Friday, July 13, 2012

Red flags and personal fouls: the dishonest hatchet job of the Freeh Report.

The great irony of the Freeh Report is that one of its most quoted statements was that there were "red flags all over the place" that should have alerted people to Sandusky and were ignored.

But that applies even more so to the Freeh Report itself except the evidence of the report being incompetetent, dishonest and the product of polititcal hackery is more obvious than any red flags Freeh claims were apparent with Sandusky. And as expected these red flags are being ignored by the news media who have their own ground to defend, their own myths to perpetuate and then there are those who will swallow almost anything they are told by the media.

As for Freeh himself, the Board of Trustees who has botched every possible decison from the beginning couldnt have made a worse decision in choosing Freeh to do the investigation. As pointed out here the other day, Freeh had the reputation in Washington DC of being a political hack. He was excoriated by former Republican governor Tom Kane as Chairman of the 911 Commission who tore Freeh to shreds for his incompetence as FBI director in his handling of terrorist related intelligence prior to 911. And as recently as April of 2012, appearing before a congressional committee, Freeh was battered by the committee investigating the bankruptcy of MF Global for which Freeh and his group were overseeing, for Freeh's refusal to turn over relevant documents to federal regulators.
All indications were that the Freeh Report was going to be the product of a political hack. And the report did not disappoint.

First, the Freeh Report was not an impartial investigation. In fact it wasn't an investigation at all. It was a prosecution and an unscrupulous one, that misrepresented,and distorted evidence where it existed, eliminated anything exculpatory, took facts that clearly meant one thing and distorted them to mean something else and ignored the truth in almost every circumstance and any fact that didnt fit with the premise.

Freeh's central premise regarding Joe Paterno is that Paterno knew all about Sandusky and his activites as far back as 1998 through what McQuery says he witnessed and covered it up to shield Penn State from bad publicity. Taking a wrecking ball to that premise and his report using a wrecking ball made up of nothing but facts, logic, common sense and the truth, will demolish both Freeh's report and his credibility.

Before getting into specifics, and recalling the Woody Allen line that when you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything, when it comes to Freeh's central premise of Paterno being motivated by a desire to shield Penn State from bad publicity ( preposterous on the face of it),  Freeh forgets one important fact: within days of the story breaking back in November, Paterno called a press conference where he was going to tell everything he knew, everything he heard and everything he did regarding the Sandusky incident  and was going to take questions from reporters. It was Penn State university officials and the Board of Trustees who forced him to cancel it. So right from the beginning who does the evidence show was trying to shield Penn State from bad publicity? Joe Paterno or the Board of Trustees who paid Freeh $ 6 million for his report?

The Freeh Report has one central premise regarding Paterno and uses 3 main assertions to try and substantiate that conclusion. And he uses two in Freeh's words "critical" emails that ?Freeh says "proves" it.

Those two emails which are central to Freeh's report are a 1998 email from Curley to Spanier, the now nfamous "after talking with Joe..." email in 2001 from Curley to Spanier and incredibly, the interview Paterno gave to the Washington Post at the height of the media frenzy surrounding the story in which he claims Paterno statements prove he was trying to shield Penn State from bad publicity ( I dont know what rock Freeh was hiding under but by the time that interview was held the story was the biggest in the country and there was no sheilding Penn State from anything).

Freeh claims a 1998 email from Curley to Schultz proves that Paterno knew all about Sandusky and his activities contrary to Paterno's grand jury testimony and public statements. He cites one email from May 13, 1998 from Curley to Schultz which says only, " anything new is this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands".

There is not one single corroborating email that Freeh offers, which,given the accusation Freeh is making based on this, you would think there would there would be in abundance. Does it raise questions? absolutely. Does the report answer them and provide proof? Absolutely not. To an ethical investigator that email would be a lead NOT proof. Why does Curley refer to Paterno as "Joe" in other emails and "Coach" in this one? How do we know this relates to the Sandusky investigation involving child abuse? Where are the corroborating emails that make this clear when on would think there would be many? Where are Harmon's emails confirming this? And most importantly why does the Freeh report say " the reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno".

"Believed to be"? A $6 million dollar investigation into what was the biggest story in the country for weeks, and an attack on a man's credibility, grand jury testimony and public statements on one of the two most crucial assertions the Freeh Report makes and it's based on "believed to be"?  Why doesn't he know?.Why didn't he find out?

One other crucial point: the 1998 investigation which included a psychologist interviewing both Sandusky and the children he showered with and said their accounts were the same found that NO ABUSE had taken place. If one wants to argue that Paterno knew of the investigation then one has to accept he knew about the results of the investigation and those results exonerated Sandusky of any wrong doing. In that case there would be nothing for Paterno to do.

On page 51 of the Freeh report, it says:

" After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno".

 Freeh doesn't know how the results of the investigation was conveyed to Paterno but he insists they were. And notice how he uses the word " :conclusion"  of the investigation and not "results" of the investigation, Is this an accident? or is it because the results of the investigation undercut his very premise? Because the results of the investigation that would have been conveyed to Paterno would have been that Sandusky was exonerated of any abuse.

There is no fact in Freeh's written report that shows that the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was ever conveyed to Paterno. He just says it. He just wants you to take his word for it. But he has no proof. Which may be why Freeh says, oops, he cant find any evidence of how it was done. If you're going to accuse someone of lying to a grand jury and lying in public statements you better have the goods to prove it. Freeh has, by his own admission, nothing.And he also ignores the fact that if Paterno did know the results, he would have been told there was no abuse by Sandusky.Which blows Freeh's entire premise out of the water. Why would Paterno feel the need to cover up or protect Penn State from an investigation that concluded nothing happened?  And for the Tinker Toy brains who can't see through that, it would have been to Paterno's advantage and Penn State's advantage to tell the grand jury that yes, he remembers the investigation and it completely exonerated Sandusky. The idea that Paterno was covering up or keeping Penn State from bad publicity by holding back on an investigation he knew about that cleared Sandusky is not just stupid, but anyone who believes that and has a college degree didnt get their moneysworth. Or stole it.

Now you see why "conclusions" by a witness are inadmissible in a court of law. A conclusion is not fact. It is not proof. It isn't even evidence.

This entire report could be cut to pieces by a 3rd year law student with one glaring example after another where Freeh draws conclusions without facts, makes statements about facts not in evidence and chooses to ignore anything that is in conflict with his premise.

There is one more crucial example of Freeh's dishonesty  that needs to be exposed and that is the infamous leaked  Curley to Spanier email where Curley says, "after talking with Joe and thinking about it more.." where Curley says he is no longer comfortable doing " what we decided in reporting it to everyone".

Freeh uses this email to assert flat out that this proves Paterno was involved in a cover up ( again contrary to Paterno's public statements and grand jury testimony) and Freeh draws the "conclusion" that this email. It is central to Freeh's "case" and central to every statement Freeh makes in his report about Paterno, every conclusion he draws and wants you to believe. Freeh's dishonesty and lack of ethics and his unscrupulous conduct is no more glaring than in how his report characterizes this email going so far as to change the actual words to conform with a meaning he wants to sell.

This is how the Freeh Report characterized the email:

"In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20,of this year, we saw evidence of their proposed plan of action in February of 2001 that included reporting allegations about Sandusky to authorities. After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno however,they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to authorities".

When you have to alter the facts to fit your point, it is not only the earmark of a hack, but someone unethical, unscrupulous and whose credibility has been shattered. Such is the case with Freeh and this email is one more glaring example.

First, Curley's actual email states. " after talking with Joe and thinking about it more..."
Freeh changes the wording of the email  to fit his conclusion of what he wants you to accept it means by substituting the word " consulted" for "after talking with..". A very different meaning can be taken from " consulting" which has sinister and conspiratorial overtones than "after talking with". He also uses the word "they" in referring to the contents of the email, the "they" being Paterno and Curley when Curley';s email consistantly uses the word "I", not "we" and never once mentions that his decison had anything to do with Paterno. The most logical conclusion from this email alone is that after the intital meeting with Paterno where Paterno told him of McQueary's accusations and it was decided that they would be "reported to everyone", Curley on his own, "after thinking about it more", decided against it and informed Spanier of such.There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that there was a second meeting with Paterno where they both decided to reverse course.

Let it be said that if the implications Freeh is trying to sell were actually true Joe Paterno would be guilty of a bad mistake, perjury, and certainly failure to report child abuse which is a crime. The problem with Freeh's statement and his conclusion is that it is nowhere to be found in Curley's email.

Nowhere in Curley's email does he say he consulted with Paterno. That is Freeh's word and he offers not a shred of proof to back it up even though that word in itself convicts Paterno of being part of Curley's decision not to report what McQueary says he witnessed. And Freeh makes the claim without one shred of corroborating evidence to support it.

Curley constantly uses the word "I" and not "we" in his email to Spanier. Freeh on the other hand,using the same email constantly uses the word " they" as in Paterno and Curley. And again he does it without one shred of evidence to back it up. Only the supposition of what an unscrupulous prosecutor wants you to swallow.

Not one corroborating piece of evidence, no phone records to indicate a second conversation between Paterno and Curley took place, no office or appointment logs to show Paterno met with Curley a second time. not one witness to a second meeting interviewed or cited. Nothing. Just Freeh deciding to use this email as "proof" of his own unsubstantiated conclusions which also happens to run contrary to every shred of evidence, testimony, grand jury testimony and public statement that does exist.

 And just to put a fine point on it, ESPN Magazine's senior writer,  Dan Van Nata did report a few days ago before the release of the report that a source, probably in Freeh's own group, who had seen all the emails told him that this email from Curley to Spanier was in the source's words,  "definitely taken out of context" and "chosen to put everyone in the worst possible light".

While a reasonable person could certainly say the email raises a potential question  of was there a second meeting and did in fact Joe Pateno influence Curley's decision not to report it Freeh doesnt answer any of it.  Not with facts. Not with proof. Not with anything.And all the facts and proof that does exist say Freeh's assertion is preposterous.

No evidence is presented that there was a second meeting that undid everything that was decided in the first -- a meeting that supported Paterno's later statements that he told what he knew to Curley and Schultz and was under the impression that the matter was " going to be handled appropriately:.

Adding to how preposterous Freeh's assertion is, if in the first meeting, they had decided as Curley said, "to report it to everyone", and in a purported second meeting of which there is no record "a change of plan was decided" on, common sense would tell you that it would have been to Curley's advantage to tell Spanier that Paterno was involved in the decision and would have helped sell the idea to Spanier. But Curley doesn't. He says "I" not "we".  Yet Freeh wants everyone to believe the evidence shows that Paterno  was influential in Curley's decision not to report it.

The bottom line with this email is that Freeh intentionally distorts and mischaracterizes it. And if you have to distort and misrepresent evidence to make your case, you have no case.

In the end, the evidence of the Freeh report's dishonesty speaks for itself.
The two emails cited can certainly raise questions in the minds of reasonable people. And though all the available facts say otherwise about Paterno being involved in any cover up or lying to the grand jury, or knowing what Freeh tries to claim Paterno knew, they would have been worth investigating to find the facts behind the emails and clarify them for the record, instead of using speculation and distortion and unsubstantiated conclusion to make a dishonest case. What these emails would be to an honest investigator would be  leads, something to follow up on to find the truth. Freeh tries to turn what might be a lead into something he wants you to buy as proof. And as in the case of the 1998 investigation, he wants you to believe Paterno knew of the investigation but says nothing and draws no conclusions from the fact that the results of the investigation he is alleging Paterno knew about, was that Sandusky was innocent of any wrong doing. Because that would spoil everything.

( NOTE: For those who want a point of view posted by someone at the other end of the political spectrum from myself,  but who sees much the same things I have, read what a conservative has to say about the Freeh Report here).


Anonymous said...

Tom, I am a 70’s alumnus of Penn State and I appreciate your objectivity. I have read a large portion of the Freeh report. One of my reactions was to the style of the document, more like a tabloid report than a factual document. Yes, there are some facts present but also much speculation, and speculation with a definite goal in mind. The goal is to heap more blame on those already indicted, and Paterno, and to largely exonerate the board.

I have a desire to defend Paterno from untrue allegations. If negative facts come out about his involvement, so be it. I sometimes feel that because of the type of crime, people feel justified to say anything. And if Penn State people are defended, that itself is almost a crime in their eyes.

You make many good points in your analysis. In my opinion the 1998 incident should not raise questions concerning Penn State’s involvement. This was an outside investigation with the police, social services, and the DA involved. The DA decided not to prosecute. It appears Paterno may have been informed. But again, with action dropped by law enforcement, why expect him or others at Penn State to take it further at that time.

With respect to the 2001 incident, the one e-mail by Curley which is sited offers no information about what was actually discussed with Paterno before a change of action plan. To state that “the plan was changed after discussion with Paterno” implies a cause and effect for which there is no basis in fact. Paterno had already informed Sandusky that he would not become the next coach. Paterno did not have reason to protect a “chosen candidate”. Sandusky was retired from the coaching staff.

