Saturday, July 14

So You Think Joe Paterno Was a Liar?

A media tsunami is reporting everywhere the Freeh Report proves Joe Paterno was very aware of the 1998 investigation and that he LIED. 
Here is definitive proof the Freeh Report proves no such thing and includes statements that are LIES. 
THE FREEH REPORT says Joe is A LIAR offering these 2 email Exhibits as proof 
Exhibit 2A - At 05:24 PM 5/5/98 -0400, Re: Joe Paterno   Tim Curley wrote:
I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.
Exhibit 2B  At 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Re: Jerry    Tim Curley wrote:
Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.
That's it? 
Above you have Exhibit 2A the email "I have touched base" under Re Joe Paterno see UPDATE below

and 2B Re: Jerry "coach is anxious to know" Why does Freeh leap to the conclusion that "Coach" is Joe Paterno? When you read the chain of email Schultz is telling Curley that DPW is going to interview Sandusky and he writes of how Sandusky is concerned about the effect of the inquiry on the boy. The entire thread after Curley says "I have touched base with the coach" is about Sandusky but we are to imply "coach is anxious to know" is about Paterno? That makes no sense. 

Freeh says these two emails show proof that Joe Paterno was updated on the 1998 investigation concerning Victim 6 in May of 1998. What Freeh fails to acknowledge here is this Exhibit 3D Joe Paterno's notes of meeting with Tim and Jerry in early 1998 
We know this isn’t easy for you and it isn’t easy for us or Penn State. Part of the reason it isn’t easy is because I allowed and at times tried to help you with your developing the 2’" Mile. If there were no 2"" Mile then I believe you belief (sp?) that you probably could be the next Penn State FB Coach. But you wanted the best of two worlds and I probably should have sat down with you 6 or 7 years ago and said "look Jerry if you want to be the Head Coach at Penn State, give up your association with the 2"‘ Mile and concentrate on nothing but your family and Penn State. Don’t worry about the 2"" Mile – you don’t have the luxury of doing both. One will always demand a decision of preference. You are too deeply involved in both.
Or exhibit 3B  concerning Jerry's options 
At 08:51 PM 2/9/98 -0500, Tim Curley wrote:Jerry is not interested in the Assistant AD position. Joe and Jerry have agreed that he can continue in the coaching capacity for the next year..Jerry will have 30 years in the system next year, which will give him some options after next season. Joe tells me he made it clear to Jerry he will not be the next head ooach. Joe did indicate that he still plans to make a change on the defensive side of the ball. He wants to talk to me at a later date about what might be available for Joe Sarra. do you two need an administrative assistant?   Tlm Curley
Exhibit 3F is too long to post here but it is Jerry Sandusky to Tim Curley considering his retirement and employment options. So we have in evidence a chain of notes and emails regarding Sanduskys options from Feb 98 through June just prior to, during and just after the 1998 investigation. These documents show that Joe has to be concerned about the decision Jerry will make because it will effect his football program

That is all Freeh has to prove Joe knew and lied. 
So The Freeh report is rife with opinions and low on facts and evidence.

Moreover we have the results of the 1998 investigation 
Jerry Sandusky is found to be cleared. There is "NO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR"
In 1998, though, Lauro said his judgment was that the allegation fell under the category of what he termed "boundary issues," not sexual assault. "It was definitely boundary issues, and I worked with boundary issues a lot," Lauro said. "But if I believed it was more than boundary issues, I would’ve gone to the mat." ."Was he a high-profile person?" Lauro asked. "I’d have to be stupid to tell you no. Everybody knew him." At the time of his investigation, Lauro said, all the child said was that Sandusky showered with him, and it made him uncomfortable. Lauro said he didn’t feel that was enough to substantiate a sexual-abuse complaint.
So please answer me this: If Joe knew all about the 1998 investigation why would he lie?
Why would he not say "Jerry was cleared of any criminal behavior after a thorough investigation"? 

Freeh finds definitively in his KEY FINDINGS page 55 of the 1998 situation that no one at Penn State including Joe Paterno interfered in any way with that inquiry or that the investigation had anything to do with his retirement.
Jerry was told he would not be head coach prior to that investigation. He was talking about his options.

But Freeh chooses not to mention any of this when stating that Joe Paterno must have known about 1998 and LIED about it. Instead Freeh makes these very prejudicial statements about Joe Paterno page 51
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. Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Palerno was in control of the football facilities and knew “everything that was going on."  As Head Coach, he had the authority to establish permissible uses of his football facilities. Nothing in the record indicates that Curley or Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky. Nothing in the record indicates that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno or Curley spoke directly with Sandusky about the allegation or monitored his activities. 
  1. Freeh flat out LIES- there is NO record of any "update" by Curley to Paterno.  
  2. Then he uses the prejudicial unfounded theory that Joe knew "everything that was going on"
  3. Then Freeh blames Paterno for doing nothing to restrict Sandusky's use of facilities over an investigation he was not supposed to know about and did not know about. 
  4. And states that the record shows Paterno never spoke to Sandusky about the allegations.  
How can anyone take Freeh's claims about Joe seriously after reading that?

So let's skip forward to the 2011 Grand Jury Testimony of Joe Paterno and the allegations that he LIED to the Grand Jury.
 Paterno also testified in January 2011 before the Grand Jury. Paterno was asked, 
"Other than the [2001] incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?" Paterno responded, "I do not know of anything else that Ierry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention — I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor." 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. Paterno's family has publicly denied that Paterno had knowledge of the 1998 incident!”
These are the statements used to say Joe lied about knowing of the 1998 investigation. He is now 85 years of age trying to recall if he knew or heard anything about any other incident. He seems to struggle to recall if he had heard a rumor. In addition the question is phrased "any other INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONDUCT". Joe does not believe a simple shower is inappropriate or sexual. For his generation and mine group showers involving males of all ages is considered normal. 

