Louis Freeh swung the media lap dogs and the court of public opinion to believe that Joe Paterno is a liar. The Penn State Board of Trustees didn’t protest the “facts” provided by Louis Freeh, and, as a result the NCAA used the Freeh Report to levy some serious penalties against the Penn State football program.
But should you believe Louis Freeh?
Well, let’s examine who said what and rate the level of truthfulness using the scale below:
True – Mostly True – Half True- Mostly False – False – Pants on Fire
Joe Paterno
Let’s start with Joe’s biggest “lie” that caused the vacating of his wins since 1998, that he was not aware of allegations of sexual abuse against Sandusky in 1998. At the January 2011 Grand Jury, Paterno was asked: “Other than the [incident] that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge, or any other fashion, of any inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys.” (My emphasis added)
Paterno: “I do not know of anything else that Jerry 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.”
Analysis: Joe Paterno is asked a very specific question about inappropriate sexual conduct about Sandusky that he answers negatively. Let’s examine the evidence: From Exhibits in the Freeh Report
Exhibits 2H and 2I are handwritten notes of Gary Schultz that contain details of what happened in the shower. Freeh states he does not know who was present at this meeting.
Exhibit 2A, an e-mail exchange titled “Re: Joe Paterno” between Curley and Schultz, reveals Curley has “touched base with the coach” and that “Public Welfare” will interview the individual.
Exhibit 2B, an e-mail series Titled "Re Jerry" between Curley and Schultz discuss DPW plans to interview the children and Jerry, however they contain no details about the allegations.
Exhibit 2C reflects Tim Curley asking Schultz for updates, with Curley stating “Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” No updates are provided to Curley in this exchange.
Exhibit 2E, from Schultz to Curley, copying Spanier, states that no crime was committed and that Jerry was concerned about how the investigation affected the child. The e-mail does not state what the investigation entailed. The Freeh Report states the “record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was revealed to Paterno” (page 51).
Conclusion: There is no direct evidence that Paterno (or Curley and Spanier, for that matter) were ever told the details of the investigation. Considering that investigations of sex crimes involving juvenile victims are typically conducted in a confidential manner, it is very likely that the details of this investigation stopped with Gary Schultz and were not provided to Curley, Spanier, and Paterno.
The Verdict: True
The second “lie” told by Paterno is that he was not involved in the follow-up or decisions involving the 2001 incident. It is based this statement from the Sally Jenkins, Washington Post interview when he was asked why he didn’t follow-up more aggressively after reporting this incident to his boss, Tim Curley.
Paterno: “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was,” he said. “So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”
Analysis: Exhibit 5G is an e-mail chain between Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, and Tim Curley, discussing the actions to be taken in response to the 2001 incident. Within the e-mail, on 27 February 2001, Tim Curley states, “After giving it more thought, and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” The inference is that Paterno stepped in and changed the course of action on February 26th. The Freeh Report identifies a total of five meetings between Schultz, Curley, and Spanier concerning the incident and none of the meetings involved Joe Paterno. The report also includes e-mails or references to e-mails from February 12, 22, 26, 27, and 28 none of which included Joe Paterno as an addressee or a courtesy copy.
Conclusion: There are ten instances where PSU officials were deliberating about the actions to be taken regarding the 2001 incident and among those incidents there is only one reference to Paterno. Freeh does not know the extent of the conversation – whether it was 10 minutes of 10 seconds long – and he doesn’t know what either Paterno or Curley said. However, the overwhelming evidence in the Freeh Report shows that Paterno was rarely consulted about the 2001 incident.
The Verdict: Mostly True
Joe Paterno Results: 1 True, 1 Mostly True
Louis Freeh
Mr. Freeh’s report and press conference comments have been taken as the gospel by the media, the public, and the PSU administration. Let’s see how some of his statements they hold up under examination.
Freeh: “The most powerful leaders and the University – Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the University’s Board of Trustees, the Penn State Community, and the public at large.”
Analysis: While it is a fact that top PSU officials did not report the 2001 incident from the parties mentioned above, this is the only incident of Sandusky’s child abuse of which they were aware. The 1998 investigation, conducted by the police, DPW, and CYS concluded there was no child abuse, thus PSU officials had nothing to report to the BOT and fully worked with the authorities.
Conclusion: There was nothing to report in 1998; therefore officials did not repeatedly conceal information.
