Monday, August 6, 2012

Why Freeh didn't interview Paterno, McQueary, Schultz and Curley.

There is an old adage in trial law: never ask a question of a witness you don't know the answer to and never ask a question you do know the answer to that won't help your case. 

Further proof that Freeh and his report were a fraud and that Freeh had a preconcieved agenda to target and smear Paterno ( as he did Richard Jewell in 1996),  is that in doing what was supposed to be an unbiased, objective and honest investigation, supposedly to get the truth,  Freeh incredibly,  declined to interview the most crucial and important people related to the entire investigation, Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.  Which should prove beyond any doubt to anyone who can think, that it wasn't an "investigation" at all but a preconcieved one sided prosecution with an agenda with a predetermined outcome that became more persecution than prosecution something Freeh did often as director of the FBI and there is evidence to prove it.

That Freeh neglected to interview the primary principals at the heart of his  investigation, those who would be the central figures in his conclusions is clearly because he knew well the adage of not asking questions you don't know the answer to, or questions the answers to which you don't want. And he simply didn't want the answers he knew he would or might get from any of them which could destroy his agenda.

Joe Paterno requested that he be interviewed by Freeh before his death. He wanted to be on the record. But obviously that was the last thing Freeh wanted. Freeh knew Paterno had cancer and only a short time to live. An honest investigator which Freeh has never been in his life ( furthering the black eye of the trustees for hiring him) would have rushed an investigator to Paterno to get his statement and to answer questions on the record before that would be impossible.That it was Paterno who requested the interview and that it was Freeh declining should be enough for any intelligent person to dismiss the report as another fraud in Freeh's long and well chronicled history of fraudulent investigations. And for most intelligent people it was. But intelligence has never been part of anything related to the Freeh Report or those who blindly swallowed it and stayed in line.

Think of how different things would have been had an investigator asked Paterno point blank about the vague and specious emails Freeh tried to use to smear him. Paterno could have been asked about them specifically -- did you receive updates from Schultz or Curley? Who is this email referring to?  Did you influence Curley to reverse course and not report what McQueary said contrary to your grand jury testimony?

Freeh didn't ask because Freeh didn't want to know.He didn't want those answers on the record. And that should be clear and obvious to anyone. Even spineless college presidents like Penn State president Rodney Erickson and NCAA president Mark Emmert who were both too busy grandstanding and goose stepping to deal with anything resembling the truth.

The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator.  Instead it was the press, Eriksson, Emmert and those who believed the report who have proven themselves to be worthless as responsible citizens of a democracy.

Freeh, who has a history a mile long of bungled, incompetent and dishonest investigations going back to 1996, a reputation of being the most crooked FBI director since Patrick Gray dumped documents into the Potomac to help Nixon's Watergate cover up, ( look it up yourself )also declined to interview Mike McQueary. This would seem incredible only if you didn't understand that again, Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events, and issuing the kind of report that he knew the news media expected and would support, which is exactly what he did without a shred of actual proof to back things up. He did exactly the same thing as director of the FBI which is why thousands of cases during his tenure are still being reviewed for tainted evidence, deception and dishonesty, one more black eye for the trustees in hiring him.

Think of what else McQueary could have told him in terms of what he witnessed in the shower ( with time to refresh his recollection as they say in court) and what he could have told him with regards to exactly what he told Paterno. And Curley and Schultz for that matter. Except if he told Freeh what Curley and Schultz claims he told them , then their prosecution goes out the window.

 There can be no rational reason for not interviewing both Paterno and McQueary given what they could have said. Except if you simply didn't want what they could have told you. Which by itself should render the report as an investigative document, worthless. Except to the most docile, conformist and non-thinking among us, the kind of mentality that accepts anything if told to them by an authority figure.

Even without Curley and Schultz cooperating, the most any honest investigator could have said about those emails is that the issue is unresolved and will have to wait until Curley and Schultz are free to speak. But not Freeh.   And in the case of the 1998 email which said "Coach is anxious to know" and that Freeh, in as dishonest as statement as any investigator used to conclude" it is believed 'Coach' is Paterno", all, and I mean all of the facts  and evidence surrounding that email points to '"Coach" being Sandusky and not Paterno.  But that didn't fit with his agenda. Instead he stated conclusions without any proof or facts without waiting for answers that Curley and Schultz could provide and instead tars Paterno, the way he did with Richard Jewell, and countless others as FBI director,  with unsubstantiated conclusions and yet there are people supposedly with IQ's in 3 digits who are unable to think for themselves and buy it.

That a college president like Rodney Erickson bought this nonsense which shredded every constitutional  protection and provided no proof and no facts to support the conclusions,  and that the president of the NCAA did the same, is probably why the United States is 27th in the world in education. And that some people think that because these men without principle and without real character, just bureaucrats,  accepted the findings of an investigator with one of the worst and most sordid reputations in America, and that the press swallowed it also, is why the  country lurches from one crisis to another in terms of policy and nothing of substance ever gets done. And credit the sad excuse this country has for mainstream journalists  with that also.

It cant be overstated that this report and the reaction of the press, other officials who accepted it and acted on it and the sheep that follow them is what lets politicians get away with lies, places our democracy in jeopardy, and why what happened to Joe Paterno and Penn State is bigger than both. Freeh knew what he could get away with and counted on the usual gutlessness and gullibility of the press to buy it wholesale and they did not disappoint. Freeh got away with it. For now. And unless something is done to change it, both in terms of discrediting Freeh, the Freeh Report, the press and everyone who accepted it, then things in the country as a whole will get worse. Because once you throw away the constitution and the principles behind it and what it demands of citizens as envisioned by the founders, once the truth doesn't matter anymore then you have nothing.

