Wednesday, December 12

UPDATE: Franco's Questioning of Mark Emmert

Franco asks pointed questions to Emmert about how Sandusky got due process, but Joe Paterno was found guilty.  Asks for explanation from Emmert, who weasels out of it.  See full transcript below.

Hear the audio here


Franco: ..The investigation by the state and county agencies found Jerry not guilty in 1998. Concerning 2001, Attorney General Linda Kelly did not tell the truth when she stated that Mike McQueary saw a sexual assault at Penn State in 2001.  You know this case went to trial and due process was served.  Linda Kellys charge of sexual assault at Penn State in 2001 was thrown out by the jury.  Jerry was found not guilty of 2001 sexual assault at Penn State.  So in both these cases and these two timeframes, Jerry Sandusky was found not guilty by due process.  Mark, how did you find Joe Paterno guilty during these two time frames?

Emmert:  Well, first of all, let me clarify the process.  So this wasn't, again, doing anything on his own.  Because of the unique nature of the Penn State case, we handled the case differently that we have in other cases. And we can talk about, and we don't have a lot of time, why that was, but the decisions that were made were made by Executive Committee and the Division I Board of Directors, with me participating in the course, being an active part of that discussion.  That group of people I just described are a group of 20 university presidents from around the United States.  They represent a cross section of Division I.  This wasn't one guy sitting in his office and deciding here's what I'm going to decide what to do.  Thoughtful conversation and deliberation among a group of people...had access to and read the materials...looked thoroughly at the Freeh Report...and the other materials that were available and reached a conclusion.

Secondly, uh, we, in the findings that were delivered and the consent decree that was signed, explicitly didn't find any one individual guilty of anything.  We expressly don't mention any one individual.  We said expressly that we were reserving the right to pass those judgments in the future after due process works its course.  So there's been no comment from me or any official comment from me or the Executive Committee or the Division I board on any of the individuals involved in this except for Jerry Sandusky, whose had due process and was found guilty of those crimes you said he was found innocent of.  Uh, and, so the process was not as -- it was much more deliberative and thoughtful than most people realize.  The reliance on the Freeh Report was a clearly thoughtful decision and logical decision.  When you consider the fact that, as I described, we the NCAA, our investigators don't have anywhere near the authority granted to the Freeh group.  The Freeh group was given carte blanche to look anywhere and everywhere inside the university.  We would never have had that authority. They were essentially given a blank check for resources, spent six and a half million dollars, interviewed 450 people, read over three million documents and e-mails -- I could have sent my entire team in there for five years and couldn't have gotten anywhere near that level of detailed understanding of what went on there.  Everyone on the Executive Committee and Division I board understood that.  So, to suggest that we could somehow conduct, and by the way, spend another two years - I see () in the room can understand that and spend another two years debating and discussing what happened at Penn State didn't make sense to anybody involved.  When the probability of finding anything in addition to the Freeh Report was zero.

Note:  Freeh was prohibited (by the OAG) from doing anything that would have compromised the ongoing prosecutions of Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz.  In other words, if he found evidence that would have exonerated any of those three men, he was prohibited from further investigating it or releasing it publicly.

Emmert:  So, so, I know this is a point which you and I hope respectfully disagree on.

Franco:  (garbled)

Emmert:  I  happen to love your passion for your university.  I happen to understand clearly why you have a commitment and dedication to that program that did so many good things and I can't say I would feel any differently if I were in your shoes.  I get all that.  We may be, pardon me, made the best, most thoughtful decision that we could out of the situation that no one....felt good about...and that was unprecedented in so many ways.  But, but, I want to be clear, we never singled out any individual.  People say why did you take Coach Paterno's records away from him?  We didn't.  We vacated the university's.  We didn't vacate yours -- you played in 1998, I guess.

Franco:  I graduated in, uh, 1972, but I guess my question was how did you or your Board come to that determination that Joe Paterno or whoever was guilty, when those two circumstances in 1998 did not even involve Penn State and in 2001, the jury found there was not a sexual assault at Penn State.  And, and, that's, so my question is...

Emmert:  Yeah, uh, you'll have to excuse me, but I want to make sure, as well, the time and I want to get to others, but the short answer is we relied heavily upon the voluminous evidence provided by the Freeh Report. (garbled)

Franco:  The report said in 1998 that Penn State was not involved in that.