The Verdict: Half-Truth
Other statements that would fall under the category of Half-Truth for similar reasoning are:
Freeh: “The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.” (from Press Conference) “By not promptly reporting and fully advising the BOT about the 1998 and 2001 child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky…” (from page 15 of the report).
“The Board also failed in its duties to oversee the President and senior university officials in 1998 (page 15).
Freeh: “The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely…”
Analysis: Exhibit 2A, an e-mail exchange of May 5 and 6, titled “Re: Joe Paterno” between Curley and Schultz, reveals Curley has “touched base with the coach” and that “Public Welfare” will interview the individual.
Exhibit 2C and e-mail titled "Re: Jerry", reflects Tim Curley asking Schultz for updates, with Curley stating “Coach is anxious to know where it stands” on 5/13/2998. There is no evidence of Joe Paterno receiving a single update. The Freeh Report states the “record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was revealed to Paterno” (page 51).
Conclusion: While Paterno was informed of an investigation, it is impossible – based on the evidence - to conclude he ever received an update or was advised of the outcome. He did not follow the investigation closely.
Verdict: 2 Pants on Fire
Other statements made by Freeh that fall under the category of Pants on Fire for similar reasons are:
Freeh: “Spanier….Paterno…were kept informed of the investigation.” (page 39).
Freeh: “Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.” (from the press conference)
Analysis: It is true that on February 26th, Tim Curley had a discussion with Joe Paterno and on February 27th, Curley had changed his mind. However, it is notable that Mr. Freeh’s statement ignores evidence that shows Curley and Schultz considered reporting the incident to DPW as an optional requirement as early as February 12 (page63) Freeh also ignores the statements of Graham Spanier to the Special Investigative Counsel that he met only with Curley on February 25 and Spanier denied that they discussed reporting to DPW (page 73). Freeh also ignores the fact that the Pennsylvania child abuse reporting law in 2002 did not require PSU to make a report to DPW, because Penn State was not in the care of the child in any official capacity.
Conclusion: It is unclear whether Curley, Schultz, and Spanier ever reached agreement to report the incident to DPW. While Schultz promoted the reporting to DPW, there is no evidence to suggest that Curley and Spanier agreed with that course of action. It is unfortunate that we do not know the advice given by the PSU counsel at the time of this decision; however the reporting law at the time clearly shows that Penn State officials met their legal obligations when they reported the incident to Second Mile.
The Verdict: Mostly false.
Louis Freeh Results: Four Half-Truths, two Pants on Fire, and one Mostly False
In summary, Louis Freeh was clearly more untruthful than Joe Paterno when recounting the details of the 1998 and 2001 incidents. The Penn State officials who accepted Freeh’s statements as facts have done a great disservice to the Penn State University and its alumni and to the Paterno family.
Editor's Comment: This analysis clearly shows how absurdly thin any evidence is that supports any of the horridly damaging claims made by Louis Freeh about Joe Paterno. Freeh stretched the bounds of any sane evaluation of a few notes and emails to make wild and outrageous statements in his summary and press conference concerning the culpability of Coach Paterno in any decision making capacity in 1998. Joe's only decision in 2001 was the right decision. He passed Mike McQueary and whatever allegations he made to the people who were responsible for dealing with those allegations. Any failure of their's is not his.
By the standards set by Mr. Freeh in destroying Joe Paterno's legacy and leading the NCAA to destroy Penn State Football, Mr. Freeh should immediately lose all credibility and be fined and imprisoned for slander and libel without the benefit of a trial that Joe Paterno will never have.
The Freeh Report is costing Penn State University and the people of State College a small fortune and the incredible thing is the Board of Trustees actually paid for these half-truth's and bald faced lies. I hope they think they got their money's worth.
Louis Freeh is a complete disaster for Penn State University and far less honorable and truthful than the man who's reputation and legacy he has helped to destroy. Barry Bozeman
Want to help this effort to set the record straight
Visit this LINK and Volunteer
Thank you for your continuing search for the truth of this nightmare.