Curley and Schultz also spoke directly with McQueary. There should be no speculation about how or what Joe conveyed to them from McQueary.

The people above Paterno should have reported the 2001 incident. However, even for them, I don’t have the impression after reading the Freeh report that there was a conspiracy to cover up known crimes. Unfortunately, in many cases like these, a long-time friend/colleague is accused of conduct which does not appear in line with present impressions. It was evidently decided to give Sandusky the benefit of doubt and take a certain approach. Which in retrospect was the wrong decision.

Anonymous said...

"What?! Freeh doesn't know the color of the drapes in the room where Joe ordered Curley to cover up? How can we come to any conclusion if our facts are so sketchy?"

Your insistence on what amounts to a video/audio record standard of proof is just plain childish.

Anonymous said...

What disturbs me most about this posting is the complete absence of any reference to the victims. I can't even find the word "victim". I know that Penn State folks consider Joe (and themselves) to be the "real" victims, but you could have at least paid lip service to the boys. I should probably be grateful; it's a step up from mentioning the victims only to deny their suffering e.g., Victim 2 in the shower).

Mike said...

Great post Tom. Thought provoking. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

GK93 said...

We are capable of caring about more than one thing, Anonymous. We care about the victims AND Penn State AND the investigation AND our families, friends etc. The victims have had their day in court and Sandusky is behind bars. They will have their day in civil court as well and Penn Staters have raised over half a million dollars for RAINN with more to come, I'm sure. Just because that isn't referenced every time doesn't take anything away from the victims' suffering. In fact, determining how this happened so that it never happens again is also for the victims.

The Freeh report blames Curley, Schutz, Spanier, and Paterno - 3 of whom were never interviewed to explain the context of their emails etc. which immediately calls into question its validity. Freeh couldn't subpoena them and compel their testimony but he decided in essence to testify for them by drawing his own conclusions. If we don't push for the complete truth and challenge every finding, both good and bad, then we fail the victims by not holding the proper people accountable.

Jeffrey W Simons said...


I appreciate your steadfast commitment to the truth, and defending Joe's honor - which never should have been tainted in the first place. But you commit a grievous factual error that must be corrected.

The exact wording of Curley's email in regards to the 2001 incident is this: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe . . "

The implication is that Curley thought about changing his mind FIRST, and THEN spoke with Joe. Not the other way around. But you are correct in all other regards that the Freeh report is full of salacious gossip without having to fulfill the burden of proof of evidence in a court of law.

Btw Louis Freeh went to church and worked over one of the worst spies in American history for EIGHT YEARS. He is completely unqualified to talk about recognizing traitors in your midst.

Anonymous said...

I believe that Joe reported what he knew. Beyond that, who is to say. This report certainly does not prove anything. It is really sad how Sandusky got away with this! Let me approach this from a different angle. I do believe that there are those that would like to see Penn State's football program shut down. Why, I do not know. I can tell you that ESPN has been slamming Joe and University most. My condolences to the victims in all of this and to the Paterno family. They must really be going through a hard time also!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

It breaks my heart when Penn State alumni use their excellent education and native gifts to marshal a host of angry words in Joe's defense but nary a sentence fragment in sympathy for Joe's victims.

Alma Mater weeps.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

It breaks my heart when Penn State alumni use their excellent education and native gifts to marshal a host of angry words in Joe's defense but nary a sentence fragment in sympathy for Joe's victims.

Hey anonymous, go fuck yourself. Penn State alumni care and are highly sympathetic with Sandusky's victims, but we are sick and tired and fed up with everyone from our own trustees to the national media, to uninformed idiots like yourself painting the thousands of Penn Staters with the same brush. Sandusky was a scumbag, and a master deceiver, but he does not define Penn State, and I will personally not tolerate him defining an honorable man like Joe Paterno.

Anonymous said...

More angry words.

How can the victims heal in an atmosphere in which their strongest supporters are urged by Joe's supporters to "go fuck" themselves?

Alma Mater is shame.

Anonymous said...

Super job of tearing apart the amateur hack job of the Freeh report!
Paterno MIGHT be guilty of everything said about him in this report, but there's NO EVIDENCE there to support those conclusions. Last I looked, this is still the U.S.A. and one actually needs evidence to convict someone....(not just speculation!).

gary said...

What still isn't said is how the football program was of top priority. Joe may be totally innocent, he may have been the first to know. But whoever covered it up covered it up so as not to ruin the reputation of both the university and the football program. That is the sad problem.

Anonymous said...

Tom, thank you for taking time to post and thank you to all other supporters. As for the haters and other usual stereotypical members of society, as said before, go fuck yourself. Alum and Penn State proud appreciate the voice and support for Joe. Of course we all feel bad for the victims but you all act like JOE is Jerry and love to see an icon fall. The sad thing is fellow supporters, the rest of the population will never know/understand what that man has meant to all of us. I wait, anxiously for all to regret their horrific thoughts and feelings towards the icon..."We are because you were" RIP JoePa forever!

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that Penn State alumni are divided into at least three groups :

1. This first group believes that salvation for Joe, Penn State, the football team, the entire Penn State universe, lies in parsing the words of the Grand Jury Presentment, the Sandusky trial transcripts and the Freeh report. This group thinks that if they could only persuade the world that a reference to "Coach" in such-and-such email really refers to Coach Sandusky, Coach Rockne, Coach Anybody But Joe, the skies will clear over State College and Joe's reputation will be resurrected, as if anybody outside a small coterie of Penn State alumni is even listening. This group feels that Penn State without Joe's statue outside Beaver Stadium is no longer Penn State and frankly, not worth saving. This group puts Joe's reputation ahead of everything, including the university itself. This group considers the current situation to be a media problem, not a footnall team or university problem. This group is as relevant to the future of Penn State as a bunch of old kameraden sitting around bitching in an Argentine cantina in 1946 were to the future of post-war Germany.

2. This second group may enjoy reading the blogs of the first group but they know that Joe's reputation has gone down the crapper of public opinion and it ain't coming back. This group feels that Penn State without big time football is no longer Penn State and, again, frankly not worth saving. This group still loves Joe but not enough to let his fall take down the team. In order to save big time football at Penn State, this group, as much as they love Joe, would tear down his statue with their teeth. The more enlightened members of this group know that Penn State should get in front of the shit storm coming from the NCAA and start punishing itself (starting with that statue). This group puts big time football ahead of everything, including the university.

3. This third group may have watched a few Penn State football games and may have even taken some pride in the football team's performance over the years but they are mortified by the cover-up and outraged that the damn football team has been allowed to jeopardize the value of a Penn State degree. This group would strangle Spanier, Schultz and Curley with their own hands. This group puts the university ahead of Paterno's reputation and football. Their attitude towards football is a little like Lincoln's attitude toward slavery : If Penn State's reputation can be saved without ditching football, that's fine. If Penn State's reputation can only be saved by ditching football, that's fine too. This group would probably support a drop into Division I-A, especially if it resulted in games against schools with decent academic reputations, like Lehigh or Lafayette or, the Holy Grail, any of the Ivies. But if push came to shove, this group would opt for a UChicago solution. We can only pray that the future of Penn State is in the hands of this group.

Anonymous said...

When this goes to court and "evidence" shows that Paterno knew and indeed covered up things, will you "sheep" still defend Paterno?

Anonymous said...

Too long; Did not read

Anonymous said...

Yes, readin' be hard.

Anonymous said...

I think that my fellow alum meant to refer to Division I-AA, not Division I-A. I guess that's his whole point. People in the third group don't really follow football and wouldn't know FBS from FCS from Pop Warner.

Joe Paterno said...

I swear I thought they were just playing puppet.

Anonymous said...

I haven't heard the "puppet" one before. It's delightful.

Brett Favre said...

If any of the victims of these tragic crimes give me their phone number I will share some special pictures on my phone.

Anonymous said...

Delusional. Not only should the football program get the death penalty, but the school should be put to ashes and forgotten about.

Anonymous said...

You people desperately need to get a grip. A college education is supposed to open your mind to new thoughts and ideas, not warp it with propaganda. Paterno turned out to be a fraud. Deal with it. And this was going to remain an administrative thing until you dopes blindly started supporting and defending him; and continuing to victimize these poor children while doing so. So in your bubble, Paterno is a victim of a biased media and investigator. But in everyone else's eyes, you are a disgusting, pathetic, horribly misguided group of people that are closer to a cult than a fanbase or student body. We are...delusional simpletons.

Herve Jean-Pierre Villechaize said...

De blame, boss! De blame!!!!

Brian said...

As a person who has been a school administrator,and who has had to deal in my career with CYS and the police in regards to child safety, I wish someone in the media would learn and explain what the proper procedure is for reporting suspected child abuse. I have yet to hear or read any facts or summaries of the law. I haven't seen it in the Freeh Report, and it most certainly should be in there as a way to explain what should have happened. What boggles my mind is that Spanier and Schultz did not immediately report Sundusky after talking to McQuery. As soon as Paterno turned it over to them, they should not have never discussed it further with him.

The reporting system is in place to avoid someone having to "turn in a friend." That's why it is reported to the top where is should be dealt with by the legal guidelines. Discussing "what to do" with Paterno runs counter to the proper legal procedure. It was none of Joe's business what happened to Sandusky at that point. Paterno should not have waited over the weekend to tell Curly and Schultz. The law requires that is reported to superiors ASAP. Once reported, the person lets the authorities handle it, and in fact, legally must stay out of it, other than answering questions about what they know about the situation.

I have unfortunately had to employ these procedures in my career, and it's not easy emotionally. But the mandates are in place to insure that the school personel do not have to make an emotional decision, just follow procedure. As president, Spanier is ultimately responsible.

I'm not a PSU grad, but I am saddened by this because if Spanier and Scultz followed the mandate those kids would have been spared their suffering, Paterno and the school would have been spared this scandal.

I'm also sick of the bickering and f-bombs because someone disagrees with you. The extemists on both sides are ridiculous. And I am also sick of people accusing Paterno supporters of not caring about kids. Seriously, how simple minded. It is possible to care about kids and the university and Paterno. Joe Paterno did a great deal of wonderful things in his life for a lot of people. Penn State's success academically and financially is a result of the football success and the publicity that the program brought to the school, much the same way at Notre Dame and many other institutions. We can't ignore that, it's the truth. But we can't make excuses for the horrible decisions made concerning Sandusky and these kids. As far as statues and libraries are concerned, I think that is best left to the Penn State alumni and students, it's their school.

Ned said...


You are absolutely correct about the mandate. I too am a mandatory reporter as an MD and I have had the unfortunate privilege of dealing with these unfortunate cases on more than one occasion. I don't think anyone believes that the Penn State community doesn't care about children, but they care more about a football coach. The aura of Joe Paterno has clouded their judgment. When you show support to Paterno, you victimize these poor innocent children. You are defending a man who was complicit in this scandal. That is the issue in my opinion as an outsider. It's been quite appalling to be honest.

annonymous said...

As a non PsU alum or fan it seems more then obvious that the first course of action for PSU fans is to recover what they cannot.... the reputation of the program. The outcry for the victims of your former coach, Sandusky, seems all to distant following reconstruction of your own personal moral fabric. What you thought you had was a lie to not just you but the public in general. Thus doesn't stop at the door of the football admin building but goes all the way to the core of the university itself.

Denial is extremely hard to overcome but you must use the logic that you have been led to believe the leaders of your univerity valued. Open your eyes and ask yourself one question..... If it were my son, my brother, my family member that was led into a PSu football show and then raped in that complex, knowing what we know now, would I feel comforted that a group of alumni had raised $500,000? Or would I KNOW that the mere mention of the money was the pure embodiment of the denial/ realization of the truth of those who raised the money?

Be above the mud not of it. Start a true movement for the victims and a movement to separate PSU from those who ruined the great reputation that they themselves may have helped to create. It is hard to make a great name and yet so easy to tear it down. Start the process to rebuild now.

Iceknight/Spicetruck (Nari) said...

Perhaps YOU can speculate less and speak more truth. Early on in your opinion piece here you state: "within days of the story breaking back in November, Paterno called a press conference where he was going to tell everything he knew, everything he heard and everything he did regarding the entire Sandusky incident and was going to take questions from reporters.".....

Paterno did not "call" any press conference and was then stopped. It was a regularly SCHEDULED pre-game media conference to be held on Tuesday. Charges broke on Thurs or Fri, right? Paterno had LOT of time to call a presser IMMEDIATELY if he wanted to. But no, he just wanted to wait till tuesday to probably and reiterate that he would continue as Head Coach till the end of the season. How do YOU KNOW he was going to say anything else? You were speculating too when you say Joe Paterno wanted to clear the issue by speaking about it.

Also, he was such a great follower of honesty, he could have still spoken to the press. But no, he did not. He hid behind lawyer team, he pre-planned and sold his house during summer (to his own wife.. what a interesting story).

The more you guys keep talking and trying to defend Paterno, the more the truth becomes clear.