Emmert:  Uh, uh, I read the report multiple times and I'm sure you have, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

From the Freeh Report, page 39, Key Findings:  While no information indicates university leaders interfered with the investigation, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley were kept informed of the investigation.  

We've shown this Finding to be unsubstantiated based on the evidence.
Franco asked Mark Emmert about the NCAA sanctions and the stripping of wins.  Emmert responded that the NCAA didn't find Paterno guilty and didn't strip away his wins.  Emmert claims the NCAA stripped away Penn State's wins.

Watch the video here


  1. Another alumnus and I discussed this past year and I think he has nailed it on the head...Corbett, the BOT and Emmert took their time in planning the events of firing Joe to the NCAA sanctions...Why would Emmert run out the back door like a coward other than to hide his involvement...

  2. Mark Emmert needs to have his feet held to the fire. One simply cannot "agree to disagree" on facts. The conversation, to my way of thinking, boils down to this:

    Franco: "So in both these cases and these two timeframes, Jerry Sandusky was found not guilty by due process."

    Emmert: "... Jerry Sandusky, whose had due process and was found guilty of those crimes you said he was found innocent of."

    Besides ending a sentence with a preposition, it is clear that Emmert (and I would assume, [some number - likely the majority] of the 20 people participating in arriving at the Penn State sanctions, did so without understanding facts of the Sandusky case.

    The heck with facts, right? I mean, after the Penn State Board hung Paterno out to dry by firing him; the media running with an untrue, but sensational story; the subsequent witch trial for Paterno, held in the Court of (the morally sanctimonious) Public Opinion; and continuance of the travesty by erroneous conclusions drawn by the Freeh Report ... the NCAA - rather than look at the case objectively (or God forbid, conduct any investigation of their own) - just rolled with it, heaping sanctions that might appeal to those with pitchforks & torches and now (like the Penn State Board) can't wait to move forward (and get past all the difficult questions) many of which shine light on the fact the Penn State Board, the media, the public, Freeh & the NCAA simply reacted, making hasty, poor decisions based on emotion & false data, rather than waiting for due process and objectively evaluating facts.

    1. BRAVO! BRAVO! stk My sentiments exactly. Nobody will get off their fat asses and do or search for the right thing. That's why we as a nation are circling the drain.
      As Winston Churchill said, Americans will do the right thing after all other possibilities are exhausted.

    2. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by Ben Jones and Adam Collyer over on Black Shoe Diaries. They should be commending Franco and John, not vilifying them.

  3. one thing to keep in mind when watching Ziegler's video, is the salient point about how long the NCAA took to investigate the Reggie Bush issue @ USC. One would think something this "unprecedented" should have taken more than 2 weeks to fully comprehend, evaluate, investigate, and deliberate. There is also no doubt Penn State's Board of Trustees had Freeh create a barbed-wire baseball, while Erickson knelt before Emmert with it and said, "Please strike the football program and Joe Paterno as hard as you like."

    They wanted this con job over as quickly as possible.

    1. Jeffrey,
      I am sure the NCAA Presidents and the Division I Executive Board were all impressed at the volume of information And especially impressed by Freeh's unique method of numbering Appendix A...2...3...5...6.....10. Also, that Freeh was able to get the crimes against Victims 5 and 7 upgraded to "assault" after the jury decided to acquit Sandusky of that charge. As the media says, no one has disproved a single fact in the report. Freeh's right. Jury must have gotten it wrong.

    2. There is quite a bit of good information in the Freeh report, to be honest. Unfortunately, the conclusions do not reasonably follow the information provided. Or rather, the information is inadequate to draw the conclusions of the report.

      btw, I think there is a distinct misconcpetion about McQueary's testimony in regards the conclusions of the jury (and the Freeh report). The jury did not find Sandusky guilty of the sexual assault, but more significantly they voted guilty on the lesser charges (grooming essentially) ONLY because the testimony of other victims fit that pattern.

      I think a very credible case can be made that if the 2001 incident had been tried separately, Sandusky probably would have skated on all charges.

      But I am sure the NCAA thought that through. #sarcasm

    3. I agree Jeffrey. The prosecution pounded the showering pattern and also made it sound like Sandusky was doing it with infants.

      Victim 5 is an intriguing character. Sandusky was acquitted on indecent assault in his case, yet he testified at the sentencing about Sandusky touching him and being forced to touch Sandusky's penis. After the acquittal?

      The kid also changed the date of the alleged incident from 1998 to 2001. And of course, he shows up in the new presentment as proof that the crimes continued after PSU didn't report Sandusky.

