Monday, February 11, 2013

New findings demolish Freeh Report,Freeh himself,the NCAA, news media and Penn St. Board of Trustees.


 
 A review of the Freeh Report by a distinguished panel of investigators which includes a former U.S. Attorney General has demolished the Freeh Report along with Freeh's integrity,even calling into question his motives,  and proved beyond any doubt what should have been obvious from the beginning --  that the Freeh Report was a biased hatchet job with an agenda,  filled with smears, unsubstantiated conclusions designed intentionally to smear,and did not at any time present even a shred of actual proof to back up any of its conclusions. It was in not in any way the independent and honest investigation it pretended to be.
 
This is going to be a hard pill to swallow and cause a lot of embarrassment, humiliation, heartburn and worse for a lot of people including 99% of the news media, the NCAA and of course the Board of Trustees at Penn State who accepted, perhaps swallowed is the right word,  Freeh's report so it should be expected that there are going to be some reactions, probably first from the news media, that will attempt to cast aspersions on this report and its findings which, unfortunately for any naysayers,  is bullet proof in it's conclusions.
 
Some may attempt to dismiss it using the fact that the Paterno family commissioned the report, and therefore it is somehow biased but that will never fly. First it would ignore the fact that the Freeh Report itself was bought and paid for by the Board of Trustees, who clearly had a hidden agenda, especially after their knee jerk firing of Paterno before any facts were in, not to mention that they had closed down a press conference Paterno had called to tell all he knew, and Freeh was only too happy to accept the $6 million fee and be the hit man he was hired to be.

 The other unassailable fact is the difference in the integrity, the backgrounds and experience of the people who reviewed and issued the report for the Paterno family who, unlike Freeh who was one of the most unscrupulous and sinister characters in the history of law enforcement, have impeccable credendtials and reputations.  Dick Thornburgh is a former Attorney General of the United States during Reagan's presidency, Jim Clemente a career FBI agent, profiler and former prosecutor whose entire career and expertise is in the area of child sexual abuse, and Dr. Fred Berlin, a renown physician and expert on sexual disorders at Johns Hopkins University hospital.
 
The report issued by Thornberg,FBI agent and former prosecutor Jim Clemente and Dr. Fred Berlin (click the link for the report)  tears the Freeh Report to shreds from the ground up not only destroying it on factual grounds but destroying Freeh's motives and integrity and proves it to be the  incompetent, inadequate  hatchet job and dishonest mess that it is, pointing out the same things that were pointed out here more than a year ago when the story first broke and the media first started to railroad Paterno based on inaccuracies, unvarnished lies, distortions and self-serving fabrications that were as false today as they were then.  Nevertheless the media and others, like lemmings simply swallowed what Freeh fed them when he issued his report in July since it supported (probably intentionally) their own factually inadequate and dishonest narrative, and they swallowed it for self serving purposes not the least of which was money and the opportunity to try and elevate themselves as the moralists they aren't but will pretend to be when given the opportunity.

The Freeh Report itself, when it first came out, was clearly and intentionally dishonest for anyone who read it and didnt have an agenda, and was taken apart in this space back in July of 2011. Every dishonest aspect of the Freeh Report exposed here was re-enforced by the review by Thornburgh et al.
 
The report was also, as characterized by the Paterno family lawyer,  a shot across to the bow to the NCAA, the Board of Trustees and Freeh himself since there were suggestions during an interview with Bob Ley on ESPN with Paterno's attorney as well as with Thornberg and Clemente, that unless something is undone, there could be massive law suits which could force the NCAA, the Board of Trustees and Freeh himself  into a court room.
 
Not unsurprisingly, Freeh issued a statement that did not say, "okay you nailed me, I was completely dishonest and the report is the biased hatchet job it was supposed to be,  paid for by John Surma and others on the Board of Trustees for reasons they will have to explain. I did the best I could to pin this on Paterno and the three others and take the heat off everyone else including myself since I was the vice chairman of a huge bank, MBNA, and during my tenure from 2000-2007 as vice chairman we were Sandusky's biggest corporate sponsor at Second Mile, and even though there is evidence I must have known about the 1998 Sandusky investigation and 2001 incident with Sandusky I did nothing.  But look,  I did pretty well pulling the wool over the eyes of a lot of people by using the dishonest and biased narrative  established by the news media  and I was pretty successful in fooling as many dumb people as I did who were stupid enough to buy it".
 