From the emails (in the Appendix of the Freeh report - focus on factual evidence). It is very clear that Paterno knew about Sandusky prior 1998 incident when the 2001 Mcqueary report came to light. Instead of making things known to Child Protective Services, Paterno chose to defer to his "superiors" now. However, in 2005, he did not want to be let go by the same "superior".

yes, there is not proof that Paterno actually asked Sandusky to go and commit those crimes, ok? Are you happy now?

As for your excuses that "Coach" or "Joe" or "JVP" may not conclusively refer to Joe Paterno.... I will get some free Tshirts printed to give to you. It will just say " Joe turned a Blind eye for numbers" , "Coach Helped Sandusky", JVP = Just Victory and Performance" "Coach cares more about Curley's weekend than Young Children's Safety" ... "Bravo Joe" etc..

See these do not implicate Joe Paterno in anyway. Hope you like those free T-shirts.

If you have a problem digging your head out of the sand, please let me know, I will come with a little shovel.

Anonymous said...

I am sure you read Tom's article/opinion above. So, when you say ...the voice and support for Joe.. WHO ARE You referring to? I think Tom will have a problem understanding that because when he reads the name Joe in email evidence, he thinks it may not be Joe Paterno. Are you referring to Joe the plumber? Just state things clearly because Tom cannot understand otherwise.

Anonymous said...

"Now you see why "conclusions" by a witness are inadmissible in a court of law. It is not fact. It is not proof. It isn't even evidence."

Did anyone Send your beloved JoePaterno to prison? No, right? He is just being slammed in the court of public opinion and you CANNOT do diddly squat about it.

Anonymous said...

This article which covers statements by Joe Paterno in early 2012, tells that he claims he had NO INKLING that Sandusky could have been a child molester. He says this in spite of knowing the 1998 and 2001 incidents.

Anonymous said...

There are many of us that went to inferior colleges or were too stupid to get college education. We support football teams that the Nittany Lions consistently beat like a drum. We pretend to care about the victims, but we are simply stinking losers. We say, close down Penn State. It's our only hope. There is zero chance of building ourselves up. We can only tear down.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Marc Rubin said...

S. said...
Perhaps YOU can speculate less and speak more truth"

I read the article you posted in the Times. It is EXACTLY the kind of shoddy unprofessional hack journalism that has been going on for years based on NO facts, not one and just sheer unsubstantiated speculation based on the sheer unsubstantiated speculation in the Freeh report.

"given the relevations that suggest"?

Is that your idea of facts and proof? Suggestions?

Its people like you who swallow everything you read without an iota of a critical eye just swallowing it like a trained seal that allowed facism to occur in other countries.

In my world "suggerstions" especially those by a political hack and incompetent investigator arent proof of anything.

Why dont you back up one thing you have to say something called irrefutable fact, assuming you know what that is..and make your case that way. Right now I dont see any facts just YOUR speculation and obvious confusion as to what a fact actually is.

Marc Rubin said...

"I have a desire to defend Paterno from untrue allegations"

My desire is only for the truth and facts and to attack the media and politicans when they play games with both. Paterno was smeared, he is still being smeared and the news media will drink rat poison before they will admit they made a mistake.

No one wants to deal with the fact, now known that neither I nor anyone else knew at the time, that both an investigation in 1998 by police and a psychologist and a jury of 12 at Sandusky's trial, cleared and acquiitted him anything of a criminal nature at the showers at Penn State. All of Sandusky's victims and contact with his victims were a result of his charity Second Mile.

If no child abuse took place at Penn State at any time, 1998 or 2001, there isnt much of a story involving Penn State is there. And watch how many people attack this simple idea that with a jury saying nothing of a criminal nature occured in the incident McQueary saw in the shower in 2001
and nothing of an abusive nature took place in 1998 according to a psychologist that interviewed the children Sandusky showered with, what does Penn State now have to do with anything.

Raining on the parade of people who were getting their jollies trying to feel morally superior doesnt go down well with them. And the fact that no criminal conduct took place according to a jury and a police investigation didnt seem to matter to Freeh either. Instead he tries to make the point that if not for Penn State not stopping Sandusky ( from what if there was no criminal conduct?)Sandusky wouldnt have had other victims, a conclusion that is a complete lie since of the 45 counts Sandusky was convicted of ALL of them were a product of Second Mile not Penn State.

That sound you hear are the people cocksure of the certainty of their own moral superiority gagging.

Marc Rubin said...

To show how trashy and dishonest the news media can be (and are) a further excerpt from the NY Times article posted by a commentor named Nari who mistakenly thought this article would make her desperate case:

The next to last paragraph of the article which was trying to suggest that mayebe there was quid pro quo between Paterno and Penn State to leave before the Sandusky allegations were public..

"given revelations in the independent report that SUGGEST
(yes the report reads more like a suggestion box than an investigation)that Mr.Paterno knew about allegations of child abuse involving Mr. Sandusky as far back as 1998..."

This is how journalists smear people because if Paterno DID know about the 1998 investigation (of which there is no proof) then he knew the RESULTS of that investigation and that the police and report by the psychologist who examined both Sandusky and the children was that NO ABUSE TOOK PLACE.

You cant have it both ways though the Times and those who are afraid of gagging on their own stupidity would like to. If Paterno knew of the investigation "involving allegations of child abuse" as the article likes to trumpet, then he knew of the RESULTS of the investigation which is not mentioned in the article written by a clearly hack journalist by the name of Jo Becker. If Paterno knew of the results of the investigation then what he knew was that no abuse of any kind took place anywhere at Penn State, in the showers or elsewhere. Again Becker want to leave that part out and only mention the allegation and not the result that found the allegation not to be true.

Because it wouldnt fit the narrative would it? In fact it would ruin the whole article. That little fact, also is part of what ruins Freeh's report and its moronic conclusions, so lets leave that part out.

Anyone in need of a mental Heimlich maneuver?

Anonymous said...

Is there any proof Joe wasn't also raping kids, or at least watching it?

Caroline said...

Joe does not have "victims." Jerry Sandusky does. Case & point.

Caroline said...

Group #4 is the one I am in. Penn State Alumni who are horrified by what has occurred at Penn State, the children that have been abused by Jerry Sandusky and the miserable failure by the Board of Trustees to accept responsibility for their failures to our University. We are ALUMNI and value everything about Penn State and Joe Paterno's contribution to it from academics to football, and in that order. We Seek and desire the WHOLE truth and we adamantly believe that there was wrongdoing at Penn State, but NOT in any way shape or form, by Joe Paterno. We urge everyone to look at ALL of the evidence, not a commissioned report by the Board who seeks to protect themselves. We continue to look at Governor Tom Corbett and HIS FAILURE to Act as AD when he was aware of these charges and investigation. If ANYONE knew anything and could have STOPPED Jerry Sandusky, it was the Governor yet we see little on this and his relationships with Freeh, approval of donations to the second Mile, and $$ accepted from The Second Mile to his campaign. We Simply want the truth and for the blame to be placed where it truly belongs.

Anonymous said...

There one undeniable fact that is documented in emails. Joe Paterno kept the President of the university from reporting the rape of a child to the police. I know it hurts but outside of the die hard Penn State fans Joe Paterno's reputation is worse than mud.

Anonymous said...

The grammar in this article is almost as ridiculous as the post itself.

The only thing worse are some of the replies.

Joe Paterno was a bad person.

Bottom line: He knew kids were being molested and he did not stop it.

You can make excuses all day long but in the end you are supporting a child molester who is undoubtedly burning in hell for eternity. He might as well have molested those kids himself. He not only let it happen but covered it up and let it continue.

Anyone making excuses for Paterno is no better than the child molester.

You people are sick. Open your freaking eyes.

Anonymous said...

You are the one in need of mental help.

He raoed kids. People witnessed it. Joe Paterno covered it up.

GUILTY by a court of law beyond a shadow of doubt. You are sick.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, McQueery saw the guy banging a little kid from behind but hey, nothing to see here, move along.

You need mental help man.

Anyone that can honestly believe the things you say...must be a danger to society.

You are sick.

Anonymous said...

PEDO STATE! Burn that motha to tha ground!

Barry Bozeman said...

Great work Marc

The responses of the misinformed are of course depressing. They cannot be bothered with "the facts".

Anonymous said...

keep drinkin the koolaid....

Anonymous said...

Well, let's take a look at your whining about the word "coach" in the emails. If as you say "coach" could refer to emails - then surely if someone prints a Tshirt that says "Coach convicted of Child Abuse crimes", you would read it as "Jerry" right? But what would most of the penn state nation read it as.. just give that some thought... You Joe Pa apolgists are in huge denial. he ran the place and he failed. how much does Bronze scrap sell for?

Anonymous said...

The great irony of this affair is that the Gang of Four are the only ones so far to have shown concern for Penn State's reputation. The whole point of the cover-up was to protect Penn State (and, of course, themselves). The cover-up turned out to be a profoundly bad decision but it at least was motivated, at least in part, by concern for the future of Penn State. I don't see any real concern for Penn State's future today among the BOT, the administration or the alumni.

Penn State is a national, no, world, institution. The opinion of people outside State College, in NYC, in Silicon Valley, everywhere, is critical to Penn State's future. Right now, Penn State's reputation is in the crapper. You can chew the fat forever about media bias and this email or that email, but it doesn't change the fact people in this country despise Penn State.

The alumni seem more concerned about defending the reputation of Joe Paterno than they seem concerned about the opinion of the soccer moms and others who hold Penn State's future in their hands and who are absolutely horrified by this affair. Alumni who defend Joe are like lawyers on the Titanic arguing the innocence of the captain while up to asses in water. When outsiders hear alumni defending Joe, they react as they do to people defending Jerry, with revulsion. The Joe defenders do NOT have the best interests of Penn State at heart. If they did, they wouldn't be saying things that do nothing but alienate the people whose goodwill Penn State desperately needs. Sometimes, I think that these alumni WANT to return to the cow college days.

The BOT and the administration only want to do the least they can to get through this mess. Fire the Gang of Four? OK, maybe this thing will blow over if we do. Hire Freeh? Fine, maybe he'll take his time and the media will move on. Like the Joe defenders, the BOT wants this thing just to go away so we can all go back to Saturday afternoons and tailgating and WE ARE...

But it's not going to go away. It just keeps getting worse and worse. I don't see any event in the offing that could help. If Curley and Schultz are acquitted, in the public's mind that's only going to throw the Central PA justice system in the same crapper as Penn State.

The BOT needs to do something NOW. They can't let this thing fester. The BOT needs to ignore the "children" among the alumni who can't conceive of life without football and Peachy Paterno.The BOT needs to adopt a University of Chicago solution. Nothing short of that will get us out this sewer.

Anonymous said...

Two questions come to my mind when I try to get an understanding of the report and everyone's perception of what actually happened? One: If Coach Paterno was trying to cover something up, then why does it appear that he was the only one that reported it to university officials? Two: Coach Paterno's track record of his entire life was his caring for young people. Take a look at his life biography. All he did was devote his life to changing young people's life. This report "appears" to be a paid report by the board of trustees to justify their firing of Coach Paterno last fall. Other questions that raise suspicions. Why wasn't the Paterno family interviewed? Why wasn't Jay Paterno interviewed? Why were the Paterno's family requests to be interviewed denied for the report? It is incomplete, filled with speculation and there just aren't any concrete evidence. You are correct, a third year law student would rip this report to shreds. One fact may come out after the future findings in court are: We may never know. Coach Paterno has passed. It will probably come down to each person's opinion and only Coach Paterno knows what he did do and did not do. Everyone is allowed to speak their mind and pass their judgement but unfortunately for the good or the bad, we just may never know the honest truth.

Enabler said...

Good article, I've been making the exact same argument with anyone who brings up the situation. I've found that by asking them questions regarding everything detailed in the Freeh report I force them to think logically, of course those that aren't able to think logically run off screaming "Child Rape" without answering any of my questions (this actually happened with a co-worker today, the 2 other people in the room mocked his stupidity after he left). It seems that critical thinking skills are on the decline in this day and age.

Now let all the "good Germans" call me a cultist.

Anonymous said...

"Coach Paterno's track record of his entire life was his caring for young people. Take a look at his life biography. All he did was devote his life to changing young people's life."

This is exactly, EXACTLY, what people were saying about Coach Sandusky. So how does that have any bearing on Coach Paterno's guilt or innocence?

Anonymous said...

