Saturday, July 21, 2012

Demolishing The Freeh Report and everyone who believed it one dishonest premise at a time.



The biggest reason for writing more about the Freeh Report is, like the news media and politicians on both sides I've written about in the past, the Freeh Report is dishonest, in many ways incomprehensibly incompetent, and had an agenda to fit a preconceived idea and it was going to fill that agenda even if it meant doing it not just with distortions but out and out fabrications. And the reaction of the mob and the press who swallowed it uncritically and without investigation, who accepted its conclusions blindly, is important because the Freeh Report itself, the reactions of the press and the people who believed it is in microcosm, everything that has gone wrong with the country and why the country as a whole is in the trouble its in in terms of politics and policies that aren't working.

 Everything about the Freeh Report and the reactions of the press and people who believe what they read without checking facts, or even applying common sense is how fascism took a foothold in Europe in the 1930's. A dishonest bureaucratic authority figure disseminating propaganda and outright lies to fit a preconceived idea, offering unchallenged "evidence" that wouldn't last a minute in a court room, an incompetent, spineless press, spreading and repeating the lies without bothering to see what is true and what isn't and not caring, and a mindless mob who wont think for themselves who swallow it and then, torches lit, go on their midnight rampage. The comments by the university president as to why the statue was taken down are worse than the statue being taken down ( like some mob pulling down statues in Stalinist Russia). His comments are a disgrace to an insittution of higher learning and if he thinks that committing gross injustices, throwing away one's ability to think and committing immoral acts in the name of morality is the way to help heal victims of abuse, by committing an abuse himself as the press commonly does, then if in the future, if facts that Freeh either chose to ignore or that he knew he didnt have prove otherwise, that will be the stain he has brought on himself and the lack of leadership at the university.

As for the press, they are ostensbily there to protect us from lies, distortions and abuses by those in authority. If someone doesnt have proof, they are supposed to dig until they find it and report the truth. They are so supposed to be adversial in their relationship with those who have even a modicum of power. Those characteristics are a bad joke when it comes to what we have as a press and its been the case for a long time.

This episode is not just about Paterno. Its not about one person. Its how lies spread, how the press fails miserably in their responsibilities, ( as they have for decades) and how the mob mentality, sure of their own moral rightness, commits crimes in the name of their morality and becomes every bit as immoral as a Sandusky while trying to prove to themselves and everybody else that the opposite is true.

 Far from exposing Paterno for any wrong doing, it exposes other things. It exposes the sheer stupidity and cowardice of journalists who have a history of stampeding like mindless cattle or acting like parrots. It exposes the people too stupid or too lazy to see how impossibly nonsensical and dishonest the report is, how as a legal document or investigation it fails on every level, because it would take away their one chance to exhibit their self serving but phony sense of morality. And it exposes the stupidity of the report itself, and the dishonesty of Louis Freeh whose name the report carries.

So the next time you see or hear anyone grandstanding about Paterno and the Freeh Report, know you are looking at or hearing a moral coward who has never stood for or up to anything in their lives, who look at the torch carrying mob of people just like them and think to themselves, "now's my chance".

 This level of stupidity even found its way to the city of Grambling, home to Grambling College. An attorney there with the support of the mayor petitioned the NCAA to vacate 3 Penn State victories based on the Freeh Report. Morality? Hardly. They want Eddie Robinson the famed Grambling coach to be able to claim the most victories by a coach in NCAA history. That is the morality in microcosm of the people who buy the Freeh Report. Its all based on what's in it for them. But here is a news flash for the mayor of Grambling and their obviously ignorant attorney. Paterno could have been convicted of mass murder and it wouldn't be grounds to vacate any victories by the Penn State football team. My advice to the mayor and this ignorant attorney would be to stop grandstanding and degrading yourself for your own self serving reasons. But this is the level of stupidity and immorality that the Freeh Report brings out.

Freeh's report at its heart is dishonest and decietful and Freeh uses deceit to make his point.  Freeh's report has as its heart the premise that Paterno knew of the abuse of Sandusky and the 1998 investigation and kept quiet about it and lied to the grand jury to protect Penn State from bad publicity. The premise is not just false its stupid and what Freeh calls, and which the mindless swallowed, as proof, not proof at all but what Freeh got away with because, unlike a courtroom, there was no adversary challenging Freeh's so called evidence, no judge to throw it out, no rule of law to follow and no rules of evidence. Freeh knew he had a kangaroo court and it was a matter of what he could get away with. And with an incompetent and ignorant press and those who believe them, he did.

