Freeh Says:" Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State," Freeh wrote. "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized." Well DuH!! The leaders at Penn State never believed they were dealing with a pedophile.
Freeh starts from the premise that Mike McQueary's statements to Joe Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz was the same lie told in the Grand Jury Presentment. That he had witnessed a sexual assault.
McQueary's own testimony under oath proves this is untrue and that these men who had known of Jerry Sandusky's history of work with children through his charity The Second Mile were not explicitly told of any sex act. McQueary for 5 or 6 minutes by his admission related the story of his 45 second visit to that locker room. He told them of the 2 or 3 slapping sounds that led him to suspect two adults were having sex in the showers. He told them about his first 1 or 2 second glance that revealed only the backside of Sandusky through a mirror and his second 1 or 2 second glance of Sandusky with a boy in front standing upright, hands on the wall, head up to Sandusky's pectorals, feet on the floor, and not bent over. These are McQueary's own words that can be read here in my post on that subject with images of the actual transcript
Mike says "I would have said extremely sexual and I thought it was intercourse" I WOULD have said not that he did say that. Curley and Schultz say he said no such thing. Read their testimony and tell me why you would believe a 27 year old graduate assistant coach with 2 second glances who says under oath:
So as a competent administrator you are going to hear this description from Mike and think he was explicitly telling you of a sex act by a man Joe had known for 30 years? A man who's book had just been published in Jan who was thought to be as close to a saint as anyone in the state? A man honored by Pres Bush and Sen Santorum? Well bullshit. You would have to think Mike made a mistake and that he should have observed for 30 or 60 seconds to confirm or refute his suspicions before he slammed that locker door and stood face to face with a boy and his "rapist". A boy that showed no pain, fear, or distress - a boy who had not cried out in pain or ask for help when Mike presented himself.
No Mike quickly exited that room and ran upstairs to call his Dad and never returned to see if the "rapist" had left with the boy. He did nothing to help a 10 year old boy he just saw being raped.
IF you say you would buy the idea that Mike was reporting a sex act with this story and hold that above everything you knew about Saint Jerry you are fooling yourself.
I don't care if Mike said he thought it was "a sexual nature". His detailed description of those 45 seconds delivered in 5 or 6 minutes by his own admission would be more than enough for anyone to question his suspicions - particularly delivered against a guy of Sandusky's stature.
And if you think that Joe Paterno asking to be updated on the 98 investigation is some kind of red flay? Well that's just as nuts. The 98 investigation knowledge is EXCULPATORY not INCRIMINATING. The Victim 6 in 98 told investigators he was not molested. How does anyone figure that NO CHARGES should serve as some kind of warning?
Yes Jerry Sandusky showered with boys in his care. Yes that likely seems weird to some of you. But to Joe, Tim and Gary the idea of a foster father and charity founder taking a shower after a workout with a boy he was serving as surrogate father was not unusual or "creepy". The administrators realized that by 2001 these showers had to stop because they thought they could be interpreted the wrong way - as they thought Mike had interpreted. It turns out that Sandusky was most likely grooming that boy for future abuse but they had no way to do that and for you to take your current knowledge of who JS turned out to be and to apply it to Tim Gary or Joe in 2001 is unfair and prejudicial.
PLEASE ADD COMMENTS OR DISCUSS THIS POST ON THE FORUM
The Freeh Report is indeed a load of crap. How about this:
ReplyDeleteFreeh states: “Many, many witnesses we spoke to described Paterno as one the most powerful leaders on campus,” Freeh said. “He could have stopped it.”
Repeating what people believe to be true and what is the truth are two different things. Freeh provides no evidence (other than opinion) that demonstrates Joe Paterno was in a position of power - or had a leading role - in the decisions regarding Sandusky's actions in 1998 and 2001 or in Sandusky's retirement.
*Freeh references a number of meetings and discussions between Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, yet it is mind-boggling that the most powerful man on campus is not invited to the meetings nor can Freeh provide any credible evidence that Paterno played a role in the decision-making process.
*Freeh's report provided contradictory evidence to Paterno's power on campus when it reports that Detective Schreffler received no interference from the administration in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky. Wouldn't it make sense that Detective Schreffler and the police force would have immediately informed Paterno of the outcome of the investigation, given his importance on campus? Yet, Freeh cannot even uncover a piece of evidence indicated Paterno was informed of the outcome.
*The Freeh Report produces scant evidence - in the form of handwritten margin notes - that Paterno had a role in determining Sandusky's retirement package. In fact, the evidence - in the form of correspondence - clearly shows that "one of the most powerful" men on campus was rarely consulted during the negotiations of the retirement of his top assistant coach.
*The Freeh Report ignores the Washington Post interview (used in another instance to imply Paterno was untruthful about 1998) where Joe Paterno describes himself as "in a dilemma" about Sandusky because he was no longer Jerry's boss. While this interview was conducted long after the 2001 incident, it provides information that provides how Joe viewed his role in decision making outside of the football program.
And this:
ReplyDeleteFreeh states: "The avoidance of bad publicity is the most significant, but not the only cause...."
This conclusion, purported to be based on interviews of over 400 people and review of 3.5 million e-mails is supported by a single hearsay statement (p. 78) provided by the Second Mile legal counsel who reported what the Second Mile CEO told him. The Second Mile CEO allegedly told the counsel that Curley told him "to avoid publicity issues." This is double hearsay.
It is certainly more likely, based on all the evidence in the Freeh report, that the most significant or possible explanation that PSU officials chose to report the incident to Second Mile was as a means of seeking professional help for Sandusky
And these:
ReplyDelete>>Regarding the aftermath of the 1998 incidence, Freeh states: "Nothing in the record indicates that Curley and Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky."
This suggested course of action does not make sense given the fact that a) in 1998, Sandusky was fully employed by PSU as the Defensive Coordinator of the football team and needed access to facilities to perform his job; b) that Sandusky was not charged with a crime and that the Department of Welfare's investigation concluded in that child abuse was unfounded; c) up until that incident, PSU had no reason to believe that Sandusky's interactions with children were anything but altruistic; and d) that providing the Second Mile children with access to the PSU football facilities and football team provided many with a positive influence on their lives.
>>The Freeh report condemns PSU for allowing "Sandusky to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child predator, as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy..."
At the time of Sandusky's retirement, PSU officials were aware of one unfounded allegation of child abuse against Sandusky. The suggestion that they would somehow change his retirement package and access based unfounded allegation of child abuse, weighed against 30 years of service to PSU is unfathomable.
This is all excellent work Anonymous of the three first comments. Please contact aurabass AT yahoo Dot com if you would like to contribute for publication.
DeleteInsightful
ReplyDelete