ReplyDeleteIt's not enough for Joepologists to keep repeating their interpretation of the exhibits to the Freeh Report, the Grand Jury Presentment, Sandusky transcripts, etc.. By now, everyone has had a chance to digest these materials. Virtually everyone, other than die-hard Joe worshippers, has concluded that the materials are damning for Joe. That's why statues are falling, why bowl bids are a thing of the past, why wins are being stripped, etc. When the world reads the same words as you do and disagrees with you, you can do what Joepologists do, i.e., accuse people of not reading the materials or calling them too stupid to understand them or, their favorite tactic, accusing them of being a lynch mob that willfully refuses to accept the brilliance of their analysis. But what sane, rational folk do is to appeal to evidence other than that which is the subject of disagreement. You can't just keep screaming that your construction of such and such email is correct and the rest of the world is wrong. Provide some other evidence : a new email, a new contemporaneous record of a conversation etc. New evidence is NOT "Some guy told me that MM is not to be trusted" (a la Tom in Paine). It is also not "Everything I know about Joe says this or that can't be true". When you are a minuscule minority (and in this country, Joepologists certainly are) opinion, the burden is on you to change the world's mind.
ReplyDeleteStop questioning the motives of the overwhelming majority who draw different conclusions than you do from the known evidence. Produce new evidence or stop whining.
the "overwhelming majority" is no more conversant with the details of the Freeh Report than you appear to be. If they were they would never accept it's conclusions. Freeh's accusations against Joe would be destroyed in any court of law.
DeleteBut remain steadfast in the "security" of your ill-informed majority.
So your position is that no one who actually reads the report could disagree with your opinion of it and if they do disagree with your opinion of it, they must not have actually read it?
DeleteAre you a child?
All anyone needs do is to read the incontrovertible evidence supplied in these pages. It isn't about agreement - it is about facts in evidence. The facts and evidence are all laid out herein. Only a child would think an ad hominem attack is the way to prevail in any discussion of these facts.
DeleteOur case is being made in these pages and until you can show us where our facts, evidence and conclusions are in error your protestations about majorities and children will have no ability to persuade. It's really quite that simple.
Contrary to the original poster's belief, the overwhelming majority of people have not read the entirety of the Freeh Report and digested it. It is OBVIOUS THAT THE MAJORITY of the reporters HAVE NOT READ ANY of it and relied (are relying) on Freeh's press conference remarks to write the narrative. How do I know this? Because they wrote their articles within minutes and hours of the press conference. Do you really believe for a minute that they went back and read through the report to check to see if Freeh's statement's are supported by the evidence? If you do, then you don't live in the same world I do.
DeleteHowever, the MOST IMPORTANT group of people NOT TO READ AND DIGEST the report is the Penn State Board of Trustees. First, they accepted the report without first checking it for accuracy. Louis Freeh called this "unusual." I would say it's almost unprecedented. Additionally, they did not critically review the report. Had they done so, they would have found out that Mr. Freeh did NOT say that PSU officials violated the law by not reporting the incident in 2001 (sees page 110 and 117).
Unfortunately, this is a repeat of what the BOT did when they were provided the Grand Jury Presentment in November. They accepted it as "fact" and made judgements based on a faulty report in which the most egregious charge was not proven in a court of law.
And it is a repeat of their performance in May of 2011, when briefed by the PSU President about the Sandusky grand jury and the involvement of PSU officials.
In the Sandusky Scandal, the PSU BOT has a track record of not asking any critical questions when given information. They simply make ill-informed decisions. Are they incompetent or are they doing this to shift blame to the football program?
More to come on this.
Gentlemen,
DeleteThank you for a very painstaking, compelling and disturbing analysis of the Freeh report. How on earth did the BOT decide this was the apex of truth and understanding on the matter? And they paid over $6 Million for it? Incredible, simply incredible.
Has anyone picked up on the Kevin Slaten radio broadcasts that are slamming the Freeh report? The one last evening with Anthony Lugano is epic. I whole- heartedly recommend you listen to them if you haven't already, and if you have, I humbly ask that you contact his show to be interviewed for it. I would imagine he would love to have Mrrs. Blehar and/or Aurabass on the show, and also to have the material you have prepared. Here are a few links (please ignore the text to the right of each link)
http://chirb.it/zFhG5f Kevin Slaten/Anthony Lugano
http://chirb.it/LJ2cyt Kevin Slaten/Susan Lampe
http://chirb.it/q5BsB1 Kevin Slaten/NCAA
http://chirb.it/CaFkt8 Kevin Slated/KC Star Opinion
Please keep up the good fight to get at the truth, and trust that alums will support you.
Thank you so much for your kind remarks DJM599. Much appreciated. I am aware of one of the Kevin Slaten show taking apart the ill-informed publicity hungry Susan Lampe who took Coach Pinkel to task for his remarks. He did a masterful job of making Ms Lampe show herself as the fool she is.
