any so McQuearu couldnt have seen any and was asked repeatedly if he had seen any such conduct and repeatedly said he didnt. You have too much invested in not wanting to look like a fool but you might as well divest yourself of your investment because you've already made a fool of yourself.
And just to head you off, do not cherry pick Paterno's testimony and try and pass that off as any kind of proof. If you are going to cite it, cite ALL of it, including all the statements 85 year old Paterno made about a conversation he hardly remembered ten years previously, which as it turns out was not consequential and about which Paterno repeatedly said he wasnt sure and didnt quite remember.
By the way,there is some evidence from people who claim they know who say that knowing he had to testify and not remembering the conversation, Paterno asked McQueary before he testified what the conversation was about and to refresh his memory. Having alrady testified, McQueary then told Paterno that he had told him he saw "something of a sexual nature" which were the words Paterno used along with making it clear he didnt really remember and couldnt be sure. Again, we know McQueary never could have told Paterno he saw anything of a sexual nature because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt he never saw anything of a sexual nature because no such incident took place. And yet you have the actual stupidity of trying to claim that even though it is an absolute certainty no incident took place and therefore a certainty McQueary couldnt have seen any such incident, you try to assert in the 2001 conversation he told Paterno it was sexual anyway.After saying it wasnt to two other witnesses.
This is why the U.S. is 46th in the world in education.
"It was a sexual nature."
This is VERBATIM from the Grand Jury transcript. We only KNOW (not imagine, but KNOW) what Joe said under oath. If you don't like what Joe testified to under oath, perhaps you should change your opinion of Joe. You certainly can't change the words of the transcript: "It was a sexual nature."
"By the way,there is some evidence from people who claim they know who say that knowing he had to testify and not remembering the conversation, Paterno asked McQueary before he testified what the conversation was about and to refresh his memory."
There is no evidence of any such conversation between Joe and MM. "People who claim to know"? What kind of evidence is that? Where in the court record is the testimony of these "people who claim to know"? Joe's supporters "imagine" that there must have been such a conversation because without it, there's no way of explaining Joe's appalling testimony. Stick to the record.
"Even the lone accusation of sexual misconduct and abuse against Sandusky that allegedly took place in a Penn State shower was dismissed and deemed not credible by a jury and, while it was the accusation that set off the media frenzy, it was one of three counts for which Sandusky was acquitted."
Not true. In that incident, Sandusky was found guilty on the counts of indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corrupon of a minor and endangering a child's welfare. You can argue all you want that "indecent assault" is different from "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse," but Indecent Assault is a charge of sexual misconduct. Here is the definition of Indecent Assault in PA:
Indecent Assault (18 Pa. C.S. § 3126)
(a) Offense Defined- A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant...
Penn State can win this battle against the NCAA on the sheer facts of the case. It doesn't need people like you and John Ziegler telling the story with half-truths.
Wow, Marc Rubin, you are so wrong. Do you do any research at all? Did YOU read the grand jury testimony? Let me help you out. This is a transcript of Joe Paterno's testimony to the Grand Jury. You might want to pay attention to the statement Joe makes that says "It was a sexual nature."
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature.
I’m not sure exactly what it was. I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
"By the way,there is some evidence from people who claim they know who say that knowing he had to testify and not remembering the conversation, Paterno asked McQueary before he testified what the conversation was about and to refresh his memory."
Your imagination (or anyone else's imagination) is not evidence. When confronted with unpleasant facts (i.e., Joe's testimony of knowledge of an alleged sexual incident), you cannot just make up a conversation. Would you actually find someone guilty and sentence them to prison on the basis of a conversation "imagined" by someone to exist?
Why not "imagine" a conversation in which the court stenographer admits that she took down Joe's words inaccurately and that he actually said that it was NOT a sexual nature? That would work even better than this imaginary conversation between Joe and MM.
For any lawyers out there -- is the fact the Penn State agreed to the sanctions a block against a suit brought by outside parties?