No Freeh didn't say any of that but if he were honest he would have. Instead to no one's surprise  he stood by the report he was paid $6 million to produce that was supposedly an unbiased objective investigation to get to the truth of what happened but didn't think he needed to interview the two people at the epicenter, Paterno or Mike McQueary who repeatedly asked to be interviewed. He stands by his report that drew conclusions from an email in 1998 from Curley asking Schultz for an update on the investigation, writing "coach is anxious to know" that concluded without a shred of proof that "coach" was Paterno even though all the evidence showed that "coach" was actually Sandusky but Freeh  fudged it and got away with it at the time  by saying "it is believed coach is Paterno" instead of "the evidence shows 'coach' is Paterno".  Because he had no evidence to show that. The real investigators hired by the Paterno family pointed that out as well which was also pointed out here months ago.
 
The 1998 investigation is extremely important because without Paterno knowing anything about the investigation and therefore the allegations against Sandusky as Freeh tried to allege, the entire Freeh Report falls to peices since there is no motive to cover anything up and no knowledge by Paterno of the allegations against Sandusky.  Not only is there no evidence that Paterno knew, all the circumstantial evidence says he didnt. But more compelling than that, there are two people who know exactly who "coach" is. Unambiguously and with a 100% certainty. Its Curley who wrote the email and Schulz who recieved it. And the report by Thornburgh,Clemente and Berlin states clearly that even though Freeh never interviewed Curley or Schultz, Thornburgh et al did meet with Curley and Schultz' lawyers and interviewed them and they say so in the report. And though they didnt say it in so many words ( perhaps for legal reasons since both men still face a trial) it is a virtual certainty that lawyers for Curley and Schultz know who "coach" is from their clients and the fact that the report cites that their lawyers were interviewed with respect to that email, and the report emphatically states that Paterno knew nothing of the investigation, it is a certainty one can conclude they received assurances in some way from Curley and Schultz' lawyers that "coach" in that email was NOT Joe Paterno.
 
 
Don Van Natta, the only real journalist ESPN employs called the new report "damning" against Freeh. which chronicles all the dishonesty that exists in the report. Van Natta wrote, "the report raises troubling questions about the findings, motives, independence and investigative techniques of Freeh's investigators".   And damning,by extension the NCAA, the Penn State Board of Trustees , all the journalists who bought it, like CNN's spineless Roland Martin who never wrote a word in his life about child abuse even with all the painful revelations coming out against the Catholic church, but who jumped on the bandwagon vilifying Paterno, calling him a coward in a column based on the Freeh Report which was something he obviously never even read.

The real coward of course is Roland Martin. As were so many others in the media especially those writing for ESPN. In fact, even in reporting on the new Thornburgh report, ESPN cant get the facts straight and continues to "report" the false narrative they pushed from the beginning which had much to do with inflamming passions against Paterno.

In their article published yesterday they state, " In that 2001 incident, then assistant coach Mike McQueary witnessed the assault of a boy in a shower by Sandusky and told Paterno about it the next day (italics added).   We know now McQueary never witnessed any such thing. In fact it turns out he witnessed nothing at all much less an assault and testified as such at Sandusky's trial which is why Sandusky was acquitted of the count of sexual assault stemming from the incident in the Penn State shower.

So we know he never told Paterno about any assault of a boy by Sandusky in that shower. In fact he never told anyone he witnessed an assault including his own father and family friend Dr. Dranov, and never mentioned an assault of any kind except in his shaky grand jury testimony where he was asked leading questions. That he never witnessed any assault and that none took place in the Penn State shower was confirmed by "Victim 2", in an on the record pre-trial interview with Sandusky's defense lawyer where Victim 2 stated that no assault of even contact ever took place, which explains why Freeh didnt want to interview McQueary.

That anyone needed a report to point out how dishonest and factually manipulative the Freeh Report really was, is in itself damning.As was the media dishonesty that started from the very beginning which turned Paterno into a modern day Richard Jewell, another one of Freeh's smear victims back in 1996 when Freeh was FBI director and had him named as the Olympic bomber.
 
But the news media  who had a lot invested in attacking Paterno to ring up their cash registers (according to Pew Research the media made the story the number 1 story in the country for three weeks) continued to perpetuate the misrepresentation of facts and attacks for which  they had no facts and it didnt matter. Unless it was going to cost them in some way. After I pointed out in a peice here  that Sean Gregory of Time magazine had presented as fact things that were so clearly untrue about what Paterno knew back in November of 2001  that he had opened himself, Time Magazine and Time Warner up  to an open and shut case of libel, Time magazine's lawyers must have agreed because sometime after my piece was written, someone removed the  false and libelous comments Gregory tried to pass off as journalism and replaced them with sentences so reasonable and measured  compared to what was orginally written, it actually makes you laugh when you compare the two.
 