It has nothing to do with him being guilty or not guilty. It shows that the speculation in the report doesn't add up to his track record. Don't respond to a small part of my comment and not respond to the rest. This is what the liberal media does to spread propaganda. Coach Paterno reported to university officials what was reported to him. McQueary testified in court that he did not go into details of what he saw in his reporting of the incident to Coach Paterno. So how do we or how will we ever know what Coach Paterno actually knew about what was going on. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that shows any facts into a lot of people's negative opinion or speculation. Another question that the report failed to mention. Why isn't McQueary's lack of reporting, to the police, mentioned or questioned? He was a 28 year old man who saw, first hand, an attack on one of the victims. Why isn't he the "topic" of discussion on ESPN and the news? If people want to "weigh" the burden of the blame and say who should have done this or should have done that, then why isn't he mentioned in a weighted fashion that some want to put out there? Why is, a 75 year old man at the time. the one who some want to but a large amount of blame on? He should have done more? Absolutely, but a lot of people should have done more. One of the victim's mothers reported to the school counselor. Should that person have done more? Should the DA have done more? But the lack of facts do not show that Coach Paterno tried to cover anything up. Again, he reported what McQueary told him, IMMEDIATELY, to school officials. For some to point the finger at Coach Paterno being some kind of master-mind in a cover up scandal or endangering young people, then why don't we hold every private, lieutenant, and lower ranking military member accountable for reporting up through their chain of command on a negative outcome in this war? Make your personal judgements if you want but wait for due process. There is more to come and if their are facts showing Coach Paterno to be guilty then so be it. But right now, there are no facts and this report certainly does not show any. Some say how did the department miss this whole Sandusky thing. Well, the state welfare officials missed it during their extensive research that they went through when they granted adoption rights to the Sandusky's. Louis Freeh missed Robert Hannsen being the biggest spy in U.S. history under his watch with the FBI. We are not fortunate enough to have a time machine or have the fortunes of knowing information before things happen, when it is easy to look back and pass judegement "after" things have happened. Don't forget, Jerry Sandusky raped those kids, not Coach Paterno. He was the master-mind in the whole situation and was very clever about what he was doing. Pray for the children, use that energy for a positive. Pray for the mistakes that were made by everyone. Pray that these things don't happen again. Research before making accusations. The Freeh report is not an official document. None of that information will be used in upcoming court battles. Pray that due process in our systems will find out where the mistakes were made and find liable to those that made them.

Anonymous said...

Whoa, just when it looked like the Penn State community couldn't look more out of touch & heinous.

Your never ending blind allegiance to the actions of these molesting individuals shows that you should lose your mediocre little football program.

Anonymous said...

I am tired of hearing the "Coach Paterno" reported to University officials line. "Coach paterno" was also asked to step down by University officials in 2005. Where did his sense of hierarchy go then? He wanted to continue in a greedy manner, hauling in more millions. If "Coach Paterno" could not be fired in 2005 then how can we believe that he had any "higher ups" in the University. He DID NOT. I live in this town since 2002 and I have known enough that no one dare say a word against Paterno for many years. He did protect children, ie, his own grandchildren. I am sure he did not let sandusky horse around with them in showers.

Anonymous said...

It's been three days since the Freeh Report and the websites of Penn State, the Penn State Alumni Association and the Homecoming Committee have still not been purged of photos of Joe Paterno.
It's an insult to the victims and needs to be done ASAP.

And that theme of Homecoming, "The Glory Echoes On", needs to be ditched as well. The only "echoes" on the Penn State campus are the screams of young boys. Fix it.

Anonymous said...

In 2005 PSU went 11-1 and he was named National Coach of the year. That is why he didn't step down, because he was still a great football coach. Why are you tired of hearing "facts"? Do you dislike Coach Paterno so much that you are looking for a loophole to downgrade him? Read the Freeh report and actually, with professionalism, tell us what he did that makes everyone point the finger. Make sure you are factual and it is not judgement or speculation. If he had never reported it then I would be right with you, but the "facts" are he did. I'm trying to pursuade people to do their research, not stick up for Coach Paterno. Was he wrong in reporting it or did he do the right thing? If McQueary did the right thing in reporting it to Coach Paterno then why isn't Coach Paterno right for reporting it to the AD? Last time I checked the AD is the supervisor of the coaches in the athletic department. So please, professionally, tell us if you think Coach Paterno was right in reporting it to his supervisor. The very one who gave Sandusky access to the PSU athletic facilities. Remember, Coach Paterno didn't own PSU. Tim Curley made a deal with Jerry Sandusky to be able to utilize the athletic facilities. Simple question: did he do the right thing or was he wrong in reporting, immediately, what he became aware of?

Anonymous said...

I've lived in the town for five years and I've heard many, many people talk bad about Joe Paterno. Before any of this happened.
If millions of dollars is what he was after then I guess he had solid gold walls in his small, modest house that he has lived in for over forty years. Or maybe he wanted millions of more dollars to donate to the university and charities, which he did ALL THE TIME.

Anonymous said...

America thinks that Penn State was a brothel for pedophiles and the response of Penn State alumni is to defend the man who was, in America's opinion, the brothel keeper. Thank God, the BOT doesn't agree with this policy of institutional suicide.

Anonymous said...

Joe Paterno, who attended Mass regularly. Donated millions of dollars to the University and charities, to include a ton of money to the Special Olympics. Was the first to call the families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings. Was the first to call the families of local boys wounded and killed in the current war. Went out of his way to write personal notes to fans, and write countless letters of recommendation to former players and people he knew. Helped build the library on campus and the Spiritual Center. Pushed education more than any other major college football coach in the history of the game. Has a graduation rate equalled to Stanford and Vanderbilt University from a state university. Welcomed thousands of people into his home and was possibly the best athletic coach to help young teenage boys become legitimate men in our community and country.
Is now considered in the same sentence as that monster, Jerry Sandusky. Now does all of that really, really make any sense?

Anonymous said...

Weep for the children, not for for Joe.

Marc Rubin said...

"Caroline said...
Group #4 is the one I am in. Penn State Alumni who are horrified by what has occurred at Penn State, the children that have been abused by Jerry Sandusky and the miserable failure by the Board of Trustees to accept responsibility for their failures to our University."

Certainly the trustees are guilty of many things, so is the media since still, all the accounts in the media reported as fact proved false.

But one other thing has surprised me and that I never would have even considered a possibility before the report, and that is based on the evidence in the report and recent events there was NO abuse that took place at Penn State. None.

According to the report in the 1998investigation, a psychologist who interviewed both Sandusky and the children he showered with said both gave the same accounts of what happened in the shower and that no sexual abuse or abuse of any kind took place. Which was why the matter was dropped. Certainly it was bad judgement not to have banned Sandusky from Penn State at the time or from using the showers even if no criminal behavior occurred, but that was Curely's call not Paterno's despite the fantasies of the frothing at the mouth crowd who think Paterno made every decision at Penn State.

As for criminal conduct, the investigation that Freeh said Paterno was informed of, concluded Sandusky committed no acts of a criminal or abusive nature.

Then recently a 12 member jury, after hearing all the evidence, also acquitted Sandusky of charges of sexual abuse in the 2001 shower incident that McQueary witnessed, adjudicating that no abuse took place there either. Taken together the record says no abuse took place at Penn State and all the of the abuse by Sandusky was related to Second Mile and what is now the Second Mile scandal ( though no doubt there was questionable judgement by Curley in allowing Sandusky to take kids to Penn State and shower with them after the 1998 investigation).

Sandusky's conviction on all 45 counts were related to Second Mile and the victims he came in contact with there, not Penn State.

If a jury said no abuse took place based on McQueary's unsanitized testimony under oath, then Paterno certainly did do enough in reporting the watered down version McQueary gave him to Curley and Schultz ( and probably more than most people would) since in the end, even based on McQueary's raw testimony, nothing of a criminal nature happened (and those who want to twist Paterno's words of "with the benefit of hindsight") to try and show that he said he didn't do enough when that's not what he said, save your breath.)

Given the available facts there was nothing more for Paterno to do though it is clear that Curley's decision not to do what "we all agreed upon" and report what McQueary said he saw " to everyone" was a mistake. Criminal? Not since Sandusky was acquitted of abuse in the McQueary incident and a jury said no abuse took place. But definitely bad judgement. But the email that Freeh lies about and distorts to try and claim it was a joint decision between Curley and Paterno to " change the plan", with no proof to back it up when all existing proof contradicts it, and Freeh's intentional distortion of what the email actually says, makes Freeh a different kind of abuser in his own right.

Freeh's central claim that not reporting the incident to child protective services enabled Sandusky is also proved false. If there wasn't enough for a jury to convict Sandusky in the 2001 incident then reporting it wouldn't have convicted Sandusky then either or prevented his continued contact with children at Second Mile.

This wont sit well with the frothing mob mentality and the stampeding waterbuffalo, but facts are facts

Barry Bozeman said...

The Freeh Report Does no Connect the Dots Joe never LIED about 1998
1) The emails do not show that Joe was notified of anything to do with 1998
2) Emails and notes show that Joe was anxious about Jerry's decision to coach because
a) he spent too much time working for the charity and
b) he was considering retirement and a position as assistant Athletic Director
3) Joe would not be alarmed by any rumor or report about Jerry showering with kids because it was considered common by staff and coaches.
4) The one burning question no one seems to be able to answer.
Why would Joe Paterno lie about a 1998 investigation that ended with a finding of NO Criminal behavior and NO charges? How does that make any sense?
Why wouldn’t he simply say he was told that the inquiry dealt with a mother upset by a workout and shower that ended with a psychologist saying that JS showed no pedophile tendencies and a CYS investigator saying the boy did not dispute JS version of what happened? see:

Unknown said...

Next phase : to protect potential victims of abuse in the future.
Why did the police seem to investigate Sandusky 3 or 4 times and come up with nothing? What did they miss and what can they do better?

Why did the Second Mile not appropriately protect the kids? What can all charities do differently to protect children in the future? Obviously background checks were not enough. This was a well established, well regarded charitable organization with significant resources.

Why did Corbett who received hundeds of thousands of campaign contributions from the Second Mile not aggressively pursue Sandusky as Attorney General when his office was investigating him?

Corbett and his appointees/cabinet members make up 25% to 30% of Trustees. Corbett at the very least should have recused himself from discussions with the Board of Trustees related to the Sandusky situation given his lack of support to prosecute Sandusky earlier and his significant campaign contributions from the Second Mile.

Why did the Board of Trustees do nothing? Why did the Board of Trustees allow the President and the University to create a culture to allow this to go unreported?

Why did Curley and Schultz do nothing after Paterno told them about the 2001 incident? The evidence is not clear on this point at all and this is the most critical point of this whole disaster.

Why did Mike McQueary not go to police? Why does he not have an obligation to do so (moral or legal)?

Why did Sandusky's family do nothing?

The Freeh report is severely limited in scope and lacking in substance. Penn State has already made changes to ensure this never happens again. What about everyone else? What can Penn State teach other organizations?

I personally think that Paterno should not be accused of things without facts. Freeh was not able to interview Schultz and Curley. Joe had also passed away so Joe could not be interviewed. It is unethical in my mind and morally wrong to acuse someone of a coverup without absolute confirmation of the facts. In this case, the evidence on Joe is severely lacking.
I agree with most of the rest of the report but am troubled by the accusations related to Paterno given the lack of evidence and a lifetime of an exceptionally ethical behavior from Joe Paterno.

I think a thorough investigation of Corbett and the Board of Trustees conflicts with the Second Mile would help to clear the air. Freeh only spoke with Penn State people (I think). How can you assess this without speaking with outsiders?

Also, a public report on how the police investigations could be more effective to protect children in the future.

The Freeh report is a Penn State effort to make sure this never happens again at Penn State only. Everyone else needs to step up to end child abuse nationwide and prevent our children from this horrible crime.

Anonymous said...

Group #4 is Group #1, a bunch of childish hero-worshippers who would rather intellectually masturbate over the Freeh Report than face the downfall of their hero and help the university reclaim its reputation. This nonsense about the meaning of "coach" etc is just the sort of asshole-lawyer weasel-talk that makes people sick. You guys are like that Sandusky lawyer who claimed that Jerry was just teaching those boys how to apply soap to their bodies. Remember what people thought of him?

The fate of Penn State lies outside the Penn State community. It lies in the opinion of a public which, I fear, has already cemented an association of pedophilia and Penn State in their minds. Alumni defenses of the Gang of Four, particlarly with weasel talk, only make matters worse and encourage Penn State students to say equally outrageous things. When millions of soccer moms hear Penn State students call child rape a "little glitch" a "bump in the road", they want to vomit on their Nikes (which they can now wear in good conscience).

Comedians on TV and people in general now make jokes which assume that the listener associates "Penn State" with "pedophilia". People "get" those jokes. Penn State and child rape, like J. Edgar Hoover and tranvestism, have entered popular culture.

Fortunately, the BOT is in the hands of adults who know that Penn State faces an existential threat.

Marc Rubin said...

"to protect potential victims of abuse in the future.
Why did the police seem to investigate Sandusky 3 or 4 times and come up with nothing? What did they miss and what can they do better?"

Based on documents pertaining to the 1998 investigation they didnt miss anything. A psychologist interviewed both Sandusky and the boys involved in 1998 shower incidents and said in the report that both Sandusky's account of events and the boys were exactly the same and neither gave an account that indicated any abuse took place. It is not just possible but probable that Sandusky did not abuse every boy he showered with. In fact as during his trial it was pointed out that Sandusky "groomed" his victims which takes time. Regarding the incidents at Penn State, the irony is, if that is the right word, that of all the abuse Sandusky committed none of it took place at Penn State. But that was the media portrayal from the beginning before all the facts were in.

Anonymous said...