Why did no one ever start a petition? 99.9999 percent of the players,students,faculty,alumni and millions of fans had nothing to do with this. Hundreds of players had hard fought wins taken back. One had a broken neck many acls tears. How much time and effort, heart and pain went into each game? I belive this was emotinal abuse by the NCAA for all PENN STATE fans. Joe Paterno would never cover this monster for any amount of wins.I was a former abuse victim of every kind. I have been taking xanax ever since the NCAA handed down their unfair punishment. Please keep on fighting for a great PENN STATE!
"And just to head you off, do not cherry pick Paterno's testimony and try and pass that off as any kind of proof."
Yes, Marc Rubin, let's not let that pesky 'ol SWORN TESTIMONY cloud our judgment. Let's all instead focus on your efforts to rewrite history, to insult responders when they don't agree with your nonsense, to call out the media for convicting Paterno on opinion without fact and instantly turn around and shout opinions of your own with no facts. You're pathetic, Rubin.
I agree 100% with your article but some of the comments are factually inaccurate.
Tom Corbett is an opportunist & if a camera is around, he surely is in front of it.
But Corbett was not the Attroney general in 1998 when Sandusky first got caught.
The AG office had nothing to do with that investigation.
You stated that Paterno wins were vacated since 2000.
Actually the NCAA vacated his wins from 1998 and did so without any explanation at all.
Reason being they cannot explain vacating wins in 1998 since there is no evidence that Paterno even knew of the 1998 investigation. And the 1998 investgation done by a prosecutor & state agencies (not Penn St athletics) found no issues with Sandusky.
Otherwise, keep the comments coming & great article.
"But Corbett was not the Attroney general in 1998 when Sandusky first got caught.
The AG office had nothing to do with that investigation."
you're half right and I did get the years wrong, but the attorney general's office did have everything to do with the Sandusky investigation when Corbett was Attorney General. The year was 2008 and the investigation went on for 3 years till 2011. Corbett as Attorney General knew all about Sandusky and the allegations against him and was privy to all the facts gathered in the investigation and declined to prosecute. He acknowledges as much and claims that his office didnt have enough evidence to prosecute Sandusky. A Google of "Tom Corbett attorney general Sandusky" will result in articles from Penn Live, Daily Beast, Politco.com and hundreds of others confirming this. But thanks for pointing out the mistake in the year -- it was not 1998 but 2008.
I think it would be very interesting to hear what Richard Jewell would have to say about this whole thing, considering that both his and PSU's situations involve smears emanating from Louis Freeh. I wonder if anyone has asked him about it for public consumption.
So what really is the Truth (NONE of us know--even you--sorry)???? I know my father who is the exact same age as JVP couldn't remember a conversation from last year let alone what specifically was said 10 years ago. Plus that generation is so naive/uninformed when it comes to sexual things.
Here is one more important thing. Let's say MM did say it was sexual in nature and JVP reported it to his superiors. At that point since JS is no longer on the staff--it is not any of JVP concern since he isn't responsible for the man. He did what he was supposed to do.
"So what really is the Truth (NONE of us know--even you--sorry)????"
Thats very much the point isnt it? Except we can take it further and point out that as far as knowing the truth about what exactly Paterno was told we know that the Board of Trustees forced Paterno to cancel his press conference where he had planned to tell all he knew including exactly what he could remember about what he was told, and Louis Freeh REFUSED to interview him for the report despite repeated requests by Paterno to be interviewed. So as far as the truth goes, we can conclude that one side, Paterno tried repeatedly to want to tell what he knew was the truth and the other side did everything they could to prevent it. I think except for the terminal idiots among us called journalists, reasonable people can draw some conclusions from that alone especially since the side making allegations against Paterno could present no proof to substantiate them which re-enforces their motives for wanting to keep him from telling what he knew.
Either way, there was still no basis for any sanctions of any kind against Penn State.