DeleteI will listen to the other's this evening and thanks for the links. I will post them on the blog main page with a hat tip to you for the links. If you have a way to reach Mr. Slaten we would love for him to know of our work.
See the front page today for the Thursday appearance of Ray Blehar on the GOON SHOW tomorrow night at 6:20. a link is there and one of us would be glad to do a show with mr Slaten do discuss our detailed dissection of that steaming pile of manure known as the Freeh Report.
DJM599 please email me aurabass AT yahoo dot com
DeleteIn any criminal proceeding, the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." So, why the need to "produce new evidnence or stop whining" when the current evidence on the table never comes close to closing the "reasonable doubt" door?
DeleteAs I said, you can't just keep repeating the same arguments ad nauseam which have already been rejected COUNTLESS times. No one is going to waste any more time refuting your nonsense YET AGAIN. It's pointless. You will NEVER acknowledge any argument that runs counter to Joe's innocence. The world has moved on. Try to catch up.
ReplyDeleteSuch loyalty to an old hero might be admirable but for the fact that the Joepologists are vicious (see the hate-spewing Tom in Paine) and that your "hero" was a monster. I'm sure that if you ask nicely, at next homecoming, the administration will let you and the other Joe Deniers meet to discuss your theories in a room in the former (hopefully) Paterno library. Enjoy life on the margin.
The analysis of the evidence in the Freeh report is quite recent and none of it has been rejected ever.
DeleteYour remark is quite like the Freeh Report - a statement with no basis in fact that cannot be proven and is easily refuted.
Show us ONE any one will do of these "countless" refutations of this analysis of the evidence in the Freeh report.
Obviously you cannot do it so you make some wild statements that you cannot back up by fact or evidence. That makes you a LIAR in the common vernacular because you are perpetrating a lie.
So prove us wrong and show us one of these countless refutations of the analysis contained in this post. Just one will do. Otherwise have a nice life.
In fact just take any one statement or email analysed in the post this discussion references and prove that the analysis provided is flawed or incorrect. We will be waiting.
DeleteWe know this evidence by heart having studied it meticulously and everything we have written about it is a far more reasonable interpretation of it's meaning that the preposterous conclusions reached by Freeh.
But if, as you've suggested elsewhere, TSM fundraisers were meat markets for pedophiles and Paterno, Schultz, Curley and Spanier were frequent attendees at TSM fundraisers, is it not equally possible that Freeh drastically UNDERSTATED their culpability? You need to address this aspect of the scandal.
Delete1000's of good-hearted people attended TSM fundraisers. The charity raise millions of dollars and did some very good things for 100's of underprivileged kids.
DeleteThe horrendous rotten acts of the few cannot be applied to the many. Anyone who thinks that is very messed up.
Exhibit 2C and e-mail titled "Re: Jerry", reflects Tim Curley asking Schultz for updates, with Curley stating “Coach is anxious to know where it stands” on 5/13/2998..............In all emails and other correspondence Joe Paterno is called Joe, not coach, not Paterno. This email is referencing Sandusky, not Paterno! Sandusky's nickname across campus and the 2nd Mile was "coach", even one of the victims stated Jerry was known as "coach". Freeh assumed it was referencing Paterno, it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteAgreed!
DeleteI haven't heard this aspect before. It is a very subtle but explosive point to make in the context of the entire Freeh report. Are we sure about this? If so, it undercuts Freehs major allegation. Surely this will come out during the upcoming Curley/Shutltz trial.
DeleteLets see, this guy Freeh was hired by an executive at MBNA back in the early 2000s. This executive at MBNA sat on the board of the 2nd Mile. Also, this guy Freeh was hired by FIFA to investigate a candidate for FIFA presidency and reported this candidate was taking bribes. However, the FIFA Freeh report was overturned by a judicial court stating that the findings were not true but the candidates reputation was trashed. There is something way deeper going on here. You folks who blindly follow the media need to dig deeper.
ReplyDeleteYES 1000 time YES = good point and good job thanks
DeleteIt's unbelievable that some accept the Freeh report as due process and factual evidence without reading it. So yes, the facts will continue to stated ad nauseam until the intellectually lazy masses come to realize that this is not justice as we know it in America.
ReplyDeleteAmen to this comment - The comments down the page claim we should stop caring about the truth because a majority has been totally fooled by the lies of Louis Freeh.
DeleteWhatever happened to good sense, fair play, and justice?