And who exactly are you? You rip a former FBI Director, as if to imply you are more than capable of dissecting his work. You are nothing more than a hack journalist (using that loosely - anyone can blog) with zero understanding of how to run a proper investigation yourself.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Thank you Marc for speaking out about the gross assumptions and speculations in the conclusions of the Freeh report. I've also found it curious no one mentions that Coach Paterno was 84 years-old when he testified at the grand jury. He was asked about things that happened when he was 71 and 74.

Anonymous said...

Irony is: PSU hiring a man who ran the FBI to investigate how a monster slipped through the cracks and went unnoticed and wasn't caught for years. In his investigation he also claims that Sandusky's offfice was just a few feet down from Coach Paterno's office. Here is the irony. During eight years of his tenure as the FBI director, Robert Hannsen, the worst spy in the history of the United States, went unnoticed and wasn't caught for fifteen years, eight of those being on Louis Freeh's direction. And Hannsen's office was just a few feet down the hall from Freeh's office. Great job hiring a "title" but next time, read the resume'.

Anonymous said...

So you have to use semantics to debunk the report? "Conclusion" vs. "result"? How he described the e-mails in the report when the actual exhibits attached at the end paint the very same picture? Really?
It's written in the same manner as most legal documents and "Conclusion" is the title they use. Sorry if you feel that it should be "results" and that it not being "results" somehow gives credence to it not being proof. It's very clear from the evidence alone that Joe knew. That's at a minimum and at a minimum he is guilty of not complying with the Clery Act. When the other investigations by the FBI, DOE, etc. are completed, I think we'll see that the Freeh report will be vindicated.

Anonymous said...

This post emphasizes the fundamental flaws of the Freeh Report. What happened to the victims has already been proven in a court of law as fact so there is nothing to dispute there. In other words, there is no mention of victims in the post because the flaws in the report lie within the scope of on content concerning school officials knowledge and handling of the already proven information regarding the victims. Next time find out the purpose of the content you are reading and think critically before you reach for your pitchfork.

PSUutgers said...

Nobody would have ever said this to Joe Pa's face. He was always the biggest swinging dick in the room and the repercussions of saying some of this stuff would have made Saduski's purported actions look like The Fox and the Hound.

Anonymous said...

Joe does have "victims". He may not have raped any young boy, but he stood right there and let it continue for over a decade. He is just as guilty thus making them his "victims". He could have stopped all of this long, long ago. He chose not to for personal reasons. What those reasons are is up to you to decide. University image, personal legacy, job security, loyalty, whatever it may be, he could have made all of this go away and he didn't.

The delusion on here regarding Paterno and how he's not this innocent little golden boy is absolutely disturbing.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand this hero worship by adults. I don't hold anyone in high esteem. That's what children do. Adults recognize that everyone, including themselves, is made of the same human clay. If you think that Paterno's life raised him to some moral pedestal, you must be standing in a moral ditch. It's silly how immature people gush over some football coach or politician. I have no more respect for Paterno, Obama or Romney than I do for my plumber. That's how grown-ups think. Perhaps an intellectually incestuous atmosphere, as you find in small towns like State College, leads to infantilization. I've spent the last 40 years in New York City. Perhaps I'm jaded but the Penn State folks, particularly the Paterno defenders, strike me as just plain childish. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that the OP and many of the commenters realize how beyond the pale most of the stuff on this blog is. You can no more defend Paterno than you can David Duke in this country now. I suspect that the Paterno detractors on this blog have some sort of sick fascination with the amoral squalor of the Paterno cultists. I admit it. I know that I shouldn't be reading the stuff on this blog but I just can't look away.

Anonymous said...

I too admit my fascination. I really love that "Sure Joe let a few guttersnipes be cornholed but he also told them to be all they could be" talk.

Anonymous said...

Outsiders need to have more sympathy and less contempt for Penn Staters. We should follow the example of Vicky Triponey, the true heroine of the affair, who recently said of Penn State:

"It's a cocoon. It's a bubble. That's why those inside the bubble are really struggling. They're afraid; they're embarrassed; they're struggling with what to do".

Anonymous said...

"Given the available facts there was nothing more for Paterno to do though it is clear that Curley's decision not to do what "we all agreed upon" and report what McQueary said he saw " to everyone" was a mistake. Criminal? Not since Sandusky was acquitted of abuse in the McQueary incident and a jury said no abuse took place."

A jury acquitted because McQueary did not see penetration. Other counts related to victim 2 came back guilty. You have now somehow spun this to mean no abuse ever occurred on PSU's campus... Interesting tactic but very transparent.

"Certainly the trustees are guilty of many things, so is the media since still, all the accounts in the media reported as fact proved false."

Another terribly worded sentence from a guy posting about hack journalism without providing any examples... Classic. Still looking for an example of a major news outlet misreporting moreso than you are doing right here.

"Aurabass said...
Great work Marc. The responses of the misinformed are of course depressing. They cannot be bothered with "the facts"."

And the sidekick returns. Aurabass - I was bothered with the facts that Paterno knew sex abuse took place on his campus and that the abuser essentially had platinum status around PSU afterwards. Are you (or Marc) saying he should have kept his job? Leave everything else out and answer that question. No one is saying Paterno is the baddest of the bunch. That doesn't make him the hero that your side is claiming he is. He knew nothing happened. He was fired. The school is moving on and should be in a better position to recover thanks to the decision to dump all the men who knew but chose inaction. To paint a picture of Joe as a naive old man who washed his hands of the situation after going to his superior looks just as bad as Marc's grammar.

Anonymous said...

*He knew. Nothing happened.

Anonymous said...

"When you have to alter the facts to fit your point, it is not only the earmark of a hack, but someone unethical, unscrupulous and whose credibility has been shattered."

After reading a few posts and pointing out multiple "facts" of yours that were simply inaccurate, I cannot help but think this sentence is a tad hypocritical. The fact that you have taken these half-truths and assumptions out of future posts is evidence that even you know credible your writing is.

Anonymous said...

From the Paterno family lawyer: "It is also a matter of record that Joe Paterno promptly and fully reported the 2001 incident to his superiors. It can certainly be asserted that Joe Paterno could have done more. He acknowledged this himself last fall. But to claim that he knowingly, intentionally protected a pedophile is false."

As someone on the Paterno-deserved-to-be-fired side of the fence, I think this is a great recap of the matter.

I see Marc and others diving into assumptions (while simultaneously criticizing the assumptions of others), throwing out hypothetical scenarios for what MUST HAVE happened in the showers or in the Joe/Curley meeting, etc... Do we really need to know what happened in that meeting? PSU leaders knew about sex abuse claims regarding a man who had unlimited access to their facilities.

No matter how watered down you want to claim McQueary's account to be, it is still a second child sex abuse allegation in three years against a former coach that didn't make its way to authorities until over a decade later. That an adult graduate assistant saw/heard the abuse makes the '01 incident more than just the red flag in '98.

What are we arguing here anyways? Sandusky is in jail. All "leaders" who knew needed to go. Those who decided to cover it up will be punished legally.

My take from the Curley e-mail is that Joe was not the one who made the decision to keep things internal. That does not change the fact that he knew and the university/football program is in a better place to move forward.

Still waiting on an alternative to the Paterno firing, which seems to be at the heart of all the PSU supporters' comments. Is it just the way the firing went down? Do we really believe ESPN and CNN were out to get Joe fired? Just a few questions as I attempt to understand the other side of the fence.

Anonymous said...

The Paterno family has announced that they are going to do their own investigation. Can there be anything more disgusting? Jay, Scott and Sue Paterno knocking on the doors of the victims for a little chat about JoePa? Why don't they bring Dottie Sandusky with him? Just when you think that Penn State has struck bottom, somebody starts digging.

Sherri Kelly said...

I have a few things to say, guilty or not, the Freeh report containes much speculation. The primary players were not even interviewed. We should be concerned as citizens of this country if people are not being investigated fairly. (And look at Freeh, 1000's of cases during his FBI leadership,are being reviewed. Lab contamination, falsifying results, horrible.)
Next, as an PSU alumna, I am horrified, disgusted, and repulsed as the rest of the world. Those who had a part in this tragedy need to pay. However, to hate all Penn Staters, want to close the school, not hire PSU graduates is totally ridiculous. I had wonderful professors and worked hard for my degree. A few years ago PSU graduates were ranked the best prepared and most well-rounded candidates by a survey of corporate recruiters (in WSJ). Having earned a degree at PSU has absolutely NOTHING to do with what went on. PSU has over 500,000 living alumni, 100,000 students and over 40,000 faculty/staff that had absolutely NOTHING to do with this. This whole "guilt by association" lynch mob mentality being shown by much of America is truly disheartening. (Much of it being done by "GUEST" or "ANONYMOUS" online. If you are going to make such statements, use your name - cowardly behavior.)
Also, what PSU should do next is become an expert on child abuse prevention and making sure organizations, large and small, know how to comply with state laws, have policies in place that would prevent abuse, (like the Boy Scouts now have). When the going gets tough, you just don't run away, make a difference. Lastly, to those saying all Penn Staters should be focsing on abuse prevention. Very wrong. ALL OF US should be working in some way to prevent sexual abuse. It is way more common than people want to admit - it is a crime than many times is never reported. So ALL OF US should be teaching our children the dangers, learning the warning signs, donating or volunteering to an organizations like RAINN. It IS happening in YOUR community, not just at Penn State. I see all the time on my local news, how this local coach or that teacher was arrested for child sexual abuse. These are just the ones that are brought to light. Instead of spouting vitriol and irrational hatred, put your energy into MAKING A DIFFERENCE so other children all over this country can be spared such trauma.

Anonymous said...

Sara Ganim has discovered victims from the 1970s and 1980s. Who, among the Gang of Four, held his senior position as early as the 1970s? Well, in the 1970s, Spanier, Schultz and Curley were just getting out of college. So who was watching Jerry or rather, who was not watching Jerry?

What is there left to argue about? In the 1970s, there was Jerry and there was Joe. Who else is there? Who?

Sherri Kelly said...

Dear Anonymous at July 16, 2012 10:50 AM,

Joe should have known in the 70's? Do you think pedophiles have a label on them? Many seem completely normal and most people have no clue. You probably have a coworker or a neighbor that could be abusing a child. How dare YOU not know? So many people in this country seem to know so very little about childhood sexual abuse. They seem to think that it doesn't happen very often or they could easily tell who is a pedophile. Pedophiles are very good at deceiving.

Anonymous said...

Clearly, pedophiles are deceptive and ordinarily, even a supervisor with a long-term intimate relationship would be given the benefit of the doubt if he claimed ignorance of the pedophile's activities. But the Freeh Report revealed that Joe covered up from 1998 to his death. Why, WHY, in light of the Freeh Report, should Joe receive the benefit of the doubt in the 1970s? No, just as you shouldn't be surprised if Jerry raped kids prior to 1998 (and you're not surprised, are you?), you shouldn't be surprised that Joe was covering for Jerry prior to 1998. Joe supporters think that his wins, etc. qualify him for a HUGE benefit of the doubt. The Freeh Report drove a stake though that.

Anonymous said...

Permit me to explain why closing Penn State is seriously suggested by some people. Penn State and Second Mile had many things in common : thousands of well-meaning people who cared deeply about the welfare of children, dedicated employees and volunteers. The good intentions of the members of the Penn State and Second Mile communities (with the obvious exceptions of Jerry and the Gang of Four)are beyond question. These are good-hearted, innocent folks.

Nevertheless, Second Mile was forced to shut down. Why? Not because the thousands and thousands of volunteers and employees and donors had become "bad" people. Far from it. Second Mile died because people had lost confidence that the board and senior management were competent to protect the children in their care or even to select new management to do so.

People who suggest the closing of Penn State note that both Penn State and Second Mile suffered catastrophic failures of institutional control. In fact, Penn State, unlike Second Mile, even had executives indicted. Even Joe supporters consider the current BOT and the administration to be incompetent and self-interested. Well, we who question the future of Penn State go beyond that. We question the judgement (but NOT the character) of the persons (alumni, politicians, etc.) who appoint the BOT. We don't TRUST them to name competent replacements. The only possible solution is to have disinterested (NON-Penn State) executives appointed by disinterested (NON-Penn State) persons. Perhaps a committee of Ivy League presidents could could become the new BOT and bring in competent administrators.

Marc Rubin said...

"This whole "guilt by association" lynch mob mentality being shown by much of America is truly disheartening."

I dont think its much of America. They arent as stupid and dont have the Junior Fascists of America mentality of some of the morons who swallow an already discredited Louis Freeh and a report filled with lies, attempts to mislead and that mischaracterizes evidence and is filled with outright incompetence. That there are people who would swallow the Freeh report at all and not check the facts to see if any of it true, is a petrie dish of how fascism got a foothold in Europe in the 1930's.