The 1998 investigation was conducted confidentially. It appears that Gary Schultz through Tom Harmon at the PSU police was somewhat aware that an investigation was in progress and Tim Curley was advised by Gary Schultz that a DPW Dept of Public Welfare person Lauro was going to interview the boy and Jerry at some point. This does not mean that Gary or Tim were given more than this access to information about the 1998 investigation. It did not seem that serious to them. To extrapolate that Joe would even be interested seems to be a stretch. Joe had a football program to run and a mother's complaint about a shower with a coach wasn't a big issue for this reason expressed quite well by PSU Coach Anderson at the Sandusky trial
Dick Anderson, a longtime Penn State assistant and Sandusky friend who retired in January, testified that he and other members of the football staff were present when Sandusky brought young boys into the team's showers. He said he never witnessed anything inappropriate."If Jerry would bring someone in with The Second Mile, they had been working out, for whatever reason they came in, it was not uncommon ... with the other coaches in the shower as well, adults and children often shower together at gyms. He noted, for example, that it's not unusual for him to be in the showers with boys at the YMCA. 
In a section of the Freeh report titled A. Sandusky' s Criminal Activity 1995-1998 on page 40
Before May 1998, several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with yormg boys in the Lasch Building (now the East Area Locker Building or "Old Lasch”). None of the individuals interviewed by the Special Investigative Cormsel notified their superiors of this behavior. Former Coach Richard Anderson testified at Sanduskys trial in Irme 2012 that he often saw Sandusky in the showers with children in the football facilities but he did not believe the practice to be improper.“
Freeh labels this to be revelations of "Criminal Activity" but that is only in the wake of the 2012 conviction of Sandusky on the grooming charges where the pattern of this grooming establishes them as criminal..Rightly or wrongly the coaching staff did not consider these kids using their locker room and showers to be criminal in any way. Since that was the prevailing attitude it's easy to see why Joe would not consider this investigation of a shower to be of any importance. Joe like these other coaches was of a time when males of varying ages used group showers all the time without it seeming anything but natural. 

Freeh seems to base his entire indictment of Joe and Penn State on the premise that they knew or thought Jerry Sandusky was a criminal pedophile because he showered with boys. Freeh assumes this meant they did not care about protecting kids from sex abuse. It seems clear to me they never considered these showers to be sex abuse. As athletes and coaches they had always seen men and boys in showers and thought nothing of it. 

Absent any proof of actual sexual activity these Penn State men would never suspect this 30 year coach who lived and worked with them long hours as family to be a pedophile. He was Jerry the Charity Founder, Foster Father and the man honored by George HW Bush and Senator Santorum who wrote books and was the prized Defensive Coordinator at Linebacker U. He loved kids and gave all his spare time to helping them. How could he be some evil predator and rapist of young boys. 

So put yourself in Joe's shoes in 1998 wiping any knowledge of Jerry Sandusky from your mind.
1) These emails do not show that Joe was notified of anything to do with 1998 
2) Emails and notes show that Joe was in a dilemma on what to do about Jerry as a coach because 
    a) he spent too much time doing admirable charity work 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
4) If Joe knew anything why would he lie about an investigation that held NO CRIMINAL behavior?

Joe Paterno was never known to be a LIAR. Louis Freeh? well there are Lies in this report.

Want to help this effort to set the record straight 
Visit this LINK and Volunteer 


As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned "Jerry" and asked, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Schultz forwarded Curley's note to Harmon, " who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley!“ The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.

From: Gary C. Schultz <>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 8:55 AM
To: Thomas Harmon
Subject: Re: Jerry
Good, Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve quickly.
At 04:48 PM 5/13/98 EST, Thomas Harmon wrote:
The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly.

Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 04:11:19 -0400
To: Tim Curley From: ‘Gary C. Schultz
Subject: Re: Jerry 
Tim, l understand that a DPW person was here last week; don't know for sure if they talked with Jerry. They decided to have a child psychologist talk to the boys sometime over the next week.
At 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote:
Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.
Tim Curley

Compare the Re: Jerry Email above to the Re Joe Paterno Email below

From: Gary C. Schultz  Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 2:06 PM
To: Tim Curley Cc: Spanier-Graham (GBS)
Subject: Re: Joe Paterno
Will do. Since we talked tonight I've learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the JS Thursday.
At 05:24 PM 5/5/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote:
I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks. Tim Curley

So ask Freeh and yourself this - if the first email is Re Joe Paterno and coach is about  Coach Paterno 
why isn't the second email Re Jerry about Coach Jerry? 

I am a Tennessee Grad living in Knoxville with no ties to Penn State and no particular love for Joe P. 


  1. For the reasons you can understand, I'm a little skeptical. Not because of what you say, but because there's a number of hyperventilating bloviators who are either out for blood or expressing extreme self-pity.

    If you are unaffiliated, and you are seeing the cracks in the media-generated 'story,' then by all means continue to point at them. It's always dangerous when the sentiment of the media appeals to the base feelings of the average citizens (Duke Lacrosse?)

    Of course, because I didn't jump to the surface and flog myself saying "children were hurt! children were hurt!" I must be a Penn supporter, right? Never mind that so many other child molesters hid in their communities, molesting hundreds of children... why, they must have "always known" too, right?

    PAterno may not be a saint, but given how the news charges forward without accuracy and that's accepted without question, I never trust what they say.

    Good luck to you.

  2. Obviously, if you take the Freeh report at face value then it is pretty damming. Up until last year, I doubt any one would have believed any of this was posible, even the most vocal critics of the Paterno way. It's still hard to believe and so out of charecter. Joe, from the outset was one of the few who were saying they wanted a full and complete investigation. He's also one of the only ones to accept full and complete blame for his part in this, while others spin and do damage control. If in fact all that is in that report is true then so be it, let the chips fall where they may.

    1. Hang in there for the perjury trial - that will reveal far more of the truth in a much more favorable light to Joe and PSU

  3. We have Joe's testimony. He said he wished he had done more. He didn't say he did the wrong thing. He didn't say he made the wrong decision. I have no doubt that he contacted Curley and counted on superiors to do the right thing. He never engaged in a coverup. I need more information about 1998 to know if he knew about it. Joe hasn't gotten the benefit of due process. When do we hear his side?

    1. "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more" is what Joe said. I agree with the rest of your comment. Hang in there the perjury trial will reveal more of the truth.

  4. Was it reasonable that fellow coaches and players thought Sandusky showering with his Second Mile kids following workouts was a non-sexual behavior? Absolutely. He was the head father figure to the second mile kids. He was the founder of the Second Mile. He had no criminal record of any kind. AND he was (in hindsight) a master manipulator. The 1998 investigation shows that everyone found no criminal activity. With this in mind, how can a reasonable person deduce that Paterno knew what Sandusky was doing? ANd yet, this is what the Freeh report implies/states.

    1. I'm with you Fred.
      This little test is what people should take to see the absurdity of Freeh's claims

    2. You have any kids in Scouts? Church or synagogue youth activities? You think it ok for scout masters to shower with Cub Scouts?

