They won't hit PUS with a LOIC charge.
They won't hit PUS with a LOIC charge.
Not a fan of Stephen A. Smith but I absolutely agree with everything he says here
It's ironic because a Lack of Institutional Control isn't what has been displayed here. It's just the opposite.
They were in complete control. This was a calculated, cohesive effort by the entire administration all the way from the football field up to the president of the university, to harbor and protect a child predator, and allow him to maintain access to the athletic facilities.
The NCAA allows it's member institutions to be members based on a certain set of criteria in terms of ethics. By the time all the civil suits are over with, the lack of funding for the university and athletic department may have the same impact as if the NCAA had administered the death penalty.
Not only has the football program essentially commited suicide here, but it's also tainted the institution academically. A degree handed out from an entire administration facing criminal charges is likely radioactive.
You are right, this was not a criminal investigation. He did not have access to 'everything' - in fact, the key evidence was unavailable to him. However, Freeh wanted to tell everyone that he found out what had happened. The reality is, that for all the interviews he did and the emails he read, he failed to do that. Therefore, he turned in a prosecutors report rather than an independent one.
I would like to know exactly what happened as much as anyone, but in the long run I think you are going to find Freeh's report it an obstacle. It is so easy to attack from a legal point of view that it will actually make the perjury defences of the guys charged easier. Their lawyers have already made statements to this affect. Remember, they could have their own records (which Freeh was not able to see) which could contradict his findings. It was reckless of Freeh to make such conclusive findings in these circumstances.
FWIW, the KEY questions that we do not know the answers to are:
- When Paterno referred the 2001 incident to his bosses, EXACTLY what further role did he play in the investigation?
- When Curley and Schultz investigated and met with McQueary after Paterno reported the incident to them, what exactly did he tell them about what happened? McQueary's testimony on this has been inconsistent so far.
- Did Paterno have ANY conversations with McQueary about this after the original one?
- What conclusion did Curley and Schultz come to about what happened in the shower, and what did they tell Paterno and Spanier they found?
- Was anyone else involved in the investigation and were any notes kept of the investigation?
- When Curley and Schultz told McQueary the results of their investigation did he agree with the outcome of object? If he objected, who did he speak to about it? Did Paterno ever follow up with McQueary to see if he was satisfied with the outcome or put him under any pressure to agree to the outcome for the sake of keeping the issue in-house?
The answers to these questions was what I was expecting from Freeh - he added virtually nothing to what was already known.
Penn State asked Freeh to publically report everything. To call a press conferance. To tell people exactly what went on. One person in the loop said something to the effect of "they hired their own executioner". Originally they wanted to proof read the report before presenting it to the media, but then backed down from that when people got outraged. They did so because they wanted to make it as transparent as possible. And boy, did Freeh oblige them. To sob about Freeh calling a press conferance is to sob about Freeh doing his job, a job about uncovering those who helped a child molester. The evidence Freeh does have was enough to convince people of a dangerous pattern of behavior. The Freeh report is public, everyone can read it. If the Paterno family or others have evidence that contradicts anything in that report they can make it public at any time. Legally, truth is a complete defense against slander.
As for the key questions:
- emails show that he had conversations concerning the situation, as for "what futher role did he play" that really doesnt matter. He knew, he spoke to them at length, and he could have called the police when the "bosses" failed to act. He didnt, which makes him guilty of, at worst, child endangerment and, at best, directly aiding a child molester. The fact that he knew about Sandusky as early as 1998 and commited perjury about that fact is just the cherry on top. Emails show that he had a role beyond what he had publically(and legally) stated: that he just passed it up the wire. He actively worked with the other 3.
-what exactly McQueary told them is, again, mostly irrelevant. Because of the emails found from 1998, they knew that Sandusky had disturbing habits with children. Even if McQueary told them the very minimum, that Sandusky was naked with a child in the shower, they should have called the police then. They did not. The emails Freeh uncovered showed they had prior knowledge to similar situations.
-Again, the coach knew about disturbing incidents concerning Sandusky. Why would he need to talk to McQueary again?
-Ugh, the conclusion that Curley and Schultz came to was to cover it up. They did nothing, which is a cover up. One of the people involved actually tried to amend their release of information rules.
