Monday, February 20

David J. Paterno: Power vs. Popular

Debunking the First of Freeh’s Overarching Faulty Premises

David J. Paterno

More than four years have passed since Penn State’s Board of Trustees’ (BOT’s) Special Investigative Counsel (SIC) purchased a report from Louis Freeh. While that report contained some good recommendations – especially regarding the size and makeup of the BOT - many scholars have pointed out its shortcomings and its unsubstantiated claim that four employees, including Joe Paterno (JVP), behaved with malicious intent.

My family continues to petition and ask PSU leaders to read and evaluate for themselves how little Freeh’s conclusions about JVP are supported with any facts. More confounding than the lack of facts are several overarching premises contained in the Freeh report that set the tone for his unsubstantiated claims. By allowing such false premises, the reader is set up for accepting unsupported conclusions.

The first faulty premise is that JVP “controlled everything / knew everything that happened at PSU.”  This premise conflates Power with Popularity.

 There is a huge difference between Power and Popularity and if we are not careful, we can forget how very different these things are – especially with respect to running a large institution like PSU. Freeh chose to ignore this clear difference - and in fact, equated them as being the same to vilify JVP.

This matters because it is one of several incorrect overarching premises of the Freeh Report, which gives Freeh’s conspiracy theory illegitimate credibility in falsely damaging our alma mater’s reputation.

Yes, “conspiracy theory” because it is – at best  – a stretching hypothesis that four men were involved in a conspiracy to conceal and cover up criminal activity.

Until PSU comes to terms with the damage they have done by accepting the incorrect opinion of Louis Freeh, they will not be able to recover some of the greatest qualities of PSU’s history that could be, and ought to be, leveraged into its future. 

Joe Paterno was popular.  He was well known, widely respected, and influential. 

Was he an all-powerful man controlling everything at PSU as Freeh suggests?

Not even close.


  1. David, you and your family have acted with grace and civility for the past many years in spite of all the lies and slander. You are an example for the rest of us.

  2. An article that needed to be written. Thank you.

  3. Grace and civility gets you nothing in war. It has been over 5 years now, and the lies of Fina, et al, have never been debunked. The janitor hoax, the very instrument that dragged Joe Paterno into the fiasco (we were sooo afraid of Joe's wrath if we said anything), was never exposed for the fraud it is. A lie stated repeatedly and unchallenged becomes truth, a hoax left as stated is as good as truth. Your failure to attack these frauds and the people who propagated them has become your demise.

    1. Fina said on national TV that he saw no evidence that Joe Paterno conspired to cover up for Sandusky, so Fina eventually contradicted Freeh on Paterno.

      The Paterno family did fight back with their expert reports and their lawsuit against the NCAA. That lawsuit essentially attacks the Freeh Report, which the NCAA relied on for their accusations against Paterno.

      I'm not sure how much more forceful the Paterno family could have been.

    2. I think the Paterno family could have been more forceful by exposing Mike McQuery's ever changing story. Also emphasizing the fact the Victim 2 Allen Myers was Jerry's biggest defender until meeting bloodsucking lawyer Andrew Shubin. The feel the only view that the Paterno report really refuted was the outrageous claim that Paterno and PSU protected Sandusky because of "Football", which was a view that anyone who actually read the Freeh Report, rather than the sensationalist media reports of it, could easily see was complete BS.

  4. The Freeh Report buried in a footnote that Joe Paterno was not all powerful. Freeh noted that Joe Paterno wrote on Sandusky's 1999 retirement proposal that Sandusky should not be allowed to bring Second Mile kids into the football facilities because it was a liability problem. Paterno was overruled.

    If his superiors had listened to Paterno, there never would have been shower incidents after Sandusky's retirement.

    1. I wonder what if Joe really did get his way and banned Sandusky from bringing Second Mile Kids into Football Facilities? What if the media got word of it? I can see the headlines. "Joe Paterno puts Football ahead of Children". Oh the irony.