    3. I am an Eagle Scout and have 3 younger brothers all Eagle Scouts. We went to Scout Camps, Jamborees, Camp outs etc and it was common for scoutmasters to shower with the scouts. I don't recall Cub Scouts going camping or being in that situation however in the 5th and 6th grads I was on a YMCA basketball team and at the Y it was very common for boys and men to be in those showers as well as at the Rec Center where we were all on the swimming team.
      But what I think about it isn't relevant. What they thought about it at PSU is.
      At PSU
      Joe had a football program to run and a mother's complaint about a shower with Coach Jerry wasn't a big issue for this reason expressed quite well by PSU Coach Anderson at the Sandusky trial.
      Anderson PSU asst testified he and other members of the football staff were present when Sandusky brought young boys into the team's showers. He never witnessed anything inappropriate."Jerry would bring The Second Mile kids to work out and shower it was not uncommon ... with the other coaches in the shower as well, adults and children often shower together at gyms. He said it's not unusual for him to be in the showers with boys at the YMCA.
      In a section of the Freeh report page 40
      "Before May 1998, several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with yormg boys in the Lasch Building (now the East Area Locker Building or "Old Lasch”). None of the individuals interviewed by the Special Investigative Cormsel notified their superiors of this behavior. Former Coach Richard Anderson testified at Sanduskys trial in Irme 2012 that he often saw Sandusky in the showers with children in the football facilities but he did not believe the practice to be improper.“

      If it was common practice and regarded as not unusual no one would by concerned hearing about it. Jerry was DC at Linebacker U and these were macho football coaches. If they didn't suspect this was improper then why would Joe Tim or Gary? Of us for that matter?

  5. I applaud your insight, Tennessee grad, and am grateful for your work on this! It's refreshing to see some common sense finally prevail... We here in State College are frankly disgusted by the national media and general public's willingness to accept Freeh's "assumptions/conclusions" as the gospel -- when, in fact, it is clearly the gospel according to Freeh!
    If only people would think for themselves and go the extra distance to examine the evidence laid out in the report WITHOUT the bias of Freeh's convenient "summaries", then perhaps we could truly get somewhere in our quest for the truth... Then again, Louis Freeh KNEW that most folks wouldn't bother reading the full 267 pages, so he laid out ahead of time the "conclusions" he wanted to drive home, in the form of his press conference and report summary.
    Bless you -- and all those like you -- who care enough to try to get at the real facts! Please keep up the good work; you are most appreciated by this Penn State alumna, and my alumnus husband, and by many more like us out there.

    1. Thank you Laura - Right now Joe and PSU need all the help they can get with this media frenzy claiming this absurd report is anything like the complete story or that it's summaries even fit the evidence. Much more will hopefully be learned during the perjury trials.
      Feel free to use or pass on my information to anyone you choose and use it any way you wish. We need to keep getting the word out that this is far from finished and Joe Paterno does not deserve to be reviled as some liar

  6. Regarding Exhibit 2A, the subject of the email string is "Joe Paterno". It would seem fair to take from that that Paterno is the "coach" being referred to.

    One more thing, if your theory that Paterno didn't know anything about the 1998 incident holds true, it would also have to be true that Curley, Schultz and Spanier all knew about it, discussed it, but chose to actively keep it from JVP. Now, that seems a little far fetched.

    1. Here are the two email strings so decide for yourself
      Freeh Report page 49
      As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned "Jerry" and asked, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Schultz forwarded Curley's note to Harmon, " who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley!“ The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno. *Really Mr. Freeh? then why is the email Re Jerry?

      From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 8:55 AM
      To: Thomas Harmon
      ......................................Subject: Re: Jerry
      Good, Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve quickly.
      At 04:48 PM 5/13/98 EST, Thomas Harmon wrote:
      The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly.

      Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 04:11:19 -0400
      To: Tim Curley From: ‘Gary C. Schultz
      ................................. Subject: Re: Jerry
      Tim, l understand that a DPW person was here last week; don't know for sure if they talked with Jerry. They decided to have a child psychologist talk to the boys sometime over the next week.
      At 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote:
      Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands. Tim Curley

      Compare the Re: Jerry Email above to the Re Joe Paterno Email below

      From: Gary C. Schultz Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 2:06 PM
      To: Tim Curley Cc: Spanier-Graham (GBS)
      .......................... Subject: Re: Joe Paterno
      Will do. Since we talked tonight I've learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the individual Thursday.
      At 05:24 PM 5/5/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote:
      I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks. Tim Curley

      So ask Freeh and yourself this - if the second email is Re:Joe Paterno and coach is Coach Paterno why isn't the first email Re:Jerry about Coach Jerry?

    2. The question I can't get anyone to answer is this

      Since the 1998 investigation concluded that showering with boys was not criminal behavior and Seascock the shrink said Sandusky was not engaged in pedophile behavior WHY would anyone deny knowledge of that?

      Why not say I heard that DPW concluded the showers were no criminal and the shrink said Jerry was not a pedophile so when I heard in 2001 he was showering with a boy I thought -well that's normal for Jerry and it's not criminal or pedophilia.

    3. Well, I think your responses here kind of sort your theory out. You think that they were calling Sandusky, or some other random member of the coaching staff, "coach". Sure, its possible, but if you want to say that's the probable, likely scenario, you're kidding yourself.

      Next, you seem unwilling to address the fact that your whole theory necessarily assumes that Curley Spanier and Schultz hid the 1998 incident from Paterno and never discussed it.

      As far as the question of "hey Sandusky was cleared in 1998, wouldn't they all have been totally fine with it and just admitted it?". Well, Obviously Spanier Curley and Schultz weren't fine with it, as there is no dispute that they hid it. Who's to say that the man who spent 60 years building the psu fb program wouldn't do the same.

      I honestly feel for you that someone who you obviously revere got torn down like this, but, graspIng at straws isn't going to clear it.

    4. It would be helpful if you knew a few things. 1)you say "Obviously Spanier Curley and Schultz weren't fine with it, as there is no dispute that they hid it"

      I SAY: That is simply untrue. Schultz testified about it at length at the Grand Jury. There was no hiding but even he said he had to look it up. Curley didn't remember it but his entire knowledge from what we know are 5 very brief email responses to Schultz mainly saying "any updates" and it isn't clear if he is referring to updates on Sandusky's retirement proposal or the confidential inquiry launched by the mother that had DPW looking into that shower.
      The overwhelming majority of the evidence shows very little interest in or concern about the shower. These men thought Sandusky was above reproach and why wouldn't they? He was DC at linebacker U, a respected charity founder, foster father of 6 honored by GHWBush and Sen Santorum. He was a macho guy who was helping kids in their eyes and they knew him pretty well - Tim knew him well enough to offer him the assistant AD job. He took kids to work out and shower constantly - they didn't think anything about it. So why would they remember and inquiry that went no where 13 years later?
      These are busy men running a major athletic dept and managing a 4 billion dollar budget and 1.8 billion in investments. Why would they attach any significance to a mother upset because her boy took a shower after they knew is resulted in no charges. It was a mistake quickly forgotton. What was there to remember? What was there to HIDE? You presume it was a big deal when it was nothing at all to them.