Unfortunately they didn't remember Woody Allen's line that when you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything because the new lines that replaced Gregory's libelous ones would have been impossible to write on November 8,2011 when the article was first written because it reasonably suggests we wait and see what facts will come out in the future to tell us what Paterno knew and told the grand jury when, by November 8,2001 when the article was first written those facts had already come out. (Note to Gregory and Time magazine's lawyers -- you can still go back and fix it).
 
The report written by Thornburgh,Clemente and Dr. Berlin not only demolishes Freeh as a dishonest hack, but it also demolishes the news media, the Board of Trustees, the NCAA and every person who blindly believed the clearly preposterous unsubstantiated nonsense Freeh presented in the hopes he would get away with it. And they did it by presenting facts and evidence collected by people whose integrity, experience and public lives are beyond reproach.

 It demolishes Freeh's central and preposterous premise, that Paterno knew of the 1998 investigation into Sandusky, did nothing, said nothing and was part of some conspiracy with three others to keep Sandusky;s activities quiet and to keep Penn State from bad publicity (even though the investigation and child protection exonerated Sanduksy at the time).
 
The report not only proves Paterno knew nothing of the investigation ( and couldn't have since as pointed out here months ago by a former inspector general who had read the report, unauthorized persons are prohibited by law from being given any information in  a case involving a sexual assault on a child and had Schultz given Paterno any information about the 1998 investigation he certainly would have been charged and prosecuted for that now -- and he isnt, a little fact that escaped Freeh  those intrepid journalists in the news media and those who don't read Woody Allen).
 
While there is no evidence that Paterno knew of the investigation, there is plenty of evidence that Freeh did as co-chairman of a bank that was Sandusky's biggest corporate sponsor. Which would give Freeh the proverbial means, motive and opportunity to fix the blame somewhere else and hopefully avoid any blame himself. And who knows what skeletons are in the closet of some members of the Board of Trustees? There have already been articles written showing that John Surma, a trustee had a vendetta against Paterno.
 
There are still going to be people who will cling to the Freeh Report at any cost and try to cast aspersions on this review of that report which debunks everything Freeh concluded,  as if Thornberg a former U.S. attorney general,  Clemente a career FBI agent and Dr. Fred Berlin a physician at Johns Hopkins would compromise their good names and a lifetime of integrity and achievement for a few bucks after the story had passed from public view.  The only people who will still support the Freeh Report will be those who will do it for their own self serving reasons. One of those is attorney Thomas Kline, a lawyer looking for a payout and who represents Victim 5 who said this in response to the new report:

(The new report and its findings)  "do not erase the shocking and striking documents which Freeh did uncover and which form an unassailable finding made by Mr. Freeh that Joe Paterno tragically had knowledge in 1998 .."

Mr. Kline is either incompetent, a liar,  or is simply out for a payday since as pointed out both here and in the Thornburgh review,  the Freeh Report produced no such proof that Joe Paterno knew a thing about the 1998 investigation, there is more proof to the contrary, and Kline's use of the word "unassailable" is a bad joke for someone whose profession is supposed to be about presenting facts. But  there is a lot of money on the line for Mr. Kline as he is representing a victim whose case and claim would be substantially damaged if Paterno didnt know anything about the 1998 investigation, and that is apparent in the way Kline factually misrepresents the truth, when in fact the findings made by Freeh are not only quite assailable they were assailed completely and effectively by former Attorney General Thornberg, FBI agent Clemente and Dr. Berlin and seemingly confirmed by lawyers for Curley and Schultz.

This report debunking the Freeh Report could be the opening of a Pandora's Box for Freeh, the Board of Trustees, and the NCAA. It will force all of them to answer questions that need to be asked and answered. And it will happen either in the court of public opinion or in a court of law. It will also teach a lesson to those who can't or won't think for themselves,who are not nearly as smart as they think they are, not nearly as moral as they think they are and blindly believe everything they read by those who will willfully ignore the truth for their own self serving reasons.

That it took this new report to point out all the lies, distortions, and blatantly misleading and biased aspects of the Freeh Report underscores how useless the mainstream media has become and how devoid they are of any journalistic standards or ethics. From the time the first dishonest  and factually inaccurate reports by people like Sean Gregory at Time magazine and those at ESPN first started to flow, and then the response of the media the NCAA and others to the Freeh Report, the mindless and equally ignorant torch carrying mob has had their say. Now with this report which speaks for itself,  and the unquestioned integrity and professionalism of the people who produced it,  reason, facts, truth and justice will have it's say.