"Here is one more important thing. Let's say MM did say it was sexual in nature and JVP reported it to his superiors. At that point since JS is no longer on the staff--it is not any of JVP concern since he isn't responsible for the man. He did what he was supposed to do."
This is what makes the whole affair smell of subtrefuge and something more. Paterno not only did all he or ANYONE was supposed to do, the allegation that caused all the frenzy, that Paterno was told by McQueary that he saw Sandusky having anal sex with a ten year old and did nothing which is what Sean Gregory at Time Magazine reported (or didnt do enough depending on who is pointificating) has already been proved to be a complete falsehood, something that never happened which is why McQueary not only denies having told Paterno any such thing, he couldnt have told him any such thing because he couldnt have witnessed something that we now know never happened. Paterno followed Penn State operating reporting procedure in a case like this and he did more than Tom Corbett who was attorney general at the time and who knew about the allegations back in 2008 and more than the D.A. Ray Vicar who was given the results of the police investigation in 1998 and declined to prosecute. And yet the football coach was supposed to be, what? The lead investigator?
This was about one thing -- trading on Paterno's reputation and accomplishment to make money because it was Paterno's name that made it a big story and for journalists who needed it, to try and elevate themselves and enhance their own reputations by becoming part of a mob.
"I think it would be very interesting to hear what Richard Jewell would have to say about this whole thing".
Richard Jewell is dead. He died in his early 40's and many people blame the stress he went through because of Freeh as a factor in his early death.
A worker at a Taco Bell reports to the manager that he saw an ex-employee in the restroom with a child engaging in an act of "a sexual nature". The manager reports it to the franchise owner. Nothing happens. The police don't interview anyone at the Taco Bell. The police don't inspect the restroom. The police are not seen at the Taco Bell at all. Nothing appears in the paper. Why? Because the owner never passed it on to the police. For the next decade, the manager sees the ex-employee with numerous children. The manager does nothing.
Are you saying that the manager, like Joe, had no moral responsibilty to the child to follow up with the police? Should we admire the manager for his silence, as you would have us admire Joe?
At this point in time, the Commonwealth has yet to prove that Penn State officials didn't report the incident to authorities.
The state's case is based on an ASSUMPTION that because there was no investigation of Sandusky in 2001, PSU didn't report it.
This is an incorrect assumption. There are plenty of abuse complaints that are not investigated. In fact, Pennsylvania Child Protection laws have provisions for cases that are not investigated which state that complaints that are not investigated are expunged from the records in 120 days.
Gary Schultz recalled reporting the 2001 incident to the "child welfare agency." That agency would have been Centre County CYS. CYS investigated the 1998 incident at the outset, before turning it over to DPW. There was no finding of abuse.
Everyone has discounted the possibility that CYS got the 2001 complaint and discounted it due to what transpired in 1998 and because of their decades long association with Sandusky.
I think that's quite a reach given that the e-mails from 2001 in the Freeh report look to be legit and tell the story of what Shultz, Curley and Spanier agreed was the right course of action. I think their agreement on a course of action was based on a very limited set of facts that is clouded by hindsight and they thought they were doing the right thing for all involved at the time. I don't think they were trying to cover anything up or hide anything since they were freely e-mailing about it and anyone even then had to know if you do that it is a record. Heck, Shultz even kept his written records to cover his rear. Why would you keep records of a coverup??? But to think they then did report it after agreeing it didn't need to be is quite a reach. I think Schultz was mixing up '98 and '01 in his testimony and that's more likely. Again, let me say I don't think anything nefarious was going on, nor do I think Joe did anything involving a coverup, but I think people have to be careful about absolving all blame and giving people the benefit of available information at the time versus that available in hindsight. Its not fair to vilify someone when they didn't have enough to put it all together. This is why mandatory reporting is part of the law now. You don't try to do what is best, you get an allegation, you report it.