    5. And you should read before you make comments about this: "I honestly feel for you that someone who you obviously revere got torn down like this, but, graspIng at straws isn't going to clear it."

      I'm a Tennessee grad and Knoxvile resident with no ties to PSU and no love for Joe Paterno. I didn't even like the guy. I just hate to see people misled by bullshit and this attack on Joe is bullshit. The straws that were grasped were by Louis Freeh not me.
      People who started with the idea that this predator should have been obvious to these men who worked with him for 30 years don't get it. They *you - somehow think you would have done better. That's bullshit. These were good solid accomplished men who were faced with a very cunning chameleon who fooled everyone for decades. Hell even the Dr of Psychology who ran The Second Mile with a staff of childcare professionals trained to spot abuse didn't notice him and they worked with him for 15 years and the kids he molested. Yet you expect that JOE and and Athletic Director or a VP for Finance would spot him? It's crazy talk.

      There are no straws here - the evidence is powerful. The staff at PSU thought Jerry working out and showering with kids was just normal. They didn't cover anything up BECAUSE THEY NEVER SAW ANYTHING THAT NEEDED COVERING UP. It's just that plain and simple. They couldn't see it and neither did DPW or Seasock the shrink in 1998. Why would they lie when DPW and the shrink concluded Jerry did nothing criminal and was not a pedophile? Why would they hide that? Use common sense. They wouldn't.

    6. Alright, just to settle a couple things.
      You think Joe Paterno never knew of the 1998 incident.
      This assumes that:

      a. The "coach" being referred to in the emails is someone other than Paterno.

      Right, maybe it was Sandusky, maybe it was the women's basketball coach. Those are both possible right? Pat Summit is also a coach, shall we include her? No, because that would be ridiculous, right?

      What your argument leaves out is that C, S & S never refer to Sandusky as "coach" in any of the other emails. He is always "Jerry" or "JS" they don't call him "coach". So, based on your argument, they are either suddenly referring to Sandusky as "coach" or they are talking about some other third party coach.

      In regard to your argument that "maybe they are just talking about Sandusky's retirement package". If this is true, why is DPW referenced both times? That argument is nonsense.

      I think we can agree that if S/S/C had simply written "Paterno" rather than "coach" you would not have an argument. So, that means your premise relies entirely on the POSSIBILITY that coach is someone other than Paterno. That, at PSU, where Patero was THE coach, that S/S/C are simply referring to someone else. Ok, I admit, its possible.

      b. Curley, Spanier and Schultz knew that a football coach was being investigated for acts, possibly involving child abuse, in Penn State football facilities, and did not tell Joe Paterno.

      This point, on which your theory relies, is just too ludicrous to spend time on. If you actually think this is true, please just say so and we can end the discussion there.

      Next, you seem to shift back and forth between "Paterno never knew anything about the 1998 allegations!!!!!" and "THEY NEVER SAW ANYTHING THAT NEEDED COVERING UP."

      So assuming for a second that you are either ceding the point that JVP knew about 1998 (which, as stated above in (b), it absolutely defies logic to say that he did not). The problem isnt with the 1998 situation on its own, its the combination of 1998 and 2001. When McQuery told Paterno in 2001 that he saw "something that he felt was inappropriate" happening in a shower with Sandusky and a child, Paterno should have done something.

      Notice, I did not say "when McQuery told Paterno that Sandusky was raping some kid". Because that level of information, whether it was communicated or not, was not necessary. This would have been, at minimum, the second time in three years that Paterno heard about Sandusky *possibly* abusing/being inappropriate with/touching a young kid in a shower. Thats concerning my friend, and thats why Paterno is being demonized.

      Paterno heard of REPEATED instances of Sandusky being, at minimum, inappropriate with children in the shower and he did nothing. Didnt ban Sandusky from the facilities, didnt force him to get help, didnt tell the 2nd mile, didnt tell ANYONE. Thats sick.

    7. You Say:Paterno heard of REPEATED instances of Sandusky being, at minimum, inappropriate with children in the shower and he did nothing

      I Say: that's bullshit. The 1998 inquiry concluded that there was no criminal behavior and the shrink said Jerry did not act like a pedophile - He said he never heard of a pedophile starting at age 52. So if Joe heard anything about 98 that's what he heard.

      He evidently knew as most of the staff knew that Jerry brought 2M kids to PSU and worked out an showered and they thought it was just fine and dandy
      So your premise is bullshit.
      Feb 9 2001 Mike thought 2-3 slapping sounds in the showers were an adult couple having sex. He visualized sex when he glimpsed JS behind a boy for 1 or 2 seconds twice. Shocked it wasn't adults he slammed his locker, came face to face with the boy and JS and was baffled when the boy did not show distress, pain or fear and was not protesting or crying out. In confusion he fled.
      At home with his father and Dr. Dranov he's shaken thinking "What did I just see?" "What was JS doing with that boy?" "Should I have left the boy with him" and "What should I do now?" His explanation is muddled and confused as he is. The same is true the next morning when he speaks with Joe.
      10 days later in a 10-12 minute meeting with Tim & Gary he is no more explicit or certain. He's glad to be done and fine with the decision when Tim informs the Second Mile that JS can't bring boys to PSU. The story ends for a decade. Mike is not certain he saw something sexual. If he was he couldn't have let it slide for a decade.
      Then in 2010 he meets the AG's investigation. The AG has 5 or 6 victims. Mike hasn't thought about Feb of 2001 for a decade. The AG assures him his testimony is vital to put away a predator. He starts to visualize again.
      Mike feels guilty. Was the boy in 2001 being raped? Did JS continue after he left? Could he have saved other boys? He's 37 now with friends who have children. Did his uncertainty lead to JS ruining more lives? Why didn't he do something that night or later? What can he do now to atone? Tortured by these questions he becomes a willing instrument of the AG who says his testimony is required to convict JS. He will do anything the AG asks.

      We know about 2 or 3 slapping sounds and two 1 or 2 second glances of JS standing behind a boy not bent over, hands on the wall, feet on the floor who's head came to JS pectoral muscles. We know about the slammed locker door and the boy with no fear, pain or distress who was not crying out. He never said "thrusting" in fact he said "very little movement" It’s under oath in the Perjury Hearing Transcript. p 15

      All of this is about 3 slapping sound and 1or2 seconds and we know what the AG and media have made of the lies and distortions. They couldn't handle the truth. Can You?