As for the NCAA,  their sanctions were nothing more than cheap grandstanding by Mark Emmert who behaved more like a sycophantic small town World War II burgomeister trying to curry favor with Nazis than anyone who had any respect for the truth, facts or the constitution. Emmert wanted to jump on the bandwagon and show that the NCAA "cared" and cared so much he was willing to smear and damage an innocent man and punish tens of thousands of Penn State students who were eight years old at the time Sandusky committed the crimes for which he was convicted. And Emmert did it by circumventing and violating the NCAA's own rules, procedures and guidelines.

Freeh issued a statement that he stands by his report. He has no choice. What matters now is who will stand by Freeh.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

"In their article published yesterday they state, " In that 2001 incident, then assistant coach Mike McQueary witnessed the assault of a boy in a shower by Sandusky and told Paterno about it the next day (italics added). We know now McQueary never witnessed any such thing. In fact it turns out he witnessed nothing at all much less an assault and testified as such at Sandusky's trial which is why Sandusky was acquitted of the count of sexual assault stemming from the incident in the Penn State shower."

Here we go again. First of all, thr jury convicted Jerry of Indecent Assault in connection with the shower incident SOLELY on the basis of MM's testimony. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

Second, even the Paterno family believes that MM witnessed an assault. That's why their expert stated the following in the family's response :

"On one hand, they love the offender for the things he has done for them. On the other hand, they hate the offender for the things he has done to them. That’s why the boy in the shower in 2001 kept silent even though McQUEARY WITNESSED HIM BEING groomed and ASSAULTED BY SANDUSKY."

Again, the family's response states :

"What McQUEARY WITNESSED was no doubt a grooming incident and A SEXUAL ASSAULT, however, McQueary admitted he did not actually see anal sodomy."

Perhaps you should tell the family about MM's conversation with Joe just prior to Joe's testimony. You know, the one where he tells Joe what to say on the witness stand? The family seems to be unaware of it.

You can take some comfort in the family agreeing with you that the word "was" in "It was a sexual nature" really should be read as "may have been" or "might have been" because if you read "was" as "was" (what a ridiculous reading), then Joe looks bad, really bad.

Don Borio said...

Sandusky was convicted of Indecent Assault, not sexual assault, which was a misdemeanor and not a felony. He was not convicted of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse. He was not convicted of it because he did not see anything remotely like that and the jury did not believe it. Even though the state AG made sure she said it in her GJ Presentment television appearance. None of the other people McQueary told at the time had that opinion either, including his father's MD friend, a mandated reporter; who did not report it. While I am offended that Paterno receives irrational, unjust accusation; I am more offended that the real culprits in this story - state agencies and The Second Mile - are currently off the hook.

Anonymous said...

I doubt whether that terrifed boy in the shower was as dismissive of Jerry's sexual contact (the words used in the Indecent Assault statute) as Joe's supporters seem to be. Joe's family certainly believes that the boy was sexually assaulted in the shower. They say so REPEATEDLY in their rebuttal.

Jeff Williams said...

My goodness Anonymous - when confronted with a basic fact that you screwed up you change your argument. Moving the goalposts to use a football expression is a classic rhetorical fallacy.

Anonymous said...

"My goodness Anonymous - when confronted with a basic fact that you screwed up you change your argument. Moving the goalposts to use a football expression is a classic rhetorical fallacy."

There was no movement of "goal posts" . Marc states that MM witnessed "nothing at all much less an assault" in the shower. Marc did not limit his denial to "sexual" assaults. The jury found that MM witnessed an Indecent Assault (which the statute defines as "sexual" in nature). Only in the minds of Joe's supporters does anything short of penetration constitute "nothing at all".

Marc set the "goal posts" at "assault" (actually, he set them at "nothing", but let's ignore that silliness). Indecent assault doesn't move Marc's goal posts. You have to pay more attention to the statement which is being refuted. In any case, it's good that you, like the Paternos, acknowledge that an "assault" took place.

Anonymous said...

A culture of elitists

Anonymous said...