  5. Regarding Freeh's "conspiracy":

    If PSU officials knew of Sandusky’s pedophilia and sexual abuse since 1998 and followed it closely - as Freeh claimed - and wanted to conceal that - why didn’t they jump at the chance to firm up his retirement quickly in 1998? Retirement talks began in February 1998 but did not come to fruition until June 1999.


    Paterno gave Sandusky the option to continue to coach as long as Paterno was head coach, and Curley and Paterno discussed the option of Sandusky coaching THREE MORE YEARS. Sandusky also asked for many special retirement perks.

    If Joe, Tim, Gary and Graham were covering up for the abuse of children, Sandusky would have had NO negotiating power and his retirement from the university would have been post-haste.

    Curley negotiated an emergency re-hire for the 1999 season at Sandusky’s regular salary PLUS 6% cost of living, a very generous offer and increase for someone he must have loathed if he knew Sandusky was molesting children.

    Sandusky continued to run camps for young boys at Penn State’s Main Campus for almost a decade after he retired, was paid for speeches, travel, food, etc. at PSU functions, and had premium seating for all home football games. In addition, PSU football coaches and players participated in Second Mile golf outing fundraisers from 2003 thru 2011.

    Sure sounds like an excellent conspiracy and cover up to me!

    1. In 1998 Sandysky was accused of showering with a young boy and was reported to the then District attorney Ray Gricar. The DA found there was not enough evidence and dropped the case. So all anyone knew in 1998 was there was an accusation and that the DA drppped the case. Ray Gricar disappeared after this his car was found close to the Susquehanna river. I believe the body was never found. This was the story of 1998. Why dies know one ever nention this?

    2. Ray Gricar disappeared in April, 2005, so that's a 7 year separation from the 1998 shower incident. There is no evidence Gricar's disappearance had anything to do with Sandusky.

      In 1998, two child protection agencies and Penn State police investigated the shower incident. The Dept. of Public Welfare investigator, Jerry Lauro, decided there was no child abuse and took no precautions. The DA could not very well arrest Sandusky for child abuse when the state child protection agency maintained there was no child abuse.

      You are correct that 1998 is glossed over likely because a factual story of the incompetence of government child protection agencies is not as juicy as a fictional story of university administrators conspiring to cover up for a child abuser.

    3. One question will be why the 1998 case was dropped by Gricar.

      The investigations with DPW were separate from the police investigation. If you think it is a factor, you should be asking why Gricar closed his investigation first, prior Lauro making a determination.

    4. JJ - I don't think there is clear evidence that Gricar dropped his case before Lauro declared there was no abuse.

      Gricar had two young boys who adored Sandusky and didn't want to get him in trouble. They wouldn't have made good witnesses, and may have been traumatized by the experience of testifying. The one boy (victim 6) already had some issues because he was seeing a psychologist. Maybe their parents were opposed to the boys testifying. Victim 6 kept seeing Sandusky after 1998.

    5. JJ,
      Tim is correct.

      There is NO evidence that Gricar dropped the case. In fact, the evidence is just the opposite.

      PSU closed the case on June 1st -- before the final police report was signed (on June 3rd).

      Ray Gricar was a stickler for reviewing ALL of the evidence before making a charging decision.

      The decision was taken out of his hands by DPW. Detective Schreffler confirmed that.

    6. John Ziegler claims that Victim 6 texted Jerry Sandusky a Happy Fathers Day message in 2010. I am not sure if that is 100% accurate, but it seems this guy continued a relationship with Sandusky well into adulthood despite not being gay. This is not the mark of someone who was sexually abused and I think its perfectly reasonable the the 1998 case was dropped.