  7. What about Joe not wanting to bother anyone and ruin their weekend when McQueary reported this to him? What about Joe renegotiating an exit plan this year? Joe was the FACE of PSU football and the buck stopped with him, no one is saying that no one else to blame, none of us have enough fingers to point at everyone involved but to say Joe wasn't int he loop is shear blind nativity.

    1. Just something else he misremembered. Joe saw Mike on Saturday morning and met with Tim and Gary on Sunday. A decade later at 85 years of age he thought he might have waited til Monday but he did.
      Just another blind accuser with his facts wrong trying to make Joe into some God that he wasn't. His 85 year old memory of rather insignificant events in his life a decade 2001 or 13 years 1998 in the past. A 10 min meeting with an upset grad student he turned over to the AD.
      It wasn't a big deal to Joe then. He had known JS for 30 years and never believed he was a monster. It just didn't register as anything that significant. Neither did it to Tim or Gary.
      Read Mikes real testimony here
      Mike heard 3 slapping sounds and got 1or2 second glances of JS backside in a shower. Even the Sandusky jury that found him guilty of almost everything found him Not Guilty on the deviate sexual intercourse charge that Mike said he "saw".

      You have to know the facts - not the suspicions or the media crap. Read the link and you will see what I mean.
      There was no buck. Joe and the others couldn't see the guy as a pedophile and Mike's slaps and glances did cut it against the Sandusky reputation and 30 years of experience. If only Mike had looked for 30 seconds and confirmed what he thought might be happening. But he didn't and since that boy has never showed up with all the publicity the best guess is he wasn't molested or doesn't recall it.
      Trying to fry these guys over Mike is very strange. Why didn't he try to stop it, get the kids name, or do anything about it for a decade? That's what makes no sense.
      The buck should stop with a 27 year old football coach who is making accusations without getting the facts or telling a straight story. Read his testimony. It just makes no sense. And it certainly didn't make sense to guys who had known Jerry for 30 years as a great guy and charity founder. If you're going to try to bring down a guy like that do it with somethhing better than hearing 3 slapping sounds an a couple of "glances".

    2. Your attempts at defense border on idiotic.

      "The buck should stop with a 27 year old football coach" not the head coach, not the president of the university ...simply amazing. Yes, Paterno is blameless and McQuery is to blame. I think you will look back on these arguments and feel foolish.

      I'm sure you feel that you're doing some kind of "service" or valiant work by being the contrarian. But, what if it was your kid, what would you say? "Its cool Joe, I understand why you didnt do anything." "Its alright PSU, I'm glad you did the 'humane' thing and let him hang around rather than report him."

      Your not even making arguments. Blaming McQuery because he didnt look long enough. Explain to me how that excuses Paterno? It wasn't Paterno's fault because someone else was at fault. Paterno didnt know because the report doesnt have an audio recording of the conversation where he found out.

    3. You say "Your attempts at defense border on idiotic. "The buck should stop with a 27 year old football coach" not the head coach, not the president of the university ...simply amazing. Yes, Paterno is blameless and McQuery is to blame. I think you will look back on these arguments and feel foolish."

      How long do you figure it will take this 66 year old grandfather "to look back"? As this blog demonstrates I've been obsessively involved in everything to do with this case. And it's idiotic to think I would alter my perspective because I KNOW what has been said and done unlike you.
      So far it's all been prosecution - and the pathetic defense of the indefensible Sandusky. Next it's Curley and Schultz's turn with capable defense attorney's to rip McQueary apart along with the Attorney General, Tom Corbett and Dr. Jack Raykovitz.
      OF COURSE THE BUCK HAS TO STOP WITH THE PERSON OBSERVING ABUSE. that person has to confirm what they suspect with more than a 1 or 2 second glance. YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT?
      That person has to deliver his story of what happened in clear convincing detail - not some mumbo jumbo about 3 "sexual slapping sounds" that could be wet palms on thighs or stomach or wet feet on a wet floor.
      That 2 second glance has to become at least 30 seconds so you can serve as a credible witness instead of some scared little boy who couldn't step in and save a kid from a rape - if that is truly what you believe is happening.

      You can't expect others to take your 'slapping sounds, glances and running out the door to call your dad that seriously. This is a charity founder with 30 years as celebrated DC of linebacker U not some random dirty old man off the streets.

      Nobody yet has heard from this supposed "victim" of Feb 9 2001 - does he really exist?
      The jury ruled against his story and found JS not guilty of deviate sexual intercourse.
      And if someone tells you a 55yearold 6'3 225lb man is raping a 10 year old 70lb boy who's head comes up to the man's pectorals while both are standing upright, feet on the floor and not bent over - and if that kid shows no pain, fear, distress and does not cry out or look to you for help when he sees you face to face? Well you figure it out.

      Mike McQueary not only couldn't tell his dad and doctor what he saw that night - he couldn't tell his boss and coach the next morning and he ccouldn't tell Tim and Gary 10 days later.

      It took him until he learned from prosecutors that JS was going to be indicted for multiple counts for him to start feeling guilty for HIS FAILURE to confirm his suspicions and tell those who needed to know a credible account of something he had truly known he had seen.

      That is all Mike McQueary's FAILURE and Joe Pa had nothing to do with it. I guess it takes an idiot to figure that out.

    4. SO NOW MR. ANONYMOUS SAYS I'M IDIOTIC and guilty of shear blind nativity.

      Well once Mr. Anonymous has read the detailed and documented posts on this site I have written using actual evidence provided by testimony under oath, and the actual quotes of those involved; it will be my pleasure to take his opinion seriously.
      He does not know that Joe met with Mike on Sat morning and Tim and Gary the next day? OOps.
      He thinks that Mike SAW anal intercourse and told that to Joe? Oops
      I don't call other's idiotic for being misled by the clueless media frenzy. It's understandable - but I've written 60 articles that can be found on this site and studied all of the attached links in detail. I'm not supporting anyone - I have no dog in this fight - what I'm against is blind ignorance in a media that should know better if they would get off their fat asses and do the work.
      So Anonymous - keep on firing those blanks and I will continue to use the live ammunition of facts in evidence.

    5. What's so sad about this whole thing is that you are wasting time writing all this bullshit...get a job and do something positive with your life instead of trying to convince people with your idotic opinions that Joepa is not guilty. Do you have a son? How would you feel if it were your son? Bottom line: Joe should have said more.......if he would have he would be a hero today instead....well you know the rest of the story.....