Excellent article. Well done. Buckeye Fan here, hoping JoePa and his legacy are vindicated, restored and that his family gets the apology they deserve. Penn State should be removed from sanctions and the NCAA should be sued.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me anonymous. You say Joe Paterno looks bad because a sexual assault occured. MM stated he did not give Joe any details about what he saw, his information was vague. Joe, noting how disturbed MM was about it stated he believed it was sexual in nature. So coach Paterno did what was prescribed by PSU procedures and PA law, he contacted his superior AD Curley and asked him to look into the matter. Comments seem to indicate that Joe made sure MM met with Curley and/or Schultz. At that point Joe had met his responsibility, BY LAW, to report what he was told to the PSU authorities required to look into the matter further. More than one person I know in the teaching profession has told me that in PA that is standard practice. Obviously the other administrators were not convinced by MM an assult had taken place. The Freeh report uses incomplete information to infer that Joe Paterno participated in some grand coverup, even though many persons outside of PSU were made aware of the incident. If the AD and others that Joe trusted did not deem this incident worth following up on, WHY SHOULD HE QUESTION THEM!!! Again MM was very vague in his description to Joe and the report put together by the family's experts points this out. How does the Freeh report manage to conclude that Joe Paterno conspired to deceive others about what he was told. I would also like to note that in his statement dismissing the Paterno family report Mr. Freeh says that Joe Paterno declined to be interviewed for his report. However in the report itself, it is noted that Paterno agreed to speak with his commission but died before he could be interviewed. Which was it Mr. Freeh??? Jim Kramer Jr.

Linda Berkland said...

Thank you Marc Rubin! I can always count on you to nail down the truth. Penn State's board is a joke. Louis Freeh is a joke. ESPN is a joke. This isn't about hero worship, statues, trophies or wins on a football field. This is about the truth! This is about how the children of THE SECOND MILE were failed by THE SECOND MILE and PA child welfare agencies. The truth is on the horizon for those people and they will have to answer for their incompetencies, perhaps their crimes. The damage done to Joe Paterno's good name may be irreversible but you can bet your sweet ass that Penn Staters will not rest until the truth is told, the board resigns and PA's children are safer (in fact, I'm pretty sure it's the entire country that needs a child welfare make over). Thank you again!

Ray Blehar said...

The fact that Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault of Victim 2 is irrelevant to the point of the discussion, which is that the Freeh Report findings are not supported by the laws or the evidence.

I will release an analysis of the relevant chapters of the report that deal with the NCAA sanctions which concludes -- based on laws and evidence -- that only 5 of Freeh's 50 findings re: the NCAA sanctions are substantiated or partially substantiated by the evidence. That's 10%.

Moreover, the findings which are supported - few that they are -- pertain to compliance with the conduct of criminal background checks and Clery Act reporting. Those findings have no relevance to the 2001 or 1998 incidents. PSU did not implement Clery Act reporting outside the police department until 2007. Thus, Freeh's allegation that McQueary, Curley, and Paterno violated the Clery act is not only unsubstantiated, but is dishonest and malicious.

Anonymous said...

The American public condemned Paterno long before the Freeh Report was issued. This condemnation was based on Paterno's testimony before the Grand Jury, i.e., that he knew of an alleged sexual incident between Sandusky and a child. The Freeh Report as well as the Paterno Family Rebuttal did not (indeed, could not) change Paterno's words "It was a sexual nature".
You can refute every word of the Freeh Report and it still changes nothing as far as Paterno's reputation is concerned. Paterno's own words convict him.

Anonymous said...

Joe pa admitted he wished he did more u psu people can't accept the fact that your school messed up and your beloved joe pa messed up, keep blaming others ie espn, freeh, second mile, the public, etc. its time to own up and accept the fact your school and the people in charge screwed up, if the same thing happened with bowden in fsu u people would be crucifying bobby

Billy said...

Anonymous...by continuing to do what you're doing on the limited knowledge that you have about the situation you ironically prove the author of this article to be fully justified in everything he said. It's beautiful!

Marc Rubin said...

Here we go again. First of all, thr jury convicted Jerry of "Indecent Assault in connection with the shower incident SOLELY on the basis of MM's testimony. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

Second, even the Paterno family believes that MM witnessed an assault. That's why their expert stated the following in the family's response ..."


Here we go again is right. You are the poster child for all those pointed out in the article, those who think they are smart but aren't, who think they have the facts but don't, who think they are being moralists when they show just how immoral or amoral they can be in trying to defend themselves, Freeh and the media, so allow me to take your argument and points apart and destroy them and I will do it in two parts since its too lengthy to be in one reply.

First for you to sink so low as to try and bolster your argument by what the Paterno family said they believed shows just how low and deceitful those desperate to defend their indefensible position are willing to go.

The Paterno family wasn't in the shower were they? Joe Paterno wasn't in the shower either was he? The Paterno family has no more of an idea of what went on in that shower than anyone and clearly neither do you.

And to use what the Paterno family had to say in public statements and ignoring the facts as they exist, shows how desperate you are. It should have been clear to you as it is to most people that the Paterno family would in no way want to be seen as defending Sandusky and even today expresses sympathy for Sandusky's victims. So for you to ignore all the facts to try and bolster your point by trying to say what the Paterno family "believed" when they would in no way publicly challenge media reports of what they say McQueary said he saw no matter how wrong they were, shows how low those trying to defend the Freeh Report are willing to go.