There were 3 investigations 1-1998, 2-2001, 3-2008-11. You said that Corbett was the AG in 1998. I mentioned that Corbett was not the AG in 1998 & had nothing to do with "that" 1998 investigation & he didnt. He was actually the AG back in @1996 (appointed) for a short period. Then again during the 2008 investigation. It is well-known that Corbett was the AG in 2008 & the AG prosecuted Sandusky.
Here is something you may not have known, or maybe you do - but it is extremely important but rarely gets any publicity. Corbett was in charge of the very long delay in the Sandusky investigation. After he was elected Governor, despite knowing that Sandusky used the 2nd Mile as a grooming place for abusing children, Corbett gave millions of dollars in grants to the Sandusky 2nd Mile. Why in the world would you give all that money to an organization that was used as a front for child abuse?
"Corbett gave millions of dollars in grants to the Sandusky 2nd Mile. Why in the world would you give all that money to an organization that was used as a front for child abuse?"
Add to that the fact that MBNA bank during Louis Freeh's tenure as vice chairman was Sandusky's biggest corporate sponsor, something that began AFTER the 1998 investigation as reported here a few months ago
(http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/09/bombshell-mbna-bank-while-freeh-was-co.html)
and the plot thickens in terms of motive,means and opportunity for the smearing of Paterno with a clearly patently false report and pinning as much on him as possible to protect people in high places. Including Freeh himself.
There is more than enough cause for Penn State alumni and other Pennsylvania residents to pressure members of the legislature to appoint a special counsel with subpeona power to investigate what happened including th speed with which the Board of Trustees accepted the NCAA sanctions.
"This is why mandatory reporting is part of the law now."
At the time McQueary first claimed he thought something unsavory or sexual was going on in the shower with Sandusky, depending on which story he was telling, (a belief that ironically has proved false), he first told his concerns to Dr. Dranov, a McQueary family friend. As a physician Dr. Dranov was a mandatory reporter of child abuse which is why Dranov literally grilled McQueary repeatedly and asked if he, McQueary had seen anything sexual. McQueary told Dranov he didnt. According to Dranov's testimony he asked McQueary three times if he thought there was something, anything sexual going on in that shower with Sandusky and the boy and McQueary emphatically answered "no" every time Dranov asked him.It was because Dranov was a mandatory reporter that he needed to be certain McQueary didnt see or believe anything sexual was going on and ironically, it is only because of McQueary's insistence that he didnt see or believe anything sexual was going on that Dranov suggested he tell Paterno since there was nothing to report to the police.
Based on what he told Dranov it is a virtual certainty he never told Paterno or Curley or Schultz that he saw anything sexual (and we know now he didnt)and if that is the case Curley and Schultz will certainly be acquitted of perjury and failure to report since based on the evidence, there was no such sexual abuse to report.
If McQueary does not testify to having told them of having seen or witnessed anything sexual, the attention is going to turn to Linda Kelly as AG and whether or not she pressured McQueary into saying something to the grand jury that he never saw.
"Based on what he told Dranov it is a virtual certainty he never told Paterno or Curley or Schultz that he saw anything sexual (and we know now he didnt)and if that is the case Curley and Schultz will certainly be acquitted of perjury and failure to report since based on the evidence, there was no such sexual abuse to report."
But Joe testified under oath that MM told him that he had witnessed an incident of "a sexual nature". Did Joe commit perjury? What motive did Joe have to commit perjury? You owe Joe an apology.
"But Joe testified under oath that MM told him that he had witnessed an incident of "a sexual nature". Did Joe commit perjury? What motive did Joe have to commit perjury? "
First, you shouldnt throw the word perjury around unless you truly understand the legal definition of the term. Secondly did you actually read Paterno's testimony? I think not. If you did you would have seen that Paterno said numerous times that he "wasnt' sure", didnt quite remember qualifying what he said he thinks McQeary MIGHT have told him, by saying he didnt really quite remember and he said it over and over again.