    6. Yet here you are wasting your time telling us how idiotic we are with this bullshit?
      When this thing starts to turn around and the media finally discovers that Freeh is a total scumbag who took 6.5 million dollars for a report he is already changing. When it turns out those mistakes made a massive difference in his bogus conclusions and that the debacle in 1998 that kept Sandusky out of jail had nothing to do with PSU - we will be sailing along on the side of the Truth while you will be wallowing in your ignorance like a fool.
      We keep at it because the Truth and Justice are worth it.
      Why do you do whatever it is you think you are doing?

    7. You really need to get a real job and contribute to society.......

    8. Last time I looked another 66 year old greeter down at Wal Mart wasn't making much of a contribution and I imagine my subwoofer sales outstrip your income by a significant amount.
      however if you have a 6 figure job available that allows me the time I have to do this with my current requirements I will be glad to listen.

    9. At present an attempt to educate you as to the importance of Truth and Justice in our society is the most important contribution available. Having ill-informed people making judgments as anonymous opinion givers on the internet is a serious social problem. People like you make foolish assumptions about those you don't know and their contributions to society? Just who the fuck do you think your are? I get that you are arrogant and uninformed but how does it benefit you to make a fool of yourself with inane comments on a website?
      You have a couple of choices here. You can read a post and offer some evidence to debate a point. That's always welcome. When you cannot challenge a post with evidence contrary to what is provided you can accept what you read. Or you can make an ass of yourself. You have chosen the latter. Seeing a little ass from time to time is interesting. It really does not bother me to slam your pathetic comments into the sewer of their origin. It's actually an enjoyable break. If you think you are being clever or cute - you aren't. If you think it gets under our skin here - it doesn't. We like seeing fools be foolish from time to time. You provide the comic relief.

  8. I don't know if Joe knew about the 1998 incident or not but I can concede that Joe did know about the 1998 incident if others can concede he knew about the outcome of the investigation. Common sense tells you Joe wouldn't perjure himself when the simple explanation to the grand jury would be "I knew of an investigation back in 1998 where Jerry was cleared of any wrongdoing". No one would perjure themselves when there was no benefit to doing so.

    If in 2001, people want to criticize Joe for not doing more then that is their opinion. I believe he turned it over to his superiors whom he thought would deal with it. He obviously was wrong to turn it over to them but he did not conceal this.

    Where is the outrage at the Second Mile? They were informed in 2001. Where is the outrage at DPW who did not report to the Second Mile in 2001 as they were required. Where is the outrage for Tom Corbett who had one investigator on the case for years?

    1. I think you are right on the money with these remarks. Please feel free to use my aurabass at yahoo dot com address if you would like updates and a less anonymous means of communication.

  9. Really? This argument is going around the web:
    "Joe's legacy and reputation are ruined precisely because he and others in power made so many glaring mistakes and terrible judgement calls."

    Joe’s reputation and legacy are suffering because 1) A Presentment that said unequivocally that Mike "SAW a boy being subjected to anal intercourse ....and told that to Joe and others.
    2) A media frenzy that took this presentment as unassailable truth an poured it out all over the world.
    3) A 30 year close association with a cunning pedophile who fooled leaders all over PA and the country including the President and Sen Santorum who honored him with words and awards
    4) A DPW investigator Jerry Lauro who concluded there was no criminal behavior involved in JS taking a shower with kids in 98
    5) A shrink’s evaluation that JS showed no pedophile tendencies in 98
    6) An assistant grad coach of 27 who only glanced for 1 or 2 seconds and based his suspicion of a sex act on 3 slapping sounds and then told a muddled confused story about it to his dad, doctor, Joe Tim and Gary
    7) Dr. of Psychology and CEO of the Second Mile who worked closely with JS for 16 years with a staff of child experts trained to spot child abuse who failed to recognize JS for what he was.
    8) A BOT that bought the Presentment as gospel and removed Joe as HC instead of standing behind him asking the world to wait for the evidence explaining that the presentment was making a case for the prosecution and was not TRUTH until proven so in a court of law.

    These are many reasons Joe’s legacy and reputation were shattered and one of them should not be his valid following of proper procedure by handing Mike over to his superiors who’s reputations were ruined for many of the same reasons.

    As it turns out the McQueary charge in the Presentment “He saw A I and told Joe and others” was not accepted by the jury and they voted NOT GUILTY on that charge. So NO there were not ’so many glaring mistakes or terrible judgment calls" by Joe. He did exactly the right thing with what flimsy evidence he was given by 2 second 3 slap Mike.
    But the real CONCLUSION is the verdict of the Jury. Mike testified that he was certain he saw intercourse and told that to Joe and the others. But the jury voted NOT GUILTY on that charge – one of the very few they did.
    So ask yourself why did Dr. Dranov, Joe, Tim and Jerry along with the JS Jury not believe Mike? Why did they not accept his story that he saw intercourse?
    The jury accepted that he saw JS and a boy in the shower – they voted guilty on the grooming charges established by the pattern JS used on other victims but not the AG’s presentment or Mikes statement that he saw intercourse? Why not?
    And the other big questions besides his failure to raise the suspicions over a long decade while he knew JS was with the Second Mile are
    1)where is this boy from Feb 9 of 2001?
    2) why didn’t Mike care enough about 2M kids to reach out to Raykovitz to tell him he should be very suspicious of JS? How hard would it have been to meet with him and explain what he had seen?

    1. Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola, stated that he believed he knew who Victim 2 was and that Sandusky offered the boy's name and phone number to Tim Curley. So, if Amendola and Sandusky knew who this child was, and that Sandusky was innocent, why didn't they produce Victim 2 as a witness for the defense? If I was a prosecutor, I would have hammered this point home at the trial.

      A theory I will offer is that Victim 2, Victim 8, and Victim 6 are the same person. The timeframe of the crimes suggest it is possible. Certainly, Amendola would not posit this scenario because it would dash any hopes of acquittal for Victims 2 and 8. The evidence for 2 (McQueary's testimony) and for 8 (hearsay testimony offered by a coworker of the janitor) was tenuous at best.

      As for McQueary going to Raykovitz, my best guess is that he let the officials at PSU handle that and likely believed (as PSU officials likely did)that the trained psychologists and others at Second Mile would act responsibly and take some sort of action with Jerry.

    2. Interesting theory on victim 8 and 2 being the same. I don't think it would work for 6 1998 and 2001 I don't think JS would be crazy enough to go back to 6 after the 98 inquiry. But 8 was supposedly in 2000 and close enough to Feb 2001. It could have been a repeat.
      I think Amedola eventally didn't find him credible - the one who showed up claiming to be victim 2. It could have been he was looking for a pay day with his mom.