Notice how most of the brave droolers are anonymous. That also makes them cowards but we know all of them would shake in their boots if challenged to come down as hard if not harder on the Pope for knowing about the Wisconsin priest who sexually abused 400 deaf children at a Catholic School for the Deaf, knew about it, corresponded with this priest, never reported him to the police, didnt defrock him, didnt even remove him from the school.Yet we know Paterno reported what he knew ( by the way, if Paterno was so powerful and wanted to shield Penn State from bad publicty why report it all? Why set up a meeting with McQueary and Schultz? Why not just tell McQueary, "I'll take care of it" and then do and say nothing?There is no answer from the mini-brownshirts because the premise is preposterous.

But you used the right words when you called them cowards. Such cowards that they hope to get a little sense of moral superiority by bowing to a corrupt and discredited former authority figure like Freeh who was raked over the coals by the 911 Commission for his mishandling of pre-911 intelligence.

One other thing that should have occurred to people by now: Based on what we now know of the 1998 investigation AND Sandusky's jury trial recently concluded NO SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY KIND EVER OCCURRED AT PENN STATE BY SANDUSKY NONE. That isnt opinion that is now the adjudicated fact and conclusion by a 1998 police investigation,a posychologists report and a unanimous decison of a jury of 12 who had all the facts and all the time they needed to deliberate. It is now a legal fact that no sexual abuse by Sandusky ever took place at Penn State and that all of the abuse for which he was convicted was a result of his association with Second Mile. Which not only shows just how corrupt Freeh's phony assertions are, but, as we know, the people here and elsewhere who tried to build themselves up by pretending they are on the side of children and fighting abuse as long as they felt it was safe (anyone who wants to take on the Pope here and sign their name, we will all be watching), these people in and out of the media will drink rat poison before they will admit that they were wrong about everything they thought and said. They have too much invested in believing otherwise. Which shows how little they had in the bank to begin with.

Anonymous said...

So much anger. So much hate. The demonization ("fascists", "cowards" "droolers") by the left of people who disagree with them is unspeakably ugly. Still, I understand. As Vicky Triponey says, you're afraid, you're embarrassed. But try to be calm. You'll find over time that your life is much more than Joe Pasterno or even Penn State. Indeed, in the fullness of time, you'll find, as Penn State students have said, that this is all a "little glitch" just a "bump in the road". Serenity now.

Anonymous said...

You're not going to start up the Catholic bashing again, are you? Good god.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to go out on a limb and state that the Penn State Scandal will NEVER give Fascism a foothold in Happy Valley. Clearly, the Penn State administration is as incompetent as the Weimar Republic. But where's the hyperinflation? Where's the maximum leader to whom people in Happy Valley could surrender their wills? You know, someone to whom they could dedicate statues and after whom they could name ice cream and other novelties? Someone whose image could be displayed everywhere in Happy Valley? I knew of a guy who fit the bill but he died. So don't worry about the midnight knock on your dorm room doors, kids.

Anonymous said...

You have a problem with anonymous comments? You want people to have to identify themselves to the proper authorities? Wait a minute. Isn't that...fascist?

Anonymous said...

Do you really believe that "much of America" has not flushed Joe Paterno down the stench pipe of history? Try this experiment: put on your Penn State sweat shirt and go to the nearest Pee Wee soccer match in suburban anywhere, Announce to the sideline soccer moms in a loud, proud, WE ARE voice that, as you say, "NO SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY KIND EVER OCCURRED AT PENN STATE BY SANDUSKY. NONE." Then, come back and tell the rest of the class how that went.

Anonymous said...

So let's get this straight - NO ONE may make assumptions based on the Curley e-mail but YOU are allowed to assume that "NO SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY KIND EVER OCCURRED AT PENN STATE BY SANDUSKY NONE" because McQueary saw Victim 2 being attacked but could not confirm penetration? This and the other counts that came back guilty are not enough? "McQueary said the boy had his hands against the wall and that Sandusky was standing up against him from behind. He said he heard a "skin-on-skin smacking sound" and that he had "no doubt" that Sandusky was engaging in anal sex with the boy." (

Here is the real breakdown of Victim 2:

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

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

Thanks for playing, Marc. You continue to omit details so your weak, pointless argument can hang by the tiny thread you have left. As always, I appreciate you not answering any questions, pointing fingers at the pope and others not named Paterno and for attacking other posters instead of answering questions as people try to engage you in conversation. Good form.


Jessica said...

So I'm about to be a junior at penn state, and you want to know where I stand on this? I don't watch football and hell, I don't even know how the game works. I knew of Joe Paterno, but I didn't worship him. I chose to go to PSU because not only are they internationally recognized for academic excellence, but anyone I'd ever spoke to about penn state could say nothing but good things about the school. Now, in the middle of my college career, something like this happens? I never once hesitated to think that what happened to those poor children was absolutely awful and that everyone involved, including Paterno, made a grievous error in not doing something to stop it. How can anyone put in McQueary's position to have witnessed something like that not feel so sickened that they would personally intervene and knock the lights out of Jerry Sandusky? However, regardless of how I feel toward the matter, I feel like as a Penn State student I am being lumped into one category, and category only: a cult of people who would put the safety of a child at risk to defend a football program and it's coach. Simple minds, this is not so. Some people may worship Joe Paterno for all that he did before this scandal, but others do not. Everyone who seems to think so is glorifying penn state football just as much as they say we are glorifying it. To those of you saying that penn state should be shut down, what did I do to deserve my education laid to waste? What have i or anyone else in the same boat as I am done to be uprooted in the middle of our college careers, punished for the actions a few stupid men who most likely won't see the same degree of punishment for their own actions? I had nothing to do with any of this, and in fact, it happened before college was even a thought in my mind. I'm proud of the school I attend because of the academic success I've had and the opportunities I've been afforded, and anybody who says I or anyone else does not deserve it because of unfortunate events that had nothing to do with us personally, you're as monstrous as you claim us to be.

Anonymous said...


You seem to be in Group #3, i.e., people who place their education and the reputation of Penn State above football and the individuals who endangered that reputation in the name of football. I think that you and students like you would be best served by the UChicago scenario, i.e., the abolition of intercollegiate sports at Penn State. Aren't you enraged that something as silly as a game has caused you and the other students like you all this trouble?

Jessica said...

Absolutely! But do I think that means we don't deserve the chance to show the world that academic excellence is what psu is REALLY about? Absolutely not. And I fully intend to finish out my education at penn state and do as much good for the world as I intended to before this all happened. And I know that the entirety of the student body feels the same way.

Marc Rubin said...

"So let's get this straight - NO ONE may make assumptions based on the Curley e-mail but YOU are allowed to assume that "NO SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY KIND EVER OCCURRED AT PENN STATE BY SANDUSKY NONE" because McQueary saw Victim 2 being attacked but could not confirm penetration? "

YOU get it straight. A jury of 12 people who know a lot more than you do or you ever will, who heard all the testimony while you heard NONE, who deliberated all the facts while you are too narrow minded to deliberate anything, didnt believe McQueary. And just for your information I have gotten emails from people who knew him at Penn State who based on their knowlege of him didnt believe his account either. Your narrow fascistic mind cant accept the rule of law and the judicial process because it rains on your parade and exposes you as someone who like others of your kind jumped to your own ignorant conclusions without knowing the facts, trying to beat your chest as some kind of phony moralist and anything that takes away your fun and exposes you as ignorant is nothing you are going to accept.

Anonymous said...

I know that Penn State folks don't like reporting things, especially things relating to the pre-adolescent heinie, but I'm still waiting for that report on the Pee Wee soccer match. Were the soccer moms a tad peeved at you? Did you chastise them for their fascist attitude? You see, some unenlightened gals get "antsy" when a guy in a Penn State sweat shirt starts to sing the praises of a shower room degenerate in front of their special snowflakes. Moms are like that; yes they are.

Marc Rubin said...

"Aren't you enraged that something as silly as a game has caused you and the other students like you all this trouble?"

Now that we know that Monsignor William Lynn of Philadephia has been convicted of failing to report child sexual abuse committed by Philadelphia priests and that he burned a list of pedophiles on order of a Philadelphia cardinal what do you and others who think like you propose should be done with the city of Philadelphia? Burn it to the ground? Maybe they should just put the Liberty Bell in some other city. Of course as pointed out before that as heinous as the things Sandusky was convicted for are, two investigations and a trial concluded none of them occurred at Penn State. Ruins your fun doesnt it. Also, there is no evidence to support anything in the Freeh Report, we know that Paterno did in fact report what he was told by McQueary unlike Monsignor Lynn so while you are others like you who want to pontificate about child abuse ( something that no one needs any lectures from by people like you) do you care to give us your thoughts about the Catholic church and the present pontiff ( as long as you like to pontificate) and his record of doing nothing about pedophile priests when he was a cardinal? And put your name to it? Or are you scared? And by the way, the invitation still stands for anyone who frothing at the mouth over nothing that actually occurred at Penn State to share your thoughts here about the Pope and the church and what should be done with them in light of the hundrds of thousands of children that have been sexually abused by priests. You have the floor.

Anonymous said...

What does the Catholic pedophile cover-up (a terrible thing) have to do with the sentence you quoted? The sentence quoted is about the relative unimportance of sport in an academic context. Your response to the quoted sentence appears to be about some deep-seated problem you have with Catholic priests. Please clarify.

Anonymous said...

I certainly hold no brief for pedophiles in the Catholic Church, just as I don't for those at Penn State. However, there is a tremendous difference between the response of the Catholic community to pedophilia in their church and the response of Penn State alumni to pedophilia in their university.

Catholics in dioceses most affected by the molesters have made a major effort to change the institution through defunding (i.e., withholding donations). In Ireland, middle-class educated Catholics simply won't let Catholic religious (nuns being part of the problem in Ireland) near their kids. In fact, it has been suggested that Ireland may have to be "reconverted" as a result of the alienation of the laity.

What do we find when we look at the Penn State alumni resonse to institutional pedophilia? We find Penn State alumni BRAGGING about the INCREASE in donations to the institution. We find Penn State alumni BRAGGING that they will continue to send their kids to the institution.

This is what distinguishes the two scandals.

Brian said...

To Jessica and the other students at PSU;

Your Penn State degree will hold as much respect and allow you the same opportunities as previous graduates of the school. Employers know the excellence of Penn State academically and are not going to base a hiring decision on what Jerry Sandusky did or whether or not a statue stands. While the media and the "anonymous bloggers" babble on and on about how long it will take Penn State to recover, the fact is they have already recovered. Fund raising this past year was the second highest total in school history. Applications and admissions are fine. The daily work of educating students goes on in Happy Valley and will continue. NCAA sanctions, articles in the New York Times, Pittburgh Post-Gazette and Philadelphia Inquirer will not alter what goes on in the daily life at PSU. I'm not a PSU grad but I know Penn State's academic reputation and in my profession I come in contact with many excellect PSU grads, and I write many recommedations for my students to attend PSU.

You'll be fine Jessica, graduate and go make the world a better place. And don't worry about the anonymous haters because in the end they don't matter. What matters is what you do with your talents and Penn State allows you to make the most of those gifts, no matter how many football games they win.

I live in PA and we need a strong Penn State just as we need Pitt, Temple, Duquesne, CMU, etc. to be strong.

Anonymous said...

How can any corrupt institution, be it church or university, be reformed if people keep feeding it dollars and children?

Anonymous said...

The officers of Nittanyville (formerly Paternoville) have clearly declared for Group #2 (The Screw Joe, We Want Football Group). They were promptly excoriated on Facebook by alumni from Group #1 (The Screw Penn State, Screw Football, We Want Joe Group). If guys who sleep on the ground in erstwhile Paternoville are in Group #2, there must be many non-fanatic students in Group #3 (Screw Joe, Screw Football, We Want Penn State Group).

Anonymous said...

As for the clown who keeps saying (as if saying it enough times will make it true) the courts found no Sandusky crime to have transpired at Penn State...

There were Guilty findings on 45 of 48 charges Sandusky faced including explicitly referenced crimes AT Penn State against Victims 2, 3, 6, and 8.

Anonymous said...

AT PENN STATE, Sandusky was convicted of:
Count 8: Indecent assault
Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Count 10: Corruption of minors
Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Count 12: Indecent assault
Count 13: Unlawful contact with minors
Count 14: Corruption of minors
Count 15: Endangering welfare of children
Count 29: Unlawful contact with minors
Count 30: Corruption of minors
Count 31: Endangering welfare of children
Count 36: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Count 37: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Count 38: Unlawful contact with minors
Count 39: Corruption of minors
Count 40: Endangering welfare of children

Even though (McQueary) Count 7 actual penetration was acquitted there is sexual abuse inherent in counts 8-11 (plus the janitor witnessed counts 37 & 38 did stick) hence your claim that


Is complete crapola ... downright delusional, and very very sad.

Anonymous said...

Why are you arguing with someone whose idea of "rational" discourse is labelling those who disagree with him "rat", "monster", "fascist",
"coward" and, my favorite, "drooler"? Didn't you notice how every so often he erupts into a rabid anti-Catholic tirade?

Are you teasing this man?

Anonymous said...