Third, while there is no reason to expect you to have all the information available, there has been statements from credible sources that 85 year old Joe Paterno didnt remember a thing about the conversation with McQueary which took place ten years earlier when he was 75 and, having been called to testify before the grand jury, called McQueary and asked him what McQueary told him. McQueary, according to this credible source told Paterno something vague about maybe seeing something of "a sexual nature" which is why Paterno used those specific words in his testimony but also qualified it by saying repeatedly he wasnt sure, he didnt quite remember, that he might have been told this.
And before you jump to conclusions about whether asking McQueary before his testimony was legal or ethical it certainly is and lawyers do it all the time. They call it refreshing a witnesses recollection and its done routinely when a witness says they cant quite remember something.
What substantiates this information -- that McQueary told Paterno that he might have told him he saw "something of a sexual nature" before Paterno testified -- is that McQueary had already testified that he believed something sexual was going on,something along the lines of anal sex, something that clearly was not true and McQueary had to have known he saw no such thing but couldnt tell Paterno thats what he told him since he didnt,so he gave Paterno a vague "something of a sexual nature" line which Paterno used so that Paterno's testimony didnt completely contradict his own.
Yes, the whole thing is a mess. But before you express skepticism, keep in mind that what Paterno knew and was told could have been cleared up had Freeh interviewed Paterno and McQueary for his report but Freeh refused to interview either one of them in spite of the fact that both repeatedly asked to be interviewed.
Joe testified as to three things :
1. MM did not give him the SPECIFICS of what he witnessed.
2. Joe did not recall the SPECIFICS of what MM told him.
3. What Joe did recall of what MM described to him was of "a sexual nature".
Joe only expressed uncertainty as to the SPECIFICS described in 1 and 2. He never, NEVER, expressed any uncertainty as to the NATURE of what MM told him as described in 3. He did not say, as you claim, that it MAY HAVE BEEN sexual in nature. He made an UNQUALIFIED declarative statement : "It was a sexual nature". Stop pretending that the head coach of a major college football program was a senile old fool on the witness stand. He wasn't. When he was uncertain, he said so; when he was certain, he said so.
As for your imagined conversation between Joe and MM in 2011, there's really little to say. There's nothing about it in the record. What are the names of these "credible sources"? Where do their statements appear in the record? It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who relies on the existence of a conversation but refuses to disclose the names of people who heard it or even heard OF it from Joe or MM and refuses to disclose where and when it took place. Just saying that some unidentified "credible sources" told you or somebody else something means nothing, NOTHING.
By the way, did these "credible sources" make their "statements" directly to you (in which case, you can provide their names) or did you just read about them online (in which case, you have a lot to learn about internet "credibility")?
The bottom line is that without this "conversation", you have no way of explaining away the appalling statement "It was a sexual nature". Your needing it to exist doesn't make it exist.
"He never, NEVER, expressed any uncertainty as to the NATURE of what MM told him as described in 3. He did not say, as you claim, that it MAY HAVE BEEN sexual in nature. "
Paterno said repeatedly throughout his entire testimony regarding the conversation ten years earlier that he wasnt sure, didnt remember, and said it repeatedly. And we know for am absolute irrevocable fact now that McQueary NEVER DID see anything of a "sexual nature" in the shower so the liklihood that he actually told Paterno that he did ten years earlier when he saw no such thing is virtually zero.
"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature."
"So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."
Note that Joe does not express any uncertainty as to the NATURE of the incident,i.e., that it was "sexual"and "inappropriate". Note that Joe says that he KNEW that the action was "inappropriate". You keep saying that Joe repeatedly expressed uncertainty without disclosing that he only expressed uncertainty as to the SPECIFICS, and not the NATURE, of what MM told him. Do you understand the difference between someone remembering the nature but not the specifics of an incident?
As for your "absolute irrevocable fact" that MM didn't witness anything "sexual" in nature, you should tell that to the jury which found Jerry guilty of Indecent Assault SOLELY on the basis of MM's testimony. The only "we" who "know" this "fact" are a few Joe die-hards and Jerry.
Post a Comment