No attack or assault of any kind took place in that shower. Period. Not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any shadow of a doubt. And in every statement McQueary made except to the grand jury, he used the words " horsing around" to describe what he THOUGHT was going on because he SAW nothing and finally had to admit he saw nothing. But there is someone who does know exactly what went on in that shower and we will get to that in a minute.

Marc Rubin said...

"Second, even the Paterno family believes that MM witnessed an assault.."

Reply II:

Your point about the jury convicting Sandusky on a count based on "grooming" in the shower incident to bolster your argument is also asinine. Grooming, if you understood the concept, is not a one time occurrence. It is a pattern of behavior and given that Sandusky was convicted of 43 other counts of sexual abuse and that the prosecution was able to show a pattern of grooming that went on for years, the jury saw Sandusky taking the boy to Penn State and then showering with him as part of that pattern of grooming. That did not in any way even imply there was any sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy even though the media still reports that there was.

But there IS proof that shows how wrong and ignorant you and the media that continues to print those fallacies are. And while I don't expect you to have every shred of information and wont criticize you for not knowing what you think you know and don't, that you would try and defend your point of view in the flimsy way you have is bad enough.

The someone who does know exactly what went on in that shower besides Sandusky is the boy who was in the shower with Sandusky, the boy who is described as Victim 2.

The boy, now a man, in his early 20's and who was 10 or 11 years old at the time of the incident that you claim McQueary "saw", was interviewed on the record by Sandusky's defense lawyers at their law offices. And Victim 2, now a man described in that interview what went on.

McQueary said he heard "slapping sounds" coming from inside the shower and jumped to the conclusion that it was the sound of Sandusky having anal sex, or some kind of sexual contact, skin to skin with the boy even though he backed off those assertions later( why McQueary who supposedly had no idea of Sandusky's proclivities would jump to that conclusion just from sounds is something McQueary needs to explain). What Victim 2 said on the record is that when he was in the shower with Sandusky he was running back and forth from one end of the shower to the other, from one wall to the other, back a number of times.

The Penn State athletic showers are long, as most of those kinds are, designed to accommodate many people showering at once. The sound McQueary said he heard according to Victim 2's statement was the sound of his bare feet hitting the wet tiles on the shower floor, running back and forth the length of the shower a few times, playing around.

There will be a video posted on this site in the near future which will show and confirm this interview and Victim 2's on the record statement of what went on in the shower.

Marc Rubin said...

Reply III

"Again, the family's response states :

"What McQUEARY WITNESSED was no doubt a grooming incident and A SEXUAL ASSAULT"

Nothing regarding any sexual assault or contact ever took place in that shower and McQueary saw no such thing. Its why Victim 2 never testified to the grand jury,never came forward or testified at Sandusky's trial. That he was there at all with Sandusky given Sandusky's history is why Sandusky was convicted of a count of grooming the boy.

You are factually wrong on every count, and being without facts you try and drag in the Paterno family with what you say they "believed" about the shower incident when they themselves had no facts either, just the lies and distortions in the media accounts, and is about as cheap a way to try and defend your distorted, factually inaccurate and indefensible position and the factually inaccuratge media accounts as there is when you know full well the Paterno family had no idea factually about what went on in that shower, neither did Joe Paterno, and as it turns out neither did Mike McQueary. It's what makes you the poster child for all the dishonest media accounts and those who are not as smart as they think they are, or think they know more than they actually know and think they are morally superior when they were none of those things to begin with.

Add to that your lack of understanding of what "grooming" is and why the jury saw taking the boy to the showers as a grooming incident as part of a pattern that went on for years previously, again either shows how little understanding you have about what you pontificate about or how desperate you are to try and defend what you cant defend factually.

So yes, "here we go again" as the defenders of Freeh, perhaps the Board of Trustees and the media desperately try and claw their way out of the deep hole they put themselves in, but hopefully, the Thornburgh report will put an end to it and we wont have to do this again.


Anonymous said...

This is America and in spite of The many awards The media doesn't get to decide whether Joe Paterno gets tried in the court of "Public Opinion"! They are entitled to their opinions, as are those people who want to know the truth about what happened and who is responsible for allowing these hideous actions to occur.

I have read the entire Paterno report and agree that it has a clear agenda, so did the Freeh report. The Freeh report was structured so the evidence would draw attention away from the school, BOT and the Governor of PA and place responsibility on two middle managers and an aging coach! While the Paterno report attempts to point out inaccuracies in the Freeh report and exonerate Joe Paterno. Frankly, if someone made inaccurate statements about any of their fathers, I believe they would do what they could to set the record straight!

