This isn't an argument on the part of Joe Paterno or Penn State. This is an indictment of the entire process used by the NCAA to levy sanctions against Penn State. Any semblance of a complete and honest appraisal of the actions of Joe Pateno and Penn State administrators is admitted by Freeh to be a complete FRAUD with these words from Freeh himself:
Freeh defended his work Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press. Addressing specific criticism that his team did not interview Mike McQueary and other key witnesses, Freeh said his team respected requests by state prosecutors to rely on their grand jury testimony.
''We did not interview him (McQueary); that was at the request of the attorney general,'' Freeh said. ''Some of the people we normally would have interviewed, we were asked by the prosecutors not to do so.''
In the Freeh report Freeh says that this was part of his plan. On page 9 of the report, he says that their implementation plan included:
" Cooperating with law enforcement, government and non-profit agencies, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), and athletic program governing bodies;"
This clearly includes colluding with the AG's office and the NCAA. Freeh hid it in plain sight. So his statements about independence and secrecy are a complete joke. He made those groups part of the SIC on purpose. The leaks could have come from any of them.
A Grand Jury is the prosecutions tool used to gain indictments. The attorneys question witnesses with a sole purpose - to enter into the record incriminating evidence ONLY. They ask no questions that might have exculpatory answers. There is no cross-examination. There is no defense attorney present to ask questions. The entire process is totally one-sided.
Freeh was supposed to be conducting a full investigation to get at the truth. His report was not presumed to echo an indictment procedure. This is extremely important and should immediately make anyone who accepted the Freeh Report as a serious fair and balanced inquiry to seek truth to re-evaluate their opinion.
McQueary spoke to Joe for 10 minutes. Four of those words might have been "a sexual nature" and "fondling" 4 words out of how many he spoke that day a decade in the past and in what context?
There is now some evidence to the contrary. From Joe himself in his conversation with Gary Gray on Dec 6th. Our memories are interesting things - particularly the memory of an 85 year old a decade following a brief conversation. As it becomes more important and we have time to reflect on it things come back to us. So after being removed as head coach and the media frenzy did Joe recall more of the conversation?
Was it something like this during the 5 or 6 minutes Mike spoke to Joe?
"Joe I don't know exactly what was happening. I expected to see two adults having sex when I heard those sounds. I visualized seeing that prior to glancing for 1 or 2 seconds. I wasn't sure what I was seeing. Something of a sexual nature? Fondling or something like that? I just can't be certain my observation was so brief and I was so shocked when it wasn't two adults like I expected."
Your guess is as good as mine. Did Joe ask Mike what they talked about after he received his subpoena in Dec of 2010? I would have if I didn't recall what was said a decade prior to the serving.
The media and Kelly made the world think that this was such a huge deal to Joe Tim and Gary they could not possibly forget what was said in those brief encounters a decade in the past. But that is simply absurd if they came to believe that Mike's 1 or 2 second glances were of Jerry doing his bear hug routine with no sexual intent as was the conclusion of the DPW and CYS in 1998.