And lest the good gentleman try to argue that Indecent Assault is not sexual abuse the Centre County Criminal Court says says:

Count 8: INDECENT ASSAULT 18 Pa.C.S.Sec 3126(a)(8)-(M-2)

The defendant did have indecent contact with Victim 2 and/or cause Victim 2 to have indecent contact with him for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in himself or in Victim 2 and Victim 2 was less than sixteen years of age and the Defendant was four or more years older than Victim 2 and the Defendant and Victim 2 were not married. To Wit: The Defendant, Gerald A. Sandusky, being more than twenty years of age, did have indecent contact with juvenile Victim 2.

Anonymous said...

"He stood right there"

Im actually laughing at you and your fake moral outrage. You're SO disgusted by Paterno and what he did to those kids (GMAFB) that you probably spend all your free time working to help victims of abuse like the kids here, right? Wait, what? You haven't done anything except post garbage and conjecture on message boards and articles like this? So you're not really going to DO anything about this while thousands of kids suffer more abuse? THAT is absolutely disturbing. Don't worry, there are millions of others like you. Just go on pretending to be disgusted. It will help you feel like you would have done things differently and that this situation could never happen to you.

Anonymous said...

Rationalization (n) - the act of indulging, often unchallenged, in excuses for or explanations of (behaviour about which one feels uncomfortable or guilty).

Denial (n) - a a psychological defence mechanism by which painful truths are not admitted into an individual's consciousness, often characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

Anonymous said...

There is always gonna be a hard core of haters out there who are always gonna hate, but humanity at large is all about compassion and forgiveness. The way to invoke that compassion and start the healing process is acknowledgement.

Discussion of how Paterno was in general a good man will actually be received and healing can begin when/if it is acknowledged that: Man, he really screwed-up. Then things can move forward to he was Human and Humans make errors in judgment, look at all the good things he did, etc.

As long as the siege mentality of "da_n it he didn't do anything wrong, you can't prove it, you wouldn't have done any different, or worst of all ... NO SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY KIND EVER OCCURRED AT PENN STATE BY SANDUSKY NONE. As long as that's going-on healing cannot and will not happen.

All this behavior does is keep those who have compassion (the vast majority of humanity) aligned with the hard core haters. Accept the truth (ugly as it may be) and move-on or accept the continued pounding that will come your way for an ongoing refusal to accept. Acceptance is the only way things will be able to move forward. Till then, the "Pedo State" remarks will just keep coming.

Anonymous said...

This is Penn State devotee nonsense and denial. This was not a trial in court and the burden of proof is much lower. Defending ANYONE that knew ANYTHING about sexually abusing a child is pure BS. I wonder if you pick apart every word if it was your son or brother who was taken advantage of?????????????

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin said...
"YOU get it straight. A jury of 12 people who know a lot more than you do or you ever will, who heard all the testimony while you heard NONE, who deliberated all the facts while you are too narrow minded to deliberate anything, didnt believe McQueary. And just for your information I have gotten emails from people who knew him at Penn State who based on their knowlege of him didnt believe his account either. Your narrow fascistic mind cant accept the rule of law and the judicial process because it rains on your parade and exposes you as someone who like others of your kind jumped to your own ignorant conclusions without knowing the facts, trying to beat your chest as some kind of phony moralist and anything that takes away your fun and exposes you as ignorant is nothing you are going to accept."

Classic Marc - someone posts a comment that goes against his point of view and what does he do? Attack. Does he address anything relevant to the conversation? Absolutely not.

So from this awful attempt to rip apart my post that included testimony and actual counts against Sandusky in the PSU showers, we now know (thanks to e-mails sent to you) that McQueary's testimony is unreliable. Yet somehow the testimony of guys like Schultz and Curley, who are awaiting trial for perjury, is supposed to mean something? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that looks?

You say I cannot accept the rule of the law but blatantly overlook the four counts of the law regarding victim 2 that helped lock Sandusky up for life. Without addressing these in your hateful rant, you best argument is e-mails sent to you about McQueary's character? You're the righteous one who preaches facts, facts, and more facts. Bring something a little better next time.

Anyways, I have tried my best to ask questions and understand the other side. You, Marc, are clearly too short-tempered and narrow-minded to have an actual conversation with another human. Work on your grammar and punctuation and come back when you have a real argument. Paterno and others should have been fired because they failed. CNN and ESPN did not smear him or the others. They smeared themselves when no authorities were alerted the second time they heard of a sexual abuse allegation regarding Sandusky and a child.


Anonymous said...

Interesting to read Marc Rubin say that the jury did not believe McQueary given that they convicted him on 3 of the 4 charges derived from the incident McQueary witnessed and testified to. A set of incidents that the indictment (available from the Centre County website) said occurred entirely on the Penn State campus. It's tools like him that will slow the healing and the eventual restoration of Penn State's image. Ironic that his arguments and position are actually trashing the very thing he holds dear.

Anonymous said...

"Joe would not be alarmed by any rumor or report about Jerry showering with kids because it was considered common by staff and coaches."

Are you kidding? What kind of degenerates consider being naked, wet or dry, in front of a 10 year-old boy "common"? A grown man exposing himself to a 10 year-old boy is WRONG in ALL places at ALL times. What the hell is the difference between Joe and Jerry getting naked with a 10 year-old in a Penn State shower and the pervert in the playground exposing himself? Is this your defense of Joe's honor : that he thought that grown men should expose themselves to children? This is the sickest thing I've read so far in this sordid affair.

Anonymous said...

Look, Anonymous, just because this Aurabass guy says that Penn State coaches have no problem showering with children doesn't make it so. He's just another one of the million Penn State haters out there who will stoop to anything, including accusations of perversion, to bring down a university they could never get into.

Anonymous said...

I'm not defending Coach Paterno or anyone, but I am pointing out to facts. The Freeh report just doesn't have any facts other than "Joe" is mentioned in an email and it is probable to think that he was involved in a cover up. I work at PSU every day and this university is much larger than Joe Paterno. It is true that it is now a bigger, stronger university because of Joe Paterno, but it is a far reach to say that he ran the place. He worked in the athletic department and made considerable contributions to the academic side of the university. Did he know that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile? We don't know, shouldn't speculate, and the thing is...we'll probably never know. What we do know is his track record and that he devoted his life to young people. What we do know is that he reported what was reported to him, the next morning, to his supervisor. To say he was involved in some form of cover-up and see the facts of him reporting some kind of foul play is ironic. Mike McQueary testified to a Grand Jury that he didn't go into details when explaining to Coach Paterno what he saw. Coach Paterno testified to a Grand Jury that he didn't ask McQueary to go into details because the young man seemed emotionaly distraught. McQueary again testified during the Sandusky trial that he didn't go into details when reporting what he saw to Coach Paterno. Why isn't anyone "hating" McQueary more for not reporting what he saw, first hand? Why is this all falling on Coach Paterno. It's easy to pick on the dead guy isn't it? Its easy to see all the reports, evidence, etc., rolled up in 2012 when nobody knew of all these facts a decade ago.

Anonymous said...

The Freeh report is garbage. I bet all of you didn't know that the Freeh team was given a list of people to interview and a list of people not to interview. I bet all of you didn't know that the Paterno family asked several times to be interviewed and every one of those requests were denied. Why wouldn't the team want to interview Jay Paterno? Not only was he the son of Joe Paterno but he was also on the staff during all of this. The Freeh report is not a legal document nor will any of the findings be used in upcoming court cases involving Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. Read the report, a lawyer would rip it to shreds...and that is if a judge would even allow it in the courtroom, which I highly doubt. There are people to blame, there were things missed, and looking back now, there were probably different actions that should have been taken. This is the benefit of hind-sight. I send emails all the time and get my butt chewed because they are misconceived by some people or they are taken out of context or people claim there is a "tone" to the email. Anyone and I mean anyone can spin anything to make it look like anything. Look at the facts, which aren't many in the Freeh report, look at the Grand Jury testimony and tell me that there is hard evidence that Joe Paterno covered something up? It just isn't there. The thing that is the most bizarre is the commentators and media who say that Joe wanted to not taint the program or hurt the university. That he was so caught up in himself and all of grand things that go with being the head coach at PSU. If he was really caught up in all of that then why did he live in a modest house for over forty years and turn down millions of dollars by the NFL (when he was making $35,000)? It just doesn't add up. As far as the statue is concerned, does anyone really think Joe would give a crap? He hated the thing and never wanted it up to begin with. So if he "ran" the university and didn't want the statue of himself then how did it get up anyway? That's because there are more powerful influences at Penn State than Joe Paterno. He was old-school and a very salty guy. I feel, and this is only my personal opionion, that if he knew the details of Jerry Sandusky's actions, he probably would have went over and punched him in the face. I bet that Joe Paterno did more man-hours of volunteer work with the special olympics, multiple academic organizations, and was involved in more young people's organizations than every single blogger on here COMBINED. The Paterno family is doing an investigation too. They are hiring an investigative team to look into the exact same situation that Louis Freeh was hired to do. I bet the outcome will show a different angle. Now which report will be held more valid? Neither one is/will be a legal document. Neither one will be used in court.

Anonymous said...

To the guy who mentioned that Joe was showering naked with a ten year old boy. You are an idiot. Nobody has mentioned this, no eveidence has shown this and to make statements like that you must be: stupid, a newspaper reporter, or want a job with ESPN. It's comments like that that make people assume that happened, when it did not. Grow up and act like an adult, if you are one.

Anonymous said...

Read the damn quote from the Aurabass comment. It says that it was "common" for "coaches and staff" to shower with kids so Joe would not have been alarmed by Sandusky doing so. How could Joe know that it was "common" if he had not seen with his very own eyes coaches showering with kids? How could he see this if he wasn't in the showers with them? Did he hang around the showers just watching? Of course, not. Your problem isn't with me, buddy. It's with this Aurabass guy who says that Joe KNEW that coaches showered with kids. Ask Aurabass how Joe knew this.

Anonymous said...

Former Coaches Andserson and Booker testied UNDER OATH at Jerry's trial that it was common for coaches to shower with children. Joe's defenders are always crowing about reading the transcripts, etc., unlike the "ignorant" Joe-haters. Well, this is in the transcript. Explain it. Did Joe know about this practice and more importantly, HOW did he know?

Anonymous said...

Joe could easily know about his coaches' shower room practices without actually getting in the shower with them. Haven't you ever walked into your boss' office and said, "Boss, you're not gonna believe what I just saw in the mens room!"

Anonymous said...

It's a good question. How DID Joe know that coaches were showering with children? This could be a bombshell.

Anonymous said...

Interesting read diving into what Victim 1 had to deal with in terms of reactions around the PSU community. I have read things from Marc and others about the psychologist not believing him... More "facts" turning into total crap.


Anonymous said...

So it comes to this : The victims lied. Jerry was innocent. Therefore, there was nothing for Joe to cover up.

You're gonna burn in hell, you know that, don't ya?

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for that report from Aurabass on Joe's shower room spies.

Anonymous said...

Hell, I've been waiting even longer for that report from Marc on the soccer moms at the Pee Wee soccer match.

Anonymous said...

No, you are the one that referenced Joe and Jerry getting naked with a ten year old kid. You have spun what he quoted and wrote his quote completely out of context. That is one of the reasons people get misleading information. Because people like you make small statements like that and then others read them and say, "I didn't know Joe was showering with the kids too"? Quote on the facts and don't turn other's quotes around.

Anonymous said...

You guys act like the PSU athletic facilities are about as big as a high school field house. The PSU athletic facilities are huge. Students graduate from PSU in the past and never have seen Joe Paterno. It is a big place so for those to think that the showers, the offices, the practices and every little single last detail to be known by anyone or everyone is crazy. Sandusky showered with kids while working with the Second Mile. When the Second Mile camps and other stuff was going on most of the coaches were not around. Remember, Coach Paterno didn't authorize Sandusky use of the athletic facilities, Tim Curley did. Another argument that shatters a lot of perspective that Joe Paterno "ran" Penn State.

Anonymous said...

Answer the damn question. Coaches Anderson and Booker testified that it was common for coaches to shower with children. Aurabass said that Joe knew about this common practice and hence was not surprised to learn that Jerry was showering with children. Well, how did Joe know about this? It's a simple question. If you know of some way other than direct experience, i.e., eyeballs on balls, share it with the class or stop accusing people of taking quotes out of context. As I said, Coaches Anderson and Booker and Aurabass raised the issue; I didn't.

Anonymous said...

If you're suggesting that Aurabass was saying that Joe knew that it was common for Jerry, as opposed to coaches in general, to shower with children, the answer becomes even more important. How did Joe know this about Jerry? In either case, coaches in general or Jerry in particular, answer the question or apologize.

Anonymous said...

Wow, So much hate. I have an idea, let's honor and acknowledge Sandusky's victims by punishing hundreds of thousands of future children that will attend the school.

In my eyes, justice for the victims is not creating new ones.

Anonymous said...

You are an Idiot, plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

How does Joe's culpability or lack thereof punish hundreds of thousands of future children that will attend the school? This is typical of alumni in Group #1. You can't imagine Penn State without your demi-god, Joe. If future Penn State students don't worship Joe, as far as you're concerned, they can go to Hell.