Most of these reporters are very good writers and I enjoy their pieces! However, I think if professional news and sports writers want to comment on this situation, they should complete their own investigation first, then write their piece based on their OWN findings, not their opinions. I really could care less about their opinions, as I'm sure they care very little for mine.

I'm not even a Penn State fan and I smell something funny here. Now we all have discovered that PA's current governor, Tom Corbett, who was the Pennsylvania Attorney General involved in the initial investigation of these allegations, may have sat on information and/or allegations rather than vigorously continue the investigation in to these sexual abuse cases. By doing nothing, Governor Corbett may have jeopardized the lives of additional children. If he had vigorously investigated these allegations, perhaps additional children may have been spared the pain and humiliation of sexual abuse. As you may expect, I've waited for some well respected news and sports reporters, to pursue the Governor with the same vigor and indignation that they pursued Joe Paterno, but to my surprise there was only silence.

Joe Paterno, a football coach, was fooled by a master manipulator (who also fooled trained professionals and law enforcement) and immediately informed his superiors when he heard of the allegations, and everyone rushes to judgment that he should have done more and he gets fired!

Governor Corbett, an attorney and the AG at the time of the allegations, sat on this information, never arrested the alleged perpetrator who went on to commit more atrocities, and no one is screaming for his dismissal...

Where are all those talking heads on the news and sports shows who crusaded for the firing of Joe Paterno? Are they afraid to challenge the Governor of PA? Are they afraid to pursue Governor Corbett? Don't they want to know the complete story? Don't they want to report the complete story to their readers?

FOX Sports, ESPN and most major networks have egg on their faces and are now trying to deflect the questions posed by the Paterno report by more speculation. Fox Sports, ESPN and the major networks, should do their own, indebt investigation and set the record straight, once and for all. Even if they have to admit that they were wrong (and perhaps their not!!!), no one will ever know the truth except those idiots who challenge anyone who pursues the complete truth, and then makes accusations That anyone who challenges the Freeh Report, is supporting child molestation!

Stop following the music... Investigate and if Paterno is involved, he should be shamed! If he's not, eat crow and make your apologies. All of these news and sports outlets, talk about morality; if they believe that Joe Paterno traded his morality to save his football team, then they should do their due diligence, be better than Joe Paterno, do your job!

I don't expect any of these news and sports outlets to respond to this post because that's what Men do; cowards hide behind empty words and win awards by bringing down icons....

Draw your own conclusions....

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It's not fair to hold the Paterno family responsible for every statement (or misstatement) in their rebuttal. I doubt whether the family has examined all of the evidence. Nobody would expect them to do so. That's why you hire experts!

In their rebuttal, the Paternos' experts (NOT the Paterno family themselves) take the position (an ignorant, uninformed position, according to some) that McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Penn State shower. Some critics of the Paternos' experts characterize that position as a "distorted, factually inaccurate and indefensible position". The Paternos' experts had access to the same evidence as their critics (in fact, by virtue of their access to the Paterno family, these experts had MORE access than their critics). They simply came to a different conclusion than their critics on the basis of such evidence. It's a simple (and, I'm sure, honest) disagreement.

If you believe that the Paternos' experts have done them a disservice, you can certainly point that out without calling a heartfelt defense of a beloved patriarch in any way "distorted". Savage their experts, if you must, but leave the family alone.

Marc Rubin said...

"If you believe that the Paternos' experts have done them a disservice, you can certainly point that out without calling a heartfelt defense of a beloved patriarch in any way "distorted".

If you think I was attacking the Paterno family for offering "distortions" about Sandusky and the shower incident you have completely missed the point. It is the NEWS MEDIA I was attacking since there was no evidence any such attack took place from the beginning and now it is confirmed there was no assault in the shower.

It is strictly the news media insisting on pushing the same untruth they always did that I was attacking. There is nothing to be gained by the Paterno family or their report in attacking that one aspect. It has nothing to do with the fallacies of the Freeh Report which hinges completely on Paterno knowing about the 1998 investigation for which there is not an iota of proof. I do not believe for one second that the Paterno family has any "heartfelt" belief that Sandusky assaulted a boy in the shower. They are simply accepting media accounts, extending sympathies to all the victims and there would be no reason in the world for any of their experts to examine whether or not there was an assault since it doesnt bear at all on the fallcies lies and distortions that victimized Paterno.