Joe Paterno will never get a day in court and he is unable to stand up and say the truth for himself. So a group of malicious and unscrupulous men have decided to destroy his good name and reputation after he is in the ground and people here are applauding that? It's disgusting.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, THANK YOU for this blog and for your efforts thus far. It is very helpful and enlightening. I have not had a chance to read everything yet, but I will.
In short: I am one of the aforementioned JoePa apologists. At this time I contend he is being unfairly blamed and demonized. Someone, somewhere, has used him as a GIANT smokescreen in order to elude discovery (or destroy the trail). I concede it is possible JoePa did all the bad he is accused of... but that is far from proven (despite what the media says). And no matter what comes out, I will not go so far as to say he is 100% innocent of everything. He does have culpability in this matter... and he admitted that himself. But "wishing he had done more" is a far cry from actively empowering, assisting, and covering up for a pedophile. We needed due process before he and others got destoyed. It's a shame we as a society no longer believe in due process or "innocent until proven guitly". In anycase, I wanted to be perfectly transparent on my beliefs and want everyone to know my views before I post thoughts and questions.
Personally I am with you that this has something to due with the Second Mile and the powerful people associated with it. I also believe Corbett is involved on some way, shape, or form.
I am writing to point something out I realized today. I'm sorry of you noted this before. According to the Freeh report (and some of the date differ from those listed in teh Grand Jury Indictmetn of Jerry SanduskY):
2/9/01: McQ sees event in shower
2/10/01 McQ tells Paterno
2/11/01: Paterno tells Curley/Schultz about his conversation with McQ
2/11/01: Schultz spends 3 hours with Wendall Courtney, University outside counsel about "re reporting of suspected child abuse". The timeshhet is exhibit 5A in Freeh report
2/12/01: Spanier gets his "heads up"
Fast forward to when story breaks:
1/10/2011: Courtney emails Schultz.. with some curious language:
"Gary - Cynthia Baldwin called me today to ask what I remembered about the JS issue I spoke with yuou and Tim about circa 8 years ago. I told her what I remembered. She did not offer why I was asking, nor did I ask her. Nor did I disclose that you and chatted about this"
Anyway, what I didn't realize until today was that according to the Grand Jury Indictment, Wendall Courtney was also the counse for The Second Mile (written on page 9).
That seems like quite the conflict of interest. Has anyone seen this broadcasted? I think this warrants further explanation as well as we unravel this mess.
Thanks for indulgin me. I'm sorry if you already made that connection. As I said, there is a lot of material here and I am still wading though it
Rumors are circulating that a number of the players on the Penn State football team want to transfer to other schools but are reluctant to do so because they have large, prominent Nittany Lion tattoos. The word is that they can't afford to get them removed and the NCAA and the Penn State AD aren't paying for their removal. If you are indeed impartial seekers of the truth and not merely Joe/Penn State partisans, I urge you to call Erickson's office and insist that he order the AD to pay for this procedure. It would be sad if such young men were to be held as "branded" hostages.
ReplyDeleteI urge you to read every article in this blog and understand the situation. PSU is a badge of honor - not a brand. The NCAA and Louis Freeh are lying sanctimonious hypocrites and we have proved it to anyone with the ability to read and comprehend
DeleteBadge of honor? Read today's WSJ for a story about how PSU alumni are worried about their professional reputations, how they're afraid to wear PSU apparel. Hell, I know one alum who won't wear PSU garb if he expects to run into parents of young children. I was at a barbecue over the weekend where a few of us were watching the British Open. As they cut away for a sports update, a woman walking by looked at the screen and said, "I can't stand looking at that man". It wasn't Jerry on the screen; it was Joe.
DeleteThe JoePa die-hards could join Erickson and the BOT in distancing PSU from those whom the public considers monsters. But they'd rather have PSU be forever saddled with the monster's corpse. The idea of the young people at PSU having to carry the stain of what Joe did makes me furious. Bury the monsters.
In time, as they are increasingly marginalized, the die-hards will turn inward, as they show signs of doing now, with the constant use of "we", with the demonization of "them", the outsiders who don't share "our" special knowledge.
I say those alumni are spineless bastards who only care about themselves and don't give a damn about the truth or fairness. I wore a PSU monogrammed shirt yesterday and am wearing a Penn State tie today. When things are tough, I don't turn my back on Penn State or the fine people who are being wrongly blamed for the actions of Jerry Sandusky.