  6. People do not wish to be bothered by logic Wendy. Don't be silly!

  7. You are being too kind David. PSU did not simply "accept the incorrect opinion of Louis Freeh". It was a pre-determined, bought and paid for hit piece of pure fiction. Which brings us back to the question - What do they have to hide and why has the 2nd Mile skated off into the sun set in all of this? I'm quite confident old Jer wasn't the only prominent, rich and powerful pedophile involved in this sick mess. Just the tip of the iceberg...

    1. S. McHate:

      Well said. Which brings us back again to who is "they"? The Second Mile did a disappearing act, documents included, when Jerry was arrested. But who were they really? Other than by name and apparent purpose we know nothing because they disappeared.

    2. I'm sure we don't know the whole story but I think it is highly unlikely that Sandusky was part of a group of pedophiles. None of the victims who testified at trial mentioned Sandusky having partners.

      I think the Attorney General's office created their Penn State conspiracy because that sparked outrage and gave them massive publicity in the sports news. They had enough evidence to charge Second Mile CEO Jack Raykovitz, Dr. Dranov, John McQueary and Central Mountain High School officials but that would have detracted from the Penn State focus.

      A recent report alleged that a man now living in Ohio was abused by Sandusky as a foster child. He told the reporter that

      "...nobody believed me while I was in foster care, that’s the biggest thing, guidance counselors, nobody really believed what I was telling them, it was always, ‘stop being a trouble maker.'”

      So it sounds like he reported abuse but his guidance counselors, and possibly others, failed to report.

      It is unclear if this man was a foster child of Sandusky or if he got a settlement from Penn State.

    3. It looks like you fell for a total fraud. Not that you are the first person to be taken in by a hoax.

      Dranov testified multiple times that what MM told him did not constitute a reportable incident. JM backed him. He asked MM three times if he saw anything sexual, and MM said no three times. It follows that MM saw nothing sexual. This is not quantum mechanics. He saw nothing sexual, but after being manipulated by Fina, referred to what he saw as extreemly sexual. Go figure. If I heard slapping sounds in a shower, I would picture towel snapping and flying water polo balls or maybe footballs. That's what we did in High School (and even in the dorms at PSU). He associated the sounds with sex. Astounding! Associating a sound with an activity is a conditioned response. Where, oh where, did he make this association?

    4. Tim,
      I believe Sandusky was part of a pedophile network in State College and the surrounding area. See Christopher Lee.

      The AG's investigation of Sandusky wasn't even an investigation until October 2010. If there were kids at TSM who were involved with other members there, rest assured those kids were paid well for their silence.

    5. I didn't think maryjane was legal in Maryland,Ray, but you seem to have smoked some pretty potent weed.

    6. As soon as Sandusky was arrested, the immediate word among PSU alumni was that the busting of a huge pedophile ring was coming. Its been over 5 years now, I think if the ring did exist, it would have been exposed long ago.

    7. Christopher Lee was big into child porn. From I understand, no evidence of child porn was ever found on Sandusky's computer. Also, Lee needed to traffic in boys from out of the country. If he was connected to Sandusky why not seek victims through the 2nd mile? I doubt there was any connection between Sandusky and Lee at all.

  8. Gregory - Perhaps Mike McQueary went to the locker room that evening expecting a hookup. Maybe that locker room was known as a spot for sports groupies wanting to rendezvous with coaches or ex-players. His story of bringing his new sneakers to drop in his locker always seemed contrived.

    His story of hearing slapping sounds, assuming sex and then walking right in also doesn't fit normal behavior. Most people wouldn't knowingly walk in on a couple having sex. McQueary expected a heterosexual couple so maybe he thought he'd make it a threesome or just wanted to watch.

    Another possibility involves the ESPN report that Mike told his players he was sexually abused as a child. Perhaps the slapping sounds gave McQueary a flashback to his own abuse, which would also explain why he was extremely upset. Maybe his father knew of such episodes by his son so didn't take his report so seriously.

    1. No matter what his reason for assuming 3 slapping sounds in a men's locker room was sex (you are just making wild speculations - he has never been asked this in court for some unknown reason), it definitely should put reasonable doubt on what he really saw in a less than ten second glance into a steamy mirror. Did his assumption affect what he thought he saw?

