As for the PSU alumni reaction, admitting Joe ****ed up is more then I expected. You need to get a grip and realize just how crushing this is to that community. Not everyone is going to react in a manner you deem appropriate. Get over yourself.
I have not read the full report yet, and I doubt that most of the people posting have either. I don't live in the US so I am less affected by the reporting. The one thing that jumps out, however, is how few FACTS seem to be included in Freeh's report. In all the news coverage I have read, they constantly relay his CONCLUSIONS and OPINIONS but there is very little information on how he actually arrived at these conclusions.
For example, the email in 1998 says:
"Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."
This seems to be the only fact that has been reported to support the assertion that Paterno knew about the investigation by the authorities at that time. Is there more in the report? If so, it has not been reported. This email, in fact, is not conclusive of anything. There is no telling what Paterno knew about the investigation, or what his role was, or what Paterno knew about the exact allegations were made against Sandusky that were being investigated. Paterno may have known that there was some type of investigation but did he know what it was about? We can guess that he did, but is this all Freeh turned up as proof?
In 2001, there is an email from Curley that says they changed their mind about reporting the incident "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe." Again, is this it? There is no way of knowing what was said at that meeting, or what information Paterno was given or how much influence he had on the outcome. If Curley told Paterno that they had fully investigated the incident and basically didn't think there was much to it, does this change the view?
The problem with Freeh's report is that he didn't talk to ANY of the principals, nor even McQueary, and therefore does not seem to have any direct evidence. Clearly, the emails are not favourable to the people involved but they are far from conclusive. He concludes that the people involved basically conspired in a cover up to protect Penn State's (or their own) reputations, but again there is no evidence of this - it is just Freeh's opinion. Nobody seems to have provided any verbal or written evidence that they were in fact motivated by this. I would argue that their judgement was completely wrong, but it is a long way from this to a deliberate cover up. Freeh seems to be making this leap with no evidence that has been reported.
I strongly agree that the 2001 incident should have been reported to authorities, and that the people involved made the wrong judgement. The question is WHY they made that judgement. What information did they actually have and what were their motivations for behaving the way they did. Freeh's report basically adds nothing factual to this question as he has not taken evidence from anyone who was actually involved.
You have to question the real value of such a report. Freeh could not talk to any of the principals as they are either dead or subject to charges, or in McQueary's case he just didn't want to upset the prosecutors. Without their evidence, unless there was clear records of the meetings involved (and there are not) the best Freeh could do was lay down the facts and lay out the limitations of his report. However, his report appears to be a 'prosecutors report' which extrapolates from limited evidence to judgement. To be honest, in most other countries this sort of report would be considered highly prejudicial to the accused and probably illegal as a result.
One site I saw suggested that as a result of this report, the perjury cases are basically a formality and the people involved will be dragged off to jail. I am not at all sure of this. The facts in this case still seem very hazy with various witnesses giving varying accounts of the same thing. In a Court of Law, the prosecutor will need to do a whole lot better with the evidence than Freeh did.
I am not supporting any of the people involved at Penn State. I am pointing out that the reporting of this matter leaves a LOT to be desired with the press on a self righteous witch-hunt. I do SUSPECT that at least one or more of the people involved was at least criminally negligent, but I do not see enough evidence to PROVE it. I do, however, have a deep suspicion of Freeh's report given he was so quick to stray from limited facts to sweeping opinions without clearly outlining the limitations of his evidence.
This wasnt a case of "oh he messed up pretty bad", this was criminal. If he was still alive, he would be in cuffs. And he would 100% deserve it.
I think WVDolphans reponse of shocked, vehement, outrage is very appropriate. I know i keep feeling more and more of that as new details emerge. PSU alumni need to get outraged and demand accountability from the school. They need to practice what Joe Paterno would have preached, even if Paterno never would have practiced it.
Page 64. That page has a good number of facts, not opinions. These idiots used email quite often to discuss the matter, which results in plenty of facts being known.
- Schultz and Spanier, having prior knowledge of the 1998 child sex abuse allegation against Sandusky, approved Curley’s revised plan. Spanier noted in an email that the “only downside for us is if the message isnʹt ‘heard’ and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.”
Further, even without the report, we know some facts:
Fact: Children were raped.
Fact: Nobody called the police to report the child rape.
Fact: All the principal players were aware, in one way or another, of the rapes and did nothing about, meaning they didn't do the one thing they should have: notified the police.
That's all I need to know. The report only confirms the depth of the cover-up. Yes, it would have been nice to have recordings, or even better, video of every single conversation that occurred, with perfect shots of each of their faces to ensure there's no room for error in identification, but there has to be room for common sense.
Last edited by Gonzo; 07-13-2012 at 09:50 AM.
Joe Paterno knew in 1998. He knew of SOMETHING concerning Sandusky and a child, he even knew of the police investigation. Emails show that. He testified in front of a grand jury that he knew nothing before 2001. He was specifically asked if he knew even rumors. He stated he did not know of any rumors. Thats perjury.
On February 25th, 3 of the 4 men in charge agreed in emails to contact child services concerning Sandusky. On the 26th, at least 1 of them met with Paterno. On the 27th, they stated that "Coach" talked them into handling this in a "humane" way and not contacting the authorities, but they were worried about the fact that they didnt act coming back to bite them in the ass. And guess what, it did.
And finally, i do love how your questioning(much like i predicted a few pages ago) the competency of the former director of the FBI who had access to everything at PSU(despite the fact that one of those in the conspiracy tried to amend their rules to cover up the emails). You give the feds, even former ones, access to your archive rooms and they will eviscerate you with it. Once FBI agents have emails, its game over. You might as well walk into jail at that moment.
Freeh meet with over 400 people in 8 months. Why would he meet with 3 who have already lied to a grand jury. Oh, and by the way, HE DOESNT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! This ISNT a criminal investigation. This was a internal investigation to find out if Paterno and others knew anything about the scandal. This was to find out if Paterno was fired for cause. And guess what: he did and he was.
Nublars absence in this thread is very telling.
Of course Freeh didn't interview everyone. He didn't have subpoena authority. A criminal investigation will put everyone under a microscope and the rats will be pointing their noses at each other.