DeleteTrue Penn Staters would take the opportunity to correct the record, as I do, when someone makes a false statement about the Sandusky Scandal.
Bury the stain of what Joe did? What did Joe do? He helped build Penn State University from a cow college to the institution it is today. Joe Paterno's only mistake was trusting his superiors to make a decision that the media has concluded as the wrong decision.
So you would base your actions on LIES repeated by the Wall Street Journal and a gang of lazy media types who can't even read and evaluate the information in the steaming pile of crap known as the Freeh Report.
DeleteI notice not a single comment here can find anything to question in the analysis done in the post. Is that because you are too damn lazy to read and assess it? Or do you accept the truth of it and just don't care. It doesn't matter to me if the Pope, the President, and and the entire Supreme Court started applauding the NCAA and Louis Freeh - much less the Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal. A pack of lies is a pack of lies no matter what group is giving it applause.
We just showed you the lies, mostly lies, and Pants on Fire lies is the report and you want us to help you castigate and condemn a very good man because of this steaming pile of lies?
Whatever happened to standing up for the truth no matter how alone one might be? It's the truth that matters - not some name on an effing masthead.
The WSJ article was about the impact of the scandal on PSU alumni and their families, not the truth or falsehood of the Freeh Report. Do you think that the WSJ made up the names of the worried PSU alumni in the article and the quotes attributed to them? Are you so lost in your paranoia that you think that the WSJ would risk being caught in a Stephen Glass-type scandal just to irritate PSU?
DeleteThe war's over. Joe and PSU lost. Now come out of the bunker and help Erickson rebuild PSU's reputation.
"I say those alumni are spineless bastards who only care about themselves and don't give a damn about the truth or fairness."
DeleteSo you'd tell that young alum with the 6-year-old kid to slap PSU shirts on the kid and himself and head down to Pee Wed soccer? And when the other parents get in the alum's face and tell him to "get that stuff outta here...NOW" and the other kids start staring at his kid and his kid starts crying, you want him to throw dynamite on the fire by standing tall and defending Joe? Sure, fuck over your kid's life for Joe; he's worth it.
The only way that PSU is rebuilt and healed is through the resignation of Rod Erickson and the Board of Trustees. Erickson already violated his promise of operating openly and transparently when he held his back room meeting with the Executive Committee to cut a deal with the NCAA.
DeleteThe war is not over. The truth will come out sooner than you know, and you will be forced to eat crow.
Hey Ray,
DeleteAm I "spineless" if I don't send my 8-year-old to the playground wearing his little sweatshirt with Joe's picture on it? I don't know if I could be as brave as you, Ray, when he comes comes home with his ass kicked.
You've got a lot of gall telling people with kids who live in the REAL world, not Joe World, that they're cowards if they don't jeopardise their future and their family's future by shooting off their mouths about Joe Paterno. If you talked to someone other than your fellow conspiracy buffs, you'd know that Joe's reputation is in the crapper and that no one wants to hear anybody defend him. In fact, they just want to get the hell out of the room.
Well Anonymous,
DeleteI was just on vacation at Deep Creek Lake, Maryland and they were there with their kids, who were wearing PSU shirts and hats. Guess what? Not a soul said a word to them.
There were adults, self-included, wearing PSU shirts and hats. Nobody said anything negative to me. I went over and talked to the guy with his kids.
I sat at a table with a group of people from Maryland who I met that day, who went to Frostburg State and never attended as much as one PSU game. That group told me that they still love Joe Paterno.
The most recent polls of trust in the media is at 44% - an all-time low. Based on that information, it appears you are in the minority if you trust what has been reported about Penn State.
Yeah, America still loves Joe. Face the fact that the media is perfectly reflecting the overwhelming hatred of the America for EVERYONE involved in this thing.
DeleteAnd everyone in the media reported that the Exxon Valdez crashed because the ship's captain was drunk. That was false.
DeleteEveryone in the media reported the Duke Lacrosse team raped a stripper. That was false.
Louis Freeh leaked Richard Jewell's name as the Olympic Park bomber and the media ruined his life. He was an innocent man.
Louis Freeh ignored evidence that contradicted the story he wanted to tell about Joe Paterno and, as a result, damaged the reputation of a man and an institution. The media is backing Freeh -- until the other shoe drops.
Louis Freeh's name will be mentioned in the same breath with Mike Nifong's.