 PREMISE 1: PATERNO KNEW ABOUT 1998 INVESTIGATION.

 This is one of the cornerstones of the Freeh Report. Its the basis for Freeh's premise that Paterno knew of and hid Sandusky's activities, and the investigation and then lied about it in his grand jury testimony "to shield Penn State from bad publicity."

As you'll see the stupidity of the premise based on what Freeh calls "proof" which is no proof of anything, is mind boggling and in a court room with any competent lawyer would do more to undermine his case than prove it..

 FREEH'S "PROOF".

 The "proof" Freeh uses to claim unequivocally and with absolute certainty that Paterno knew about the Sandusky investigation in 1998 and so consequently perjured himself during his grand jury testimony, are three emails between Curley and Schultz which refers to Curley asking for updates on the progress of the investigation and a reference to "coach anxious to know".

 Freeh wants you to believe that "Coach" is Paterno.  Freeh's proof is that he says it. Not because he proves it. But barring any definitive proof that it is Paterno, ( not because Freeh says it no matter how much the lap dogs lap it up) the probability, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, is that the "Coach" Curley is referring to is Sandusky.

 Sandusky knew he was being investigated. He was not only set up in a sting by campus police detectives who eavesdropped on a conversation initiated by the mother of one of the boys he showered and who confronted him while detectives eavesdropped in another room, he was also interviewed by a psychologist from DPW as part of the investigation, who interviewed  Sandusky to get his account of what happened in the shower. It was the fact that Sandusky's account was the same as the account given by the boys he showered with that led to the psychologists conclusion that no abuse had taken place, since there had been no genital touching, no touching of thighs or other parts of the body or anything that could be called abuse. So Sandusky knew he was under investigation. He was also approaching his 30 year benchmark as an employee at Penn State a milestone which, if he reached,  would have a profound affect on his pension, income and future.

 Does anyone think or believe that Sandusky would not want to know the progress of the investigation by Penn State police of the allegations against him? Does anyone think he wouldn't call on his decades long relationship with the Athletic Director Tim Curley to ask him to find out for him? And aside from what it might mean for him financially,  how about the potential legal consquences of the investigation? The investigation had to be the single most important event in Sandsusky's life at the time. So where is the documentation showing Sandusky inquiring about the progress of the investigation? Where are the emails? Where are the phone records showing Sandusky called Curley to find out? They don't exist because the email that from Curley to Schultz that says " Coach anxious to know" may be it.

 It's not possible that Sandusky would not have wanted to know. If there were some proof of his attempts at finding out, then at least we would have a distinction between that and the email Freeh tries to make you believe is Paterno. What makes matters even worse, and makes both the press and those who swallowed the report even dumber and well fitted for a brownshirt, is the fact that Freeh doesn't even state with certainty or claims of proof that "Coach" is in fact  Paterno. Instead the report states, " It is believed 'Coach' is Paterno". So alll this is about Freeh saying it is believed? They statue is to come down because Freeh says "it is believed" because he has no proof?  When there is more evidence to support that it is Sandusky?

 If anyone with even minimum intelligence doesn't thinks Sandusky wanted to know what was going on with this investigation that could change his life, stop reading and don't go any further. Nothing else will penetrate the concrete.

And who do you suppose would be more "anxious to know"? Paterno when Sandusky was no longer even part of the football staff having been replaced as defensive coach? Or Sandusky who had his whole life riding on it?

There is no getting around the fact that Sandusky had to have wanted to know what was going on with the investigation and his only conduit would have been Curley. If there are other emails or documentary evidence that clearly shows other attempts by Sandusky to find out, that might have been evidence that "Coach" could be Paterno. But Freeh didn't produce them. And he might not have produced them because they don't exist. And they don't exist because the email Freeh wants you to ":believe" is Paterno refers to Sandusky. At the very least it raises more than reasonable doubt, as to Freeh's premise and conclusion, something everyone in the press and many who didnt even read it, just swallowed without question.

But " it is believed ' is good enough. For some. But this is what makes Freeh's report not just dishonest but decietful. There is one thing Freeh knows, and that everybody knows about that email. And that is Curley knows who "Coach is". Its not a mystery. Its not unknowable. Curley knows. And we know he knows. But Curley has his own legal issues to deal with an upon advice of counsel has declined to talk to Freeh or make public statements. So at best an honest investigator would say that since Tim Curley has declined to be interviewed, the best that could be said is that the matter