tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post3449442945008382217..comments2024-01-30T04:57:48.673-05:00Comments on Second Mile Sandusky Scandal: The Freeh Comment - What a load of crapBarry Bozemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-51486341237954289672012-07-22T08:17:10.008-04:002012-07-22T08:17:10.008-04:00This is all excellent work Anonymous of the three ...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.Barry Bozemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-53596142798142172432012-07-18T19:23:07.418-04:002012-07-18T19:23:07.418-04:00InsightfulInsightfulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-13602544858082824462012-07-17T10:53:13.879-04:002012-07-17T10:53:13.879-04:00And these:
>>Regarding the aftermath of the...And these:<br /><br />>>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."<br /> <br />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. <br /><br /> <br />>>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..."<br /> <br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-91597845321639918822012-07-17T10:46:33.420-04:002012-07-17T10:46:33.420-04:00And this:
Freeh states: "The avoidance of ba...And this:<br />Freeh states: "The avoidance of bad publicity is the most significant, but not the only cause...."<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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 SanduskyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-77053024310083772122012-07-17T10:44:30.338-04:002012-07-17T10:44:30.338-04:00The Freeh Report is indeed a load of crap. How ab...The Freeh Report is indeed a load of crap. How about this:<br /><br />Freeh states: “Many, many witnesses we spoke to described Paterno as one the most powerful leaders on campus,” Freeh said. “He could have stopped it.” <br /><br /><br /> <br /> <br />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. <br /><br /> <br /> <br />*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. <br /><br /> <br /> <br />*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. <br /><br /> <br /> <br />*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. <br /><br /> <br /> <br />*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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com