Even if they had known that Victim 2, the boy in the shower has now stated on the record as an adult that there was no assault and not even any contact, it wouldnt change a thing as it relates to Freeh's distortions and dishonest conclusions about Joe Paterno.There was no reason for them to evaluate that at all,since all the effort went into evaluating the Freeh Report and in fact they made the point of saying their report was NOT going to re-investigate the incident at Penn State, only the Freeh Report itself and its truthfullness, its conclusions,valuations and value as an objective investigation that reported the truth. Which is that it did not.

Just to be clear,nothing in the Paterno family's report had anything to do with investigating the incident in the shower. And the "distortions, lies and misrepresentations" were all directed at the news media,who keep perpetuating what is a complete fallacy and they do it because everything they wrote about Paterno, every attack, was based on what they thought happened in that shower. Once you know nothing happened and McQueary witnessed nothing, what exactly he told Paterno and what Paterno knew, becomes suspect and invalidates every word the news media ever wrote.

Those characterizatons had nothing to do with anything the Paterno family said.

Marc Rubin said...

"In their rebuttal, the Paternos' experts (NOT the Paterno family themselves) take the position (an ignorant, uninformed position, according to some) that McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Penn State shower."

Just so that YOU'RE clear : the Paterno family experts never investigated or re-investigated the incident in the shower, an incident for which Sandusky had already been acquitted. That was not their mandate nor task which is was SOLELY to review the Freeh Report and its contents and conclusions and issue their own report about that. You are badly mistaken and misinformed if you think their experts re-investigated the incident in the shower and came to some conclusion that a sexual assault took place when Sandusky had already been acquitted by a jury of that allegation. So again you are mistaken if you think that is a "position" they take. They are merely accepting the media accounts which were fallacious and, one more time, that incident in the shower was not part of what their experts were mandated to investigate, and did not. They only reviewed the Freeh Report so you are badly mistaken and uninformed.

Anonymous said...

So glad I got out of Pennsyltucky.

Cogent said...

I understand the calculus that in order to defend Paterno, you must destroy McQueary. But Rubin goes off the deep end of the pool when he insists "nothing" happened at Lasch. (His hysteria is very much like that of the "MSM' he obsesses about.) Sandusky was convicted on four counts (four) for that nothing, while even the Thornburgh report says there's "no doubt," a sexual assault occurred. Instead of trying to find grammatical errors in the arguments (as I'm sure will be his inclination with this one) why doesn't Mr. Rubin tell us what he thinks happened in that shower that night?

John Scott said...

Is Mr. Freeh free to investigate another PA sex scandal?

Gov. Tom Corbett was attorney general when the exchange of emails containing pornography by former members of the attorney general's office were exchanged by members of his staff, forcing him to defend his management as he campaigns for a second term.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane's office identified eight ex-employees who sent or received hundreds of pornographic images or videos in emails that were discovered during Kane's review of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse prosecution.

Four of those officials followed Corbett from the attorney general's office into his gubernatorial administration. On Thursday, two of them resigned.


Corbett said he wishes he was made aware of the emails sooner.

Right. Let's Mr Freeh find out when...exactly.

Marc Rubin said...

"Is Mr. Freeh free to investigate another PA sex scandal?

The worst was Frank Noonan. At the time he was the most critical claiming that Paterno should have gone to him first effectively disparaging Campus Police and ignoring that one of Sandusky's victim's own mother went to Campus Police. And now ironically we learn that Mr. Noonan was the reciepient of over 300 pornographic emails indicating that even had Paterno gone to him he would've been too preoccupied to have done anything about it.

Anonymous said...

I think you are all looking at the wrong point. The real question is, taking the Freeh Report as an investigatory and research document, are the results (a) reliable and (b) replicable? In other words, if you took Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan's methodology and tried to repeat it, would you find the same sources or get the same results?
The answer is "no". The Freeh Report is what a lot of critics describe as a hatchet job, but what it really is, I'm convinced, is a thesis with cherry-picked evidence. It boasts of all the documents that were analyzed, but it does that from the filter of guilt; Freeh's group assumes the worst and sees it everywhere. No historicist techniques of analyzing historical documents were applied. It's just "this is what I think" research based on a prosecutor's assumptions of guilt.
I cannot say that I know if the Penn State four (Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno) are culpable or not, but Freeh's document does not persuade me of anything. I find it hard to believe these men were guilty as Freeh states. They exercised bad judgment, but I don't think the intent is there. Spanier specialized in deviant sexual behavior as a scholar, and he was abused as a boy himself. I can't believe Paterno understood pedophilia and Freeh underestimates how succesful pedophiles are good at fooling people. It's easy to say, "I'd have figure it out" after the fact. I hope the Board of Trustees some day chooses to investigate the report and its methodology. It is a classic example of poor research methodology, bias, and compromised ethics. Freeh has a history of this (see his work with FIFA).