    2. I agree I am speculating but I don't think it is that wild a speculation as stuff about the mafia and child-sex rings. I agree with you that McQueary has not been questioned about many important aspects of his story.

      In particular, I believe McQueary should be questioned about the ESPN report that he told his players he was sexually abused as a child. Was McQueary sexually abused by a coach in the showers or was it just some kind of hazing by other players. A juror in the Vanderbilt football player rape case failed to disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse as a teen, and the judge ruled it a mistrial. McQueary was arguably much more important in the Sandusky trial than any one juror.

      Some aspects of McQueary's story seems difficult to believe. He alleged that watching a football movie on a Friday night motivated him to go to the football building to watch some recruiting tapes in February. His reason to visit the locker room was that he had bought a new pair of sneakers and wanted to put them in his locker. Most people would just wear the new sneakers to school and then wear the old pair home, not make a special trip.

    3. Also, McQueary had originally told the GJ it was March 2002 rather than 2001. Specifically saying it was the Friday before Spring Break, when it definitely was not. The reason being that if Sandusky was going to have sex with a boy in a non-private place, he would have picked a date when he did not expect any visitors. That whole theory blew up of course. Almost seems like a clear case of obstruction of justice, but the media seemingly wont make a peep about it.

    4. Russian Eagle,
      Mike's original statement to police stated it was 2001/2002.

      He recalled it was Spring break because no one was around in the PSU football facilities. However, he confused Spring Break with the end of recruiting season. After letter of intent day, the staff takes a week off. JVP and Sue typically flew to Hawaii for the Nike coaches gathering. Sue still goes.

    5. If it was the end of recruiting season, then why did McQueary testify he went in that night to look at recruiting tapes?

      The 2001 shower incident was Feb. 9, one day after PSU wide receivers coach, Kenny Jackson, left to join the Pittsburgh Steelers. It's hard to believe that McQueary didn't associate those two events because he wanted the wide receivers coaching job.

  9. Ray, many people agree with your comments about a pedophile ring at SM. However, I need to point out that if you try to make such comments in a letter to your local newspaper, they will not print them. The reason I got from our newspaper was that they had a problem printing them since no charges were made against anyone else. Gee, we are talking about OPINION letters. The media is afraid that if they print such comments that the state will actually have to GO THERE.

    Then there is our friends at Penn Live. Make such comments on a post there and it will be promptly deleted.

    Trust me folks, Ray is 100% correct when he says the media is involved in the cover-up of what really happened.

    1. DMarioP,

      Very good points indeed. The local newspapers will not print your opinions if they question the Second Mile's probable link to organized crime. This is why I exclusively post my opinions in this blog. I have no other social media outlets that I use to give my opinions on this mess. Because, I know that if I am persecuted for my opinions and information that I post, there is only one place that could have betrayed my trust.

      All PA papers are a part of the organized crime syndicate that is exploiting our children and jailing the innocent. The Cosa Nostra has now merged with the Jewish/American Mafia,(Zi**ism as the euphemism). I suggest that every decent, honest PA citizen research "politicians", judges, and law enforcement in Montgomery County very carefully. Do not rely on the MSM facade to form your opinions of these people.

      So don't expect Josh Shapiro, with his connections to dubious billionaire Michael Bloomberg to do the right thing concerning Kathleen Kane and the PSU three. It would only serve to expose what he is part of.

  10. Greg and Tim,
    You both seem to disagree with Ray's assertion that Sandusky wasn't the only one and the Second Mile may have been involved in trafficking. Rolling up the show and disappearing is akin to the old crooked carnivals that used to travel the country. This is what the Second Mile did with the blessing of Tom Corbett, Linda Kelly, Frank Noonan, and Pennsylvania's corrupt judiciary. Kathleen Kane was obviously trying(but not aggressively enough)to expose this massive corruption that endangers kids. The ones that opposed her and were involved in her persecution through the MSM are obviously involved in the cover-up of these illegal and immoral ventures.