  10. It is truly amazing how the media and the public have taken two e-mails that say "touched base with the coach" and "coach is anxious" to determined Joe Paterno knew about sex abuse allegations in 1998.

    I ask ANYONE who has commented and bought into this myth to answer the following question truthfully:

    If YOU WERE ACCUSED of participating in a oonspiracy AND THIS WAS ALL THE EVIDENCE presented against you, would you fear being found guilty?

    Let's face the facts -- the case would never make it to trial. A grand jury certainly would not indict based on those two e-mails. And no prosecutor who's worth a damn would even attempt to bring charges based on the evidence.

    1. I agree completely - since you are anonymous here if you would be interested in private updates use my email - aurabass at yahoo dot com.
      Thank you for your insight and taking the time to share it.

  11. My post above states how ridiculous the charge that Paterno knew everything about 1998 is based on the scant evidence that Freeh has uncovered. But it gets more ridiculous, given the following facts.

    1. When the victim of a crime is a juvenile, the name of the victim is not revealed and the details of the investigation are kept very closely held. Louis Freeh, as a former law enforcement official, knows this, yet does not factor it into the equation about 1998. If police investigative protocols are followed, the details of the investigation would not reach Coach Paterno, AD Curley, or President Spanier. Also, if investigative protocols are followed, the police report never becomes public (and it didn't).

    2. Freeh provides NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Gary Schultz communicated the details of the investigation to Tim Curley. Curley is the conduit to Joe Paterno, yet Freeh cannot find anything except ONE E-MAIL from Gary Schultz to Tim Curely, informing Curley that the allegations against Sandusky are unfounded and that Jerry is concerned about the child. Freeh somehow deduces from this e-mail that contains no information about the alleged crime that Curley and Paterno knew what the investigation was about.

    3. Freeh provides personal notes of Gary Schultz as evidence that PSU officials knew that Sandusky may have been abusing other children ("Pandora's box" written by Schultz). However, the writing at the top of the page says "Harmon" possibly indicating that he was documenting a conversation with police chief Tom Harmon. Schultz also notes "Confidential" at the top of another page - this confirms Point 1, above, that the investigation is indeed confidential because it involves a juvenile. Again, based on investigative protocols, Schultz would not necessarily share the details of the investigation with anyone outside the University Park (Penn State) Police force and other investigative authorities.

    4. What about Curley's statement in 2001 that he would tell Jerry he knew about 1998? This is no way proves that Curley was informed of the details of the investigation in 1998. When Curley and Schultz received the 2001 report from Paterno, at that point Schultz may have filled Curley in on the details. The perjury trials of Curley and Schultz will fill in the missing pieces of this story.

    5. It is notable that in 2011, Gary Schultz sent an e-mail to the former PSU attorney to ask if there was an investigation in 1998. After getting confirmation, Schultz then sent an e-mail to Harmon to ask if the file still existed. Aside from confirming that Schultz has a poor memory of events, it also seems to confirm that the 1998 investigation was little more than a "blip" in the scheme of things for PSU officials. It was not a "red flag" as Louis Freeh had labeled it.

    1. Excellent points - sorry you are anonymous
      If you would prefer a private conversation don't hesitate to email aurabass at yahoo dot com and I would love to have your insight.

  12. Just wanted to make a quick comment on an earlier statement,

    "What about Joe renegotiating an exit plan this year? Joe was the FACE of PSU football and the buck stopped with him..."

    So everything Joe did in his life was now part of a cover up. Joe negotiating a retirement plan can only mean he protects pedophiles. Really? Or is it completely reasonable to say, perhaps Joe knew of his illness. Perhaps Joe knew that his time on this earth was limited. Time to get his ducks in a row and sign the house over to his wife and provide future stability for his family.

    To the other "point" in the earlier statement. THE BUCK STOPS WITH JOE!!!! OK. I'll bite on your argument. It just only leaves one huge hole in your opinion. If Joe was the almighty power at PSU and all decisions are made by him, then why are so many people involved? Why with the information given to him from Mike McQueary, Joe could have easily said, "Mike, you saw nothing and that is the end of that."

    Your argument can only be he chose a more complicated system of cover up. A system that involved: tell all the heads of PSU of MM's statement. Then have these heads contact the police department to investigate the findings of the 1998 incident to see if it sheds any light to MM's testimony. Then let Second Mile in on it and inform them of the shower incident. But don't forget to document everything and save these documents forever. And the last step, the most important for Joe Paterno... tell all the aforementioned included parties to shut their mouths and cover all this up!!!

    I think everyone is grasping at straws here. Is it quite possible that Sandusky is now convicted on child molestation and as many people convicted of the same crime simply fooled everyone around them.

    This is only my "reasonable conclusion".

  13. Have been following you are another website - glad to see you are still at it on here. A few points to make:
    I disagree that Joe didn't know in '98. Originally I was with you but when you see the references to coach it probably has to be Paterno or Sandusky. If it is Sandusky can't we then assume that Curley is in contact with him about the investigation? If so then in 2001 there would be no need for Curley to put in one of his emails that "we will let him know we know about the '98 incident" if Curley was his contact in '98 then he obviously already knows that he is aware of 98.

    A couple other points which I don't think people have mentioned. Why is Curley contacting an outside law firm in 2001 to check on the reporting requirements? If they really believed that Mcquery witnessed a rape would they need to find out from a lawyer if they had to report it? My 14 year old can tell you that a rape of a minor is a crime and needs to be reproted to the police, he wouldn't need to contact a lawyer to find out the reporting requirements.
    Also the comment by Curley that we would let him know that we know about '98 leads me to believe that they thought this incident was the same thing. Why else would they bring it up? I think the reason is to let him know this isn't the first time you were caught in the shower with kids so it had to stop now.

    I still can't figure out what Joe knew in '98 and why he would deny it. The question by the GJ about any other criminal activity I think he answered honestly but I'm not sure why he denied knowing to Sally Jenkins. The only thing I can figure is that he didn't know the full details and didn't realize that a full police investigation had been done and that the DA decided not to press charges. Odd how both he and Curley deny knowledge of this in there GJ testiomny. I agree with your point above that if they knew why didn't they just say yes, it was investigated and there was no criminal activity?

    Thanks for answering and keep up the fight.

    1. If joe knew anything about 98 he had to know JS was "cleared" by DPW and declared "not a pedophile" by Seasock. So why would he deny that if he remembered it? His answer at the Grand Jury would have been perfect for him. "I knew Jerry was thouroughly investigated in 98 and DPW found nothing criminal and the CYS evaluation said he was not a pedophile".