Well, some of us give a damn about Penn State and we're not going to let you ass clowns destroy it. Future students at a strong, dynamic Penn State will give Joe as much thought as current Harvard students give Ted Kaczynski and current Princeton students give Aaron Burr, namely, none whatsoever. Do you think that those Harvard and Princeton students are being "punished"?
For Godsakes, grow up.

Anonymous said...

Penn State without Joe as a role model would be like Camelot without King Arthur. Without Joe's inspiration, Penn State students would be just like those at every other large school, selfish hedonists who want to do as little work as possible. What would happen to Penn State's specialness, the magic, the honor, the love? So yes, while I wouldn't wish those future students to go to Hell, without Joe's guiding spirit, that is precisely where they may end up.

So put me in Group #1 if you must. If that's where people who loved Joe belong, count me in.

Unknown said...

You are just as guilty of distortion as those you accuse. The actual phrasing of the key email is: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe YESTERDAY..." The email was written Feb. 27. Joe's first conversation with Curley was Feb. 11. You conveniently omit the "yesterday" in support of your theory that there is no evidence of a second conversation between Joe and Curley. The Freeh report has many faults and is being blatantly misrepresented by many in the media. By taking the same path of promoting blatant falsehoods, you destroy your own credibility. As you accurately state in the article, if you have to distort and misrepresent facts to make your case, you have no case.

Anonymous said...

The destruction of Joe's reputation WILL punish future students. The coeds who become victims of date rape because the campus has lost its moral compass, THEY will be punished. The frat boys who think that "Penn State" is all about throwing up their Monkey Boys on the sidewalk outside The Saloon, THEY will be punished. Let's not pretend that generations yet unborn will not suffer from this unholy war on the legacy of a good man.

Anonymous said...

I love the argument "you didn't mention the children being victims so you therefore you must condone child molestation and not feel truly sorry for what happened to them (I should probably explicitly state I am paraphrasing)" Can all the skeptics just please go back and read the thousands of posts from PSU alums saying their prayers are with the victims. I think it's fair to assume our hearts and prayers are constantly with the victims and that it is possible to simultaneously search for the truth of what really happened. The pitchfork comment is spot-on.

Anonymous said...

Where in my post about future children did I mention joe Paterno? My post had nothing to do with him. So you, "grow up".

Unknown said...

I enjoyed the article. One small correction, I'm pretty sure the quote from Woody Allen is actually a Mark Twain quote.

Anonymous said...

Michael Boni, the attorney for Victim 1, told ESPN on July 13, 2012 the following about his client's feelings towards Joe:

"Right now, he just feels a sense of ire and frustration that Joe Paterno and these bumbling administrators thought more to protect the football program and their old pal Jerry Sandusky than to consider for one split second his actual and potential victims. I don't think the English language has a word for the level of frustration Victim 1 feels over being molested after they made the decision to cover-up what Sandusky had done."

and the following about his client's mother's feelings towards Joe :

"She is just filled with hatred toward Joe Paterno. She just hates him, and reviles him, and pins total blame on him for what happened to her son."

Can we dispense with the usual nonsense, i.e., "ESPN made it up. They resent Joe's goodness" and "The shyster lawyer made it up. He just want's Joe's money". Can we just respect these statements as honest expressions of the feelings of Victim 1 and his family towards Joe?

In light of these statements (and similar statements of the other victims and their families), how can anyone say that you can defend Joe and still be sensitive to the feelings of the victims and their families? Can you imagine the pain felt by Victim 1 when he hears Marc scream NO SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY KIND EVER OCCURRED AT PENN STATE BY SANDUSKY. NONE? Speaking of Marc, I've seen him label people who merely question the propriety of Joe's action (or inaction) "rat", "drooler", "coward", "monster" and the old standby of the Left, "fascist". Well, Victim 1's mother had the courage (and saying it in State College took raw courage) to say that she "reviles" Joe and "pins total blame on him". Does that make her a "fascist" or a "drooler", Marc? Or will you dredge up even worse invective for this Joe hater and her son?

Clearly, Curley and Schultz (and Spanier), because they face prison time, are entitled to defend themselves even if it twists the knife left in the victims by Jerry. But Joe is dead. He doesn't face prison time. The people on this blog defending Joe aren't members of the Paterno family or even close friends of the family. What gives them the moral right to stick their oar in and say things in defense of Joe when they KNOW that it will cause pain to the victims? You KNOW that the victims will be suing Joe's estate. How can defending Joe's actions be anything but hostile to the victims' interests in those lawsuits? How is that supportive of the victims?

How can you say that your hearts and prayers are with the victims and then turn around and celebrate the life of the man whom the victims despise as the author of their suffering?

Defend Joe if you must but don't pretend that you're not pouring acid on the victims' souls.

Anonymous said...

Bravo. This needed to be said and you said it well.

From the victims' perspective, this Paterno Cult really is a dirty, little business.

Anonymous said...

Until now, I considered the Paterno fans to be perhaps silly but harmless, like those guys who live in their mom's basement and argue over who was the best captain of the Starship Enterprise. After reading the statements of the victims and their families above, I realize that there is a dark side to their hero worship.

Anonymous said...

I've been saying this to everyone I know for soo long. Thank you, Brian.

Anonymous said...

Look, the truth is that the interests of the victims and the Paternos are unavoidably in conflict. If you care about both the victims and the Paternos, the best course of action is to just not take sides. In other words, to just shut up.

Anonymous said...

"Right now, he just feels a sense of ire and frustration that Joe Paterno and these bumbling administrators thought more to protect the football program and their old pal Jerry Sandusky than to consider for one split second his actual and potential vistims."

She is just filled with hatred toward Joe Paterno. She just hates him, and reviles him, and pins total blame on him for what happened to her son."

Anybody who could say things like this about a man like Joe is an asshole. Is that what you wanted to hear? Now that you've heard it, you and they can go fuck yourselves.

Anonymous said...

Whoa! Step back and take a deep breath. I treasure Joe's legacy too but cursing out the victims does nothing to honor his memory.

Anonymous said...

Is someone suggesting that throwing a few bucks at RAINN and attending a candlelight vigil don't entitle me to champion the cause of one of the guys who "had Jerry's back"?

Anonymous said...

We supporters of Joe search for the truth for the benefit of EVERYONE: Joe, Penn State, the alumni, the students, the team AND the VICTIMS themselves. We can't help it if our search always ends up exonerating Joe. He's just that innocent. If the victims and their families can't accept that truth and admire all that Joe has done for all of us, including them, there's nothing that we can do about it.

Anonymous said...

Nobody is going to make me abandon my search for the truth of Joe's innocence, not "rats", not "droolers", not fascists" and certainly not a bunch of whining victims.

Anonymous said...

Hey kids, whadda ya say we drop by Victim 1's house and tell him ""NO SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY KIND EVER OCCURRED AT PENN STATE BY SANDUSKY NONE". He'll probably be so glad to learn that he imagined the entire shower rape thing, he may want to party down. So whadda ya say? You bring the the chips; I'll bring the dip.

Anonymous said...

Aurabass said :

"You can support the brave victims and Joe Paterno and Penn State; You do not have to choose between them."

"Brave" Victim 1 said:

"Right now, he just feels a sense of ire and frustration that Joe Paterno and these bumbling administrators thought more to protect the football program and their old pal Jerry Sandusky than to consider for one split second his actual and potential victims. I don't think the English language has a word for the level of frustration Victim 1 feels over being molested after they made the decision to cover-up what Sandusky had done."

Marc said:


I know that Marc supports the brave victims as well as he does Joe but someone with a world-class Penn State education is going to have to show me how to reconcile these two statements so I too can
support the brave victims AND Joe Paterno.

Anonymous said...

This blog is getting way too grim. Let us take a moment and enjoy the delicious irony of this:

When the NCAA gave SMU the death penalty in 1987 for running a slush fund for players from the mid-1970s through 1986, the NCAA never took away any of SMU's pre-1987 wins. All of the penalties were prospective.

Grambling State's hometown has petitioned the NCAA to take away all of Joe's wins. They won't do that (I hope) but if they did, guess who would become the NEW 1982NCAA National Champions. That's right, none other than SMU was No. 2 to Penn State's No. 1. As the kids say, ROFL.

Anonymous said...

What is it about exposure to the white-hot pain of the victims that makes the Joepologists and their 1,000-page treatises beat a retreat?

I hear crickets.

Anonymous said...

I would think that what is in the best interest of the victims is the TRUTH.
Find out exactly what took place (not assumption and supposition), and hold the RIGHT people accountable. Drawing simplistic and incorrect conclusions serves no one.

Anonymous said...

Who are you to tell the victims what is in their best interests? The victims have eloquently stated that their best interests lie in the utter condemnation of Joe Paterno. You have the gall to call them "simplistic". But that's OK because you got a candle wax burn at a vigil for the victims.

Anonymous said...

If they enter actual "evidence" and not "conclusions" (inadmissible), then no. However, as long as the only things against Paterno are faulty conclusions we'll still back him.

Anonymous said...

I agree! Enough proof of guilt to close it down forever is listed here!,28842/

Anonymous said...

The victims' position is that Joe covered up and caused their suffering. The Paterno family's position is that Joe did no such thing. Clearly, these two unfortunate groups, victims and family, have conflicting opinions (as well as conflicting financial interests). If one cares about both of these groups, how can you "back" Joe, as you put it, or, for that matter, " back" the victims? This isn't a football game in which you "back" one side or the other. Has football so permeated the culture of Penn State that even this human tragedy calls for picking sides?

Anonymous said...

You have to understand that to Joe's supporters, the victims are merely convenient dupes being exploited by ESPN and other dark forces conspiring against Joe. That the victims may have their own heart-felt feelings in the matter, at least as long as they're violently anti-Joe, doesn't enter their minds. This allows them to pretend that they care so very much for the victims while "rooting" for the man blamed by the victims for the cover-up.

Anonymous said...

Wow... so many commenters with so little wisdom... on all sides.

The bottom line here is that the Freeh report fails.

It might fail because the allegations are untrue...

It might fail because its author is incompetent...

Or it might fail because its sponsors paid for it to deflect blame from themselves...

But regardless of the cause of this report's failure, it does fail and it does not hold up to scrutiny.

For 6 million dollars (and seriously - did it really require a $6M price tag?) you would hope for a better work product... some integrity would have been nice as well.

As for the rest of you who want to behave as though you actually KNOW something... you don't. You ought to at least be able to recognize that much.

Oh and by the way... go fuck yourselves...*

Anonymous said...

Victims 1, 3, 7 and 10 have expressed unreserved support for the Freeh Report. Should they "go fuck" themselves?

Anonymous said...

The Cult Of Paterno is in such denial it boggles the mind.

None of the four main guys in this scandal ever once tried to find out the identity of the young boy Sandusky was observed raping in the shower, much less attempted to locate him and find out if he was OK. Regardless of anything else in this dirty, awful affair, that alone damns all of them, utterly and completely.

Maybe one of these days the Cult Of Paterno, and the Gods of Football will be eradicated from Happy Valley and from the Earth. Until then, shame on all of you for allowing this to happen.

Anonymous said...

I seriously hope you know that article is some kind of sick joke.

Unknown said...

Sounds to me like the liberal Anonymous people who believe Joe was involved in this better check their information before responding. You might question some of what Marc wrote, but do you really know what happened without using the liberal media to get your information? Don't post what you REALLY don't know.

Anonymous said...


According to Marc, those who despise Joe for his cover-up are right-wing fascists, not liberals.

In any case, the fact that Marc and you consider child rape to be a poltical issue is just appalling.

Anonymous said...

Todd Vandeberg said...
"Sounds to me like the liberal Anonymous people who believe Joe was involved in this better check their information before responding. You might question some of what Marc wrote, but do you really know what happened without using the liberal media to get your information? Don't post what you REALLY don't know."

Are you saying Joe was not involved? By involved I do not mean masterminded a cover up; I mean he knew about sexual abuse allegations regarding a former coach in his locker room but failed (along with others) to go to authorities. The only arguments against this are 1) He told the "Head of Police", a myth that has already been debunked and 2) "NO SEXUAL ABUSE OF ANY KIND EVER OCCURRED AT PENN STATE BY SANDUSKY NONE.", another convenient lie from Marc. I guess #2 might hold up if you believe Aurubass' argument that sexual abuse could not have happened because Sandusky was much larger than the little boy... Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

thanks for sharing.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
koozieflute said...

Another crucial piece of information in the 2001 email that is overlooked: "I am having trouble with what we decided. I am having trouble with going to EVERYONE BUT the person involved." To me, that indicates Curley was uncomfortable notifying all these people without letting Sandusky know. He didn't want Sandusky to be blindsided, which is not surprising given his years of service to the university. This also jives with Spanier's reply that this is more humane and they will help Sandusky report it. It's not like the email says "I am uncomfortable going to ANYONE BUT the person involved." That has a different meaning, indicating they wouldn't go to anyone but Sandusky, period. We know that meaning was not meant, as this was reported to Second Mile.