      So, the question is, what was his incentive to do all this. Most of the victims wanted nothing to do with this trial.

  4. I very much agree Jeff. What's odd about the Freeh report and his press release is that he claims a cover up, yet if you read the emails he provides to prove such a cover up, Curley says he wants to talk to JS and TSM, and if he cooperates, they'll get him professional help. If he doesn't, they'll have to tell DWS. 2 Questions: 1) wouldn't "getting professional help" require discussing these issues with a psychologist, and wouldn't that person be required to report such things as JS is voluntarily going to see him and thus, the police have not been informed, 2) since when does threatening JS with going to DWS if he doesn't cooperate signify a cover up? I thought the whole point of a cover up was to keep these matters hidden, not tell someone. You know, kind of like the janitors never told anyone, hence, they covered up what they saw to save their jobs?!

    1. which reminds me, unless i am misinformed, PA law says you have 48 hours to report such crimes, so to say that Joe is at fault for waiting 24 hours is equally "odd." I can't cite the law, but I thought I remember reading that somewhere, possibly here.

    2. I have some serious issues with the janitor's story. mainly, I would be willing to risk losing my job to report a sexual assault of a minor. Hell, I'd put my life at risk.

    3. The janitor's story doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I covered it in Pittsburgh and it's posted on Eileen Morgan's page...there is a link to it (check November).

    4. kjk,
      The law is non-specific about informing the just says as soon as possible. However, if the subject is an "agent" of the county (as Sandusky was), then his agency must be informed within 24 hours. So, in the 1998 case, you can be sure pretty sure Sandusky was informed in 24 hours via the Second Mile (although they deny ever being informed). Also, it's a good bet that Curley and the cops told him. They had an interview set up with him for May 7th....then it got cancelled and didn't occur until June 1.

    5. I did see the presentations Ray and thought they were eye-opening. You guys are doing great work. The comment I made about having 48 hours was found here:

      All I was saying is that it's idiotic for freeh to say Joe waited too long when apparently the law says you have 48 hours to report the crime. I was wondering though if you, or anyone, knows what the law says a psychologist is required to do if a client/patient reports that they committed a crime, as JS clearly would have done if he followed Curley's advice and got professional help. It's just dumb to say it was a cover up based on their plan to go to DWS without JS's cooperation, but if he cooperates via getting professional help they won't. Clearly, if a psychologist is required to report an admission of guilt, it makes the claim of a cover up even more laughable.

    6. Ray, meant to follow up with you on something in your presentation, related to the topic at hand. What DID happen with Sandsuky between 2001 and 2005? Guys like him don't just find a new hobby. Is it possible he did agree to some type of therapy, off the books? You make a very credible argument that given what Curley, Schultz, et al knew in 2001, it seems whatever course of action they took was far more effective than the official investigation in 1998. I'm just having trouble filling that gap from 2001 to 2005.

    7. Jeffrey,
      I have researched the subject of pedophilia and it is possible that Sandusky was an ephebophile (attracted to teenagers), based on the ages of the young men he sexually abused. The research also states the pedophiles will select boys who are younger than the age of the boys they are attracted to -- so that they have time to groom them for later abuse. There is a treatment program for ephebophiles. So, it is possible that Raykovitz had him in treatment for a period of years. I'd have to check the laws on whether a psychologist would be exempted from disclosing Sandusky's crimes if he made admissions. I know that clergy is excepted.

      An alternate theory is that he took his show on the road and abused children in other regions of the state. Also, there is much shame involved for the victims, so most would be reluctant to come forward and many may have repressed their memories of the abuse.

      Yet another theory is that Second Mile was making monetary settlements with the abused children to pay for their silence. As you know, the participant files from Second Mile are missing from 2000-2003, so there could be something that they want to hide in those years.

    8. "As you know, the participant files from Second Mile are missing from 2000-2003, so there could be something that they want to hide in those years."

      Ray, I find this hard to believe. The Second Mile was the employer of Sandusky, and the entity that provided him unfettered access to his victims. I'm certain Corbett, with his elevated moral sense of responsibility and legal authority, made certain the first thing he did in his investigation was to subpoena and seal those records. Because he didn't **cough cough** slow roll this investigation and do anything that might allow the REAL criminals to cover their tracks **Cough Cough**

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. I've just installed iStripper, and now I can watch the hottest virtual strippers on my taskbar.