If you actually believe this, it is no surprise you cannot wrap your brain around the difference between facts and opinions.
DeleteIf you actually believe this, it is no surprise you cannot wrap your brain around the difference between facts and opinions. Meant for the tattoo loon.
DeleteAnd Penn Staters wonder why their school was made an example of. It's amazing how people affiliated at that school, be it students, alumni or just fans, really don't get it. At all. If the fans weren't so concerned about salvaging the legacy of a football coach to the point of going full retard in doing mental gymnastics, I'd have some sympathy for their plight. But the actions of a good amount of their fans (or at least a really vocal, really delusional minority) is why I can't get too mad at the NCAA for the harsh sanctions. Happy Valley is a mix of sheer stupidity, madness, complete lack of perspective and paranoia. Having the football team take a backseat is necessary for that community to get it's collective head out of its ass, because bloggers such as this one have completely fucked priorities. It's sad and I feel bad for the rational Penn State fans that are overshadowed by the monsters in their fanbase. Obviously Sandusky is the biggest monster, but there is a massive systemic failure among a significant part of the PSU fanbase.
ReplyDeleteIt's always interesting to see the sanctimonious outrage of the woefully misinformed.
DeleteJust one question: If the Freeh Report is a pack of lies and the situation as you have heard it from the Media is totally wrong would you still hold the same opinion?
If not then read the articles here and show us where we are wrong. If you can't then reconsider your stance. If it's too much trouble to become informed before you slander and libel others then STFU. That seems fair and reasonable to everyone.
Full retard? Nice choice of words. The only mentally disabled one I see here sir is you. It's unfortunate you don't share our view of the railroading of Joe Paterno and a great university, but hey, its a free country. But I'll be damned if I'm going to cave into something henious until such time as the evidence says I must, simply because you and others think its expedient to do so. And assuming you couldn't be bothered to check it out, the "evidence" Freeh has put forth for his so-called conspiracy isn't evidence at all.
DeleteGood shot DJM - masterful
DeleteAnonymous, are you, in fact, Louis Freeh?
DeleteI honestly believe you are missing the larger issue. The reason for the fight is larger than Joe Paterno. What has happened is that the Administration has allowed an unsubstantiated narrative to spin out of control and it continues to harm a great University.
DeletePeople are looking for the truth, not pieces of it, but the entire story. It has been widely reported that a source from the Freeh group has indicated that the investigation they were asked to perform was very narrow in scope. It was never intended to be used as a vehicle to punish and was not constructed in a way that a typical criminal investigation is built. It was a study into how the governance at the University performed and how future actions could help prevent gaps in how the University is managed.
We get it. We get the fact that there is much more to this than has been reported. We get the fact that putting Joe Paterno's face and the Penn State logo on the screen or on the cover every 30 seconds or every morning brings a significant bump in revenue. Guess what, that doesn't help the victims and it certainly doesn't stop abuse.
There is a deeper problem here and it is not getting publicized. Politicians, TSM, government agencies were all involved in this process. They failed as much or more than anyone else. Gov Corbett, the TWO time AG in the state of Pennsylvania during the 90's and the 2000's did little to stop a known serial pedophile until after his election to the Governor's office. CYS and DPW did little or nothing, or perhaps even stonewalled/botched investigations into Sandusky years ago. I think people would be more comfortable if the media was more interested in the kids and less in the almighty dollar and actually dug into the full scope of the crimes committed by Sandusky. But as I said before, that doesn't bring in revenue, and frankly, they are too lazy and too cheap to spend the money it takes to do the hard work.
Finally, there is outrage at the hypocrisy that is clearly evident in this case.
Mark Emmert was President of the University of Washington from 2004 until he took over as the President of the NCAA. During that period, an ongoing case of several alleged rapes of women by a UW football player was covered up by the University. Senior officials, according to sworn testimony, worked to conceal the allegations of one particular victim indicating that reporting to police would "reflect poorly" on UW and that the University treated the accuser with "deliberate indifference". Interesting choice of words.
"It's definitely been an uphill battle to prove I was mistreated," she said. "Finally, the courts are on my side -- at least for now." Wow, the University, of which Mark Emmert was president of at the time of this quote, abused this woman for a period of almost 8 years until a court finally said there was "ample evidence" to argue the case in front of a jury. Shameful.
I am not proclaiming anyone innocent or anyone guilty, but let's stop all the grandstanding by those of you who have never liked Penn State and take this crime by Sandusky to attempt to say the whole lot is bad, it simply isn't. Saying so makes you look immature.