    Greg, saying Ray is stoned when he gives his professional opinion is basically ad-hominem. I notice you made this nasty comment at 2:30 in the morning as you have also done to me when I make similar assertions. What gives?

    Tim, you also seem to want the buck to stop at PSU, McQueary, and the shower room. Why all the wild adult sexual debasement theories about the shower room at PSU? How about organized crime and its involvement in facilitating child sex trafficking?

    If we want to solve this, as Kathleen Kane did, then we need to get our minds out of the PSU shower room and into the picture of organized crime within our government. My earlier post was removed due to using the "Z" word, which is basically a term for white-collar organized crime. And if you all will notice, AimeeF and Jeff don't comment here until I leave a post that is too close to exposing this problem. Two tag-team shills perhaps?

  11. I usually read this stuff after 10:00PM PST

    Ray is not giving a professional opinion...he is sprouting wild speculation. A professional opinion would include providing backup data and and perhaps literature references to support his opinion.

    We know now, from Bagwell's work, that there is no ongoing Federal investigation.

    The media is not covering anything up. The cat is pretty much out of the bag on everything. Biasing coverage is different, and is alarmingly common. Anyone who has taken basic psychology should understand propaganda,tools used to influence opinion, spin, and bandwagon techniques. There is no substitute for a reader to have critical analytic skills. Those who don't will fall for every hoax in the universe, and will probably purchase choice bottomland in Georgia and maybe a bridge over the Hudson.

    Publishing something which is defamatory, per-se, with no data to validate the statement, is unethical and will likely result in a lawsuit.

    1. Gregory,
      Thanks for your readership and commentary.

      I don't post wild speculation, nor am I giving professional opinion. I am basing what I write on the facts.

      You live on the Left Coast and likely have little understanding and/or knowledge of what has been going down in Centre County and the level of corruption and depravity there.

      Next, Bagwell's work revealed there is not an ongoing Federal investigation of Penn State University. Nothing more than that.

      The Feds do not charge unless a case is rock solid and there are too many ways for The Second Mile to deny its financial data in its Annual Reports to prove a fraud occurred. The vast majority of fraud cases are broken by people on the inside who provide the critical evidence to the government. That isn't happening in this case.

      As such, the IRS would have to go to individual donor tax returns to obtain the information that could not be denied -- otherwise, the donor would be admitting to fraud.

      Recall that Ira Lubert was listed as a Director on the Southeast Region Board of TSM from 2005 t0 2009. When that was brought up as an issue when he was running for chair of the BOT, Lubert first claimed he never went to any meetings. He then upped the ante and said those were typographical errors. Since Lubert was not listed on the charity's IRS 900 forms (Regional Directors weren't included) there is no way of proving he was lying.

      Average white collar fraud cases take between 2 and 8 years to prove. Don't know if you're much for television, but tune into American Greed a few times to see how long it take to prove the cases. The case of Bernie Madoff was reported to the SEC ten years before Madoff eventually turned himself in. The Feds never caught him even though some financial whizzes gave them all the evidence they needed.

      Next topic....

      I have written extensively, with evidence to back it up, that the media (i.e., The Patriot News) is very much covering for Tom Corbett and the PA government for its failures in the Sandusky matter. Are you saying the media isn't aware of the janitor hoax? Or the other hoaxes in this case?

      By the way, I'm the individual with critical analytic skills that identified the janitor hoax immediately after the Sandusky transcripts were made public. I also was the first to state that there was no "cram down" and PSU and no death penalty threat. Corman's case showed that to be true.

      Media isn't reporting on that either. Bias or cover-up?

      I've been doing this for five years and have not been sued. Nothing I have written is false -- and the standard is that I have to write something that is "knowingly false" -- which is a tough standard to prove.