NOTE: this and other peices can also be found on the new Framing Paterno web site that was recently created as a clearing house for articles and a forum bringing together information and opinons from a diverse group of people over these events,the irresponsibility and incompetence of the news media and the Freeh Report itself.


Anonymous said...

Marc - You can upgrade the "probable" to "definite" in regards to Curley and Schultz declining to be interviewed on the advice of cousel:

"Former athletic director Tim Curley and former Penn State vice president Gary Schultz both face perjury charges for failing to report suspected child abuse. Both declined to be interviewed for the Freeh Report on the advice of counsel."

Just curious - What source are you using to base your claim that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and McQueary. Not saying you are wrong; I just have not heard that, nor do I see it anywhere.


Anonymous said...

"At the request of the Pennsylvania Attorney General, the Special Investigative Counsel did not interview former Pennsylvania State University Director of Public Safety Thomas Harmon or former coach MICHAEL McQUEARY, among others." (Page 12 of Freeh Report)

Marc screams (literally) his head off at people who refuse to read the Freeh Report as carefully and thoughtfully as he does. Then, he has the gall to say that Freeh intentionally and with evil intent "declined" to interview McQueary when the reason for his failure to interview McQueary is
clearly set forth on Page 12 of the Freeh Report.

I now understand where much of Marc's nonsense about the Freeh Report comes from : He hasn't read the damn thing.

Anonymous said...

"The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed." (Page 53 of Freeh Report)

How is this "declining" to interview Paterno? How does this show interviewing Paterno to be the "last thing" Freeh wants? Again, I ask: Has Marc even read the damn Freeh Report?

Anonymous said...

I was going to compliment Marc on writing 13 whole paragraphs without calling anyone a Fascist, but then I noticed that "goose stepping" slur. Darn it.

Anonymous said...

So that explains why Curley, Schultz, McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed.

The NYT has a searchable version of the Freeh Report. In far less time than it took Marc to compose his rant, he could have found the answers in the Freeh Report itself and avoided considerable embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. I respect what I believe Marc is trying to do - question everything and keep people honest. However, there is clearly an underlying agenda to divert attention away from Paterno and onto anyone else. The usage of half-truths and assumptions (while simultaneously bashing assumptions used by others) has gotten out of control. The poor grammar and usage of punctuation do not help his cause, either.

As always, I look forward to his righteous response to these posts. Since he can never be wrong, I anticipate a hate-filled rant attacking us and not the actual facts laid in front of him.


Anonymous said...

I am one of the so-called "kool-aid" drinkers who believes the Freeh report if full of half-truths, innuendo, and conclusions not supported by evidence. I just located this site and was hopeful to find reasoned commentary about how Penn State has been unfairly treated. I intended to remind Marc that the PA Attorney General provided a list of "forbidden" interviewees to Mr. Freeh (although I sure would like to see the complete list). I see other careful readers have done so.
What Penn State does NOT need (as we are unlikely to get a fair shake from any media outlet) is inaccuracies by its supposed defenders. Everything else Marc said can be questioned because of such inaccuracies.
Please Marc, be more careful.

Rumblings From Beaver Stadium said...

Freeh had about 6-7 weeks to interview Paterno - from the time Freeh was appointed in mid-late November until Paterno's health was too fragile in mid-January - and failed to get it done. It's staggering that Freeh's highest initial priority wasn't quickly securing an interview and witness statements from the cancer-addled, 85-year-old Paterno. He also declined to meet with Paterno representatives much later, near the end of the investigation. Also, can the AG prevent Freeh from speaking with McQueary? Does the AG have such power? If McQueary was willing to talk to Freeh, why shouldn't it have happened, why shouldn't Freeh have pursued it? He should have. Heck, Freeh should have tried to speak with Sandusky after his trial, though obviously Sandusky's pretty low on the credibility meter. Still, he might have yielded something useful in the pursuit of the full truth. Freeh's investigation is the basis of assessment for Penn State and this entire tragic saga. Freeh needed to try to speak with as many key players as possible. He didn't.

Anonymous said...

Rumblings, you are a total tool. Of course the AG have the power to stop Freeh from interviewing witnesses to future cases, idiot. Freeh also would abide by such a request since he was in law enforcement as well.

Anonymous said...

The AG has no such power to stop McQueary from being interviewed. McQueary's lawyer has such power, but the A.G. does not. If Freeh chose not to speak with McQueary because of what the A.G said, then it shows that Freeh is aligned with the A.G. (which is no surprise because he is, after all, a prosecutor appointed by the BOT to represent their interests, not an independent investigator as has been asserted. In fact, I doubt Freeh knows how to do anything but be a prosecutorial advocate). You seem to be well aware that Freeh was involved in law enforcement, and Freeh has a record of being pro law enforcement even when he violated ethical limitations to do so (look back at Waco, Richard Jewell, recent FIFA investigation, findings of the 9/11 commission and a whole slew of prior actions of Freeh that may be pro "law enforcement" but are also pro coverup and anti-truth).

Rumblings is completely correct on that point, and not an idiot by any means. You on the other hand...

Anonymous said...

Wow....punctuation is something that is lost on you. So basically everyone is wrong bout everything and only u can see the truth. Or.....evrryone is right about everything and u r just sn idiot