As you would certainly demand your day in court, the only thing being demanded by the Penn State family is the same consideration in this case.
Why should just the football-transferees get free tattoo removal? There are plenty of non-football students who want out of here in a big way now. What about them? This is an example of the very football-centric thinking that got us the Gang of Four in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe non-football transferees wil not be sharing a shower with a bunch of behemoths sporting badger or wolverine tattoos. It's a safety issue, jackass.
ReplyDeletePlease tell me you are kidding.
DeleteIf insisting on finding the truth is a "fucked priority", then I'm guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe people with their heads in their asses are people like you, who have accepted Freeh's and the media's version of events.
The NCAA penalties are clearly overboard and based on discussions with the PSU Board of Incompetents (formerly Trustees). Why would the NCAA subject PSU Football to additional rules for academic compliance when it owns one of the highest graduation rates among top division programs?? It makes no sense.
Why vacate wins back to 1998 when there was clear evidence that PSU investigated the incident through the police force and DPW and that those organizations found that Sandusky did not commit a crime? It makes no sense.
For all I care, if those bastards want to desert their teammates, they can LICK the damn things off.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are some troubling things here. But I am just not seeing past the fact that Paterno knew. Even if he was only consulted one time. Once is enough. Any criminal will tell you, it only takes once. How is it fair to the rest of us, who do not have positions of great power and great stature, that if we had done one tenth of what anyone involved had done we would be in prison for the rest of our lives, probably being raped ourselves. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Neither do most other people. Let this be a lesson to anyone who dares to harm or cause to come to harm an innocent child. God himself is that child's advocate. He can move heaven and earth to find you and you can't escape His righteous judgment. Justice is not delivered by men, it comes from God. Justice is still being served here, there are others involved......
ReplyDeleteThere is no FACT that Paterno knew about 1998. Freeh infers he knew based on a single e-mail said Curley touched base with the coach.
DeleteThe inference is incorrect. Curley is a former PSU player. To the players, Paterno is simply "Joe."
Curley was definitely referring to Sandusky in that e-mail.
Dishonest Louis Freeh changed the subject line from Re: Jerry to Re: Joe Paterno
So explain this Anonymous
DeleteThe 1998 investigation ended with this.
DPW concluded that there was no criminal or pedophile behavior on the part of Sandusky.
So why would Joe LIE about knowing that if he did know?
All he would say if he knew is "The PA Department of Public Welfare along with CYS, District Attorney's Gricar and Arnold, and the State College and PSU police investigated Sandusky thoroughly in 1998 and issued a 100 page report. Their conclusion was the Sandusky showed no pedophile tendencies and that no criminal behavior was involved. Given this extensive evaluation the act of giving a boy a bear hug in the shower's (which is the best explanation of what Mike McQueary might have seen in his 2 second glances on Feb 9 2001) led us to believe that this incident was no more criminal than the 1998 incident."
Answer us that please anonymous.
Knowing about 1998 is not incriminating - it's exculpatory.
What EXACTLY should Paterno have done that was within legal perimeters as well as his role as head football coach? He followed chain of command. IF he had input, and that's a big if, it was only that, input, not decision-making authority. That rests upon his superiors in ad.inistratiin as well as BOT. The head coach, past & present players had nothing.g to do with it. Don't penalize them & the university for action.s/I.action.s of individuals that didn't fulfill their obligations. However, McQeary should be penalized for 1) not leaving Sandusky a bloody wreck if he really saw it & 2) for not making a report with law enforcement & protective services HIMSELF. Really, he had to call his dad, then wait until the next morning to tell Paterno. Makes NO sense at all. Btw no ties to PSU, 20 year educator &I coach, family man, honorable discharge from US military. NCAA will have egg on face when this is done. Looks like there will be much more from legal side &I there should be. Resignations, firings, & lawsuits are on the horizon. Reinstate the scholarships & wins. The kids did nothing wrong here. Keep the post-season ban & fine. Remove BOT & rewrite all administrative guidelines & by-laws concerning reporting. Restructure campus police & training of them & all employed there.
ReplyDeleteJoe Paterno spent his entire life working for the benefit of his student athletes. I don't believe for a second that he would jeopardize any child's welfare and most certainly not in support of Sandusky who he didn't even like. When you libel someone without any finite proof you had better be ready to suffer the consequences.
ReplyDelete