      Jenkins really disgusts me. She's taking the words of an 85 year old man dying of Cancer 2 weeks prior to his death undergoing radiation and chemo talking about an event 13 years in the past. And she calls him a LIAR? Disgusting

    2. I agree - I think Joe misremembered (to use roger clemens word)or didn't really understand the question from Jenkins. There was no reason for him to lie about it. From what I can tell the Paterno family/friends seem to be surprised that Joe knew (if he really did) about '98. Curley also denying it has me puzzled.

    3. I believe we will have the answer about Curley for you soon.
      The timeline of the emails and the way they were presented by Freeh is a huge problem. We are going to expose that timeline in order and everything said between Harmon, Schultz, and Curley will come into focus in a surprising way.

    4. Thanks - looking forward to it

    5. As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned "Jerry" and asked, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Schultz forwarded Curley's note to Harmon, " who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley!“ The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno. *Really Mr. Freeh? then why is the email Re Jerry?

      The Re Jerry is for "anxious" about what? and Jerry implies Sandusky ongoing investigation. So it boils down to who is the "coach". Now if you agree that "coach" cans only refer to Sandusky or Paterno, I will point out to you that it is non sensical that "coach" refers to Sandusky. I am tired of having eliminated Sandusky from "coach" to have people say that it cans be someone else beside Paterno.

    6. PSU received the punishment that they deserved...if you are a student, grad or alum, you should hang your diploma on what you did in the lecture halls rather than what went on at Beaver is so sad that your program is more like a cult than an athletic team.

    7. It's always so boring and uninformative to read this anonymous drive by blather from the ignorant. Thank you for your stupidity.

  14. I did not read all of the replies between Bozeman and Anonymous. I think that Bozeman's defense of Paterno is flawed.

    If you carefully read these emails in their proper chronological order (directly from bottom to top,) it is clear that "coach" is Paterno in both emails. Not because "Jerry" is normally referred to as "Jerry" as opposed to "coach," but because of the logical sense of the context of these emails.

    Curly launches the discussion by writing an email title "Joe Paterno" on May 6th. He says that he "touched base with the coach."

    What did he say to Paterno when he "touched base" with him? It's anyone's guess. It could be anywhere form: "Hey Joe, just wanted to let you know that the defensive coordinator is under investigation." to "Hey Joe, Jerry Sandusky is being investigated for molesting little boys in the locker room showers."

    My guess is that it was somewhere in between those two extremes.

    Schultz writes back that the DPW people will "interview the individual Thursday." Meaning, Jerry will be interviewed by the DPW. "The Individual" = "Jerry" because Schultz is responding to a request for an update about the investigation. He gives very little information. So little, in fact, that it basically doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

    Seven days later, Curly starts another email chain, this one titled "Jerry." He asks Schultz if there is "anything new in this department," meaning Jerry. ("Department" = "Jerry," hence, the subject line of "Jerry.") "Coach is anxious to know" meaning Joe wants more information.

    How do we come to this conclusion? Simple:

    Seven days earlier, Curly obviously contacted Joe and told him....something. he "touched base" with Joe, and wants to be " kept posted." Schultz just simply tells him that the DPW was going to interview Jerry on Thursday (the very next day after he wrote that response.)

    Exactly one week afterwards, the following Wednesday, Curly is asking for an update: "anything new in this department?" meaning, anything new about Jerry? The subject line was to remind Schultz what the subject of the inquiry is about. We already know that Curly "touched base with Joe," so it's adequately reasonable to conclude that Curly is keeping in contact with Joe. Not Jerry. In this context, "coach" doesn't have to mean Jerry, and in fact, within the context of the conversation, it probably actually logically means Joe.

    Schultz responds that "a DPW person was there last week" and that he doesn't "know for sure if they talked with Jerry" and that "a child psychologist will talk to the boys sometime over the next week."

    This further confirms this is a continuation from the original email chain title "Joe Paterno." Schultz was not told whether or not Jerry was interviewed last Thursday, like he said he would be.

    Tom Harmon replied and confirmed that the "DPW spoke with the child, but have not spoken to him." "Him" meaning "Jerry."

    In short, this series of emails is completely meaningless, because there is absolutely no information beyond whether or not the DPW was going to interview Jerry. It is far more damaging to Schultz than it is Curly. It is far more damaging to Curly than it is to Paterno.

  15. IRT Paterno's "role" and/or "knowledge" in this whole affair in 1998, it all comes down to...whatever in the heck "touched base" means!

    During the Grand Jury testimony, Paterno says something about a rumor, but that he doesn't remember. Considering we are going back 13 years into the past from the time of his GJ testimony, in which he was only obviously briefly "touched base" on about the situation, it is not surprising that Paterno is unable to recall exactly what happened then, beyond what he barely remember with a small flicker of some sort of rumor.

    So going back to your original premise, where are these so-called "lies" that Joe told? If anything, he was far more truthful than anyone else. If anything, he was actually trying to be as helpful, open, transparent and honest about the entire thing. Problem is, human memory is a fickle, disingenuous, and manipulable thing. It would have been virtually impossible for Paterno to have said anything more than he did, and still remain honest.

    I have even more respect for the man than ever before BECAUSE of this situation! He knows he made a mistake, and that he probably should have done more in hindsight. Personally, given the limited knowledge he had at the time, I do not believe he made a mistake at all. He only had what he had at that time. He certainly did do a hell of a lot more than 75% of actual witnesses to sexual assault would have done: He told his boss, and he wasn't even a direct witness himself. What he told Curly in 2001 was actually hearsay.

    he then knew that McQueary got in contact with Schultz eventually. And as both McQueary's and Dr. Dranov testified, they thought that Schultz WAS The police. Clear indication that Paterno probably had the same idea. What more is a layman in such matters SUPPOSED to do if they actually believe that someone connected with the police met with an actual witness to a potential crime?

  16. As for Anyonomous's final comment, you are an ignorant fool. The "culture" of Penn State is about education, NOT football. There is a reason why Penn State graduates are some of the most sought-after graduates in the professional world!

    This is one of the biggest reasons why Freeh was torn apart of not only Penn State graduates, but by scholars, lawyers, and judges everywhere who wrote any sort of observation about this situation. His "Penn State culture" comment was probably the worst thing he could have said. He was attacking excellent academic track record one of the most prestigious state schools in the nation. It was obnoxiously ignorant and short-sighted of him, and even worse that the media hounded on this idiocy.