-We will know if anything was kept from investigators in the upcoming perjury cases. But it does suggest that emails were kept from investigators. He also has hand written notes, such as Joe Paterno's recommendation that Sandusky host a youth football program with Penn State sponsership(of some sort, im not sure exactly what became of that). Regardless, all of this information was kept from law enforcement officials until 2011, when Sandusky was charged.
-Paterno never followed up any of this in any real way. He continued to see Sandusky in the office a few feet away from his. Emails confirm that Paterno met with Curly and pressed the other 2 for a decision in the 1998 incident, a decision that did nothing(which he went along with). McQueary has previously acknowledged that he continued to see Sandusky for years after the incident. If anyone objected, it was the weakess objection in the history of mankind.
Freeh is a former federal agent, a former prosecuter, a former judge, and the former director of the FBI. There are very few roles in the legal system that this man has not been directly involved with. He was overwhelmingly convinced that every level of Penn State was guilty of something. From the janitors to the board of trustees, everyone played a role in the continued predatory acts of a monster. Not all will be convicted of a crime, but as we have mentioned this was not a criminal investigation. This was a very public internal investigation. While this certainly helps prosecution teams(whether they are the upcoming perjury cases or civil suits) this was to establish who knew about Sandusky prior to the 2011 arrest(and to a lesser extent, 2001).
In the legal system all you have to do is prove that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The doubt you are expressing concerning Paterno does not fall into that catagory. Basically, your doubt is unreasonable. It seems you want video proof of Paterno and others in the same room with Sandusky as he rapes a child while they all wear wires and Paterno has 5 members of his immediate family to confirm that it is really Paterno and everyone holds up 2 forms of identification. Even then, im sure the possibility of cloning would be brought up.
People can do all the logic gymnastics they want, but it is now established as fact: Coach Joe Paterno(and Curly, etc) knew that Sandusky had child molestation allegations against him as far back as 1998. And, in the best case scenario, he did nothing and later lied about it.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing"I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
To use an analogy, in an aircraft crash there is almost never a single cause. It is almost always a succession of small things that went wrong. The reason they spend millions investigating them is so that people can learn and make sure it does not happen again.
Here, everyone wants there to be a nice, easy, single cause - Paterno and co were lying scumbags who didn't care about anything except themselves and their football program. It might make people feel better about it all, but it is most unlikely to be the truth. The reality is much more likely to be that basically decent people made a succession of bad decisions based on information they had, or limited or incomplete information they had at the time, or were put under pressure that made them make bad decisions. That is why is it most important to discover exactly what each person knew, and when. Your post has again exaggerated what can actually be determined from the emails. They do not PROVE that Paterno knew any detail about the 1998 allegations, although I accept that he may well have done. They do not say that he spoke to the others 'at length' - they say nothing at all about the content and the depth of his interventions. I suspect he was more involved, but this has not been proved either.
My criticism of Freeh is that he played for the gallery by giving people what they wanted, not what the evidence showed. And honestly, his credentials as head of the FBI do not do anything to impress me - he is a prosecutor and played the prosecutor here, not the independent fact finder he was employed to be. The FBI have a frankly terrible record of protecting the rights of accused!
By the way, there is NO chance that Paterno would even be charged with perjury if he was alive, let alone be convicted. Perjury is amazingly hard to prove and requires an intent to lie and corroboration that the statement was a lie, neither of which are present. There is very little chance he would have been charged with child endangerment as legally he fulfilled his responsibility to report to his superiors. I think you are going to find when the Curely / Schultz trials come on that criminal proof is a lot harder to come by than Freeh would like us to believe. I am not saying they are innocent, but at the moment I would say they have a better than 50% chance of an acquittal.
Not sure but if I were the Governor of Pennsylvania I would look long and hard at the campus police and their involvement in all this as well. If the head of police was informed base on the statutes he is responsible to open investigation and carry out an investigation as is any police agency.
This whole thing is rotten from top to bottom and the only ones I have any sympathy for are the victims because not one single person lifted a finger to help them, PSU gets what they get and so does Joe.
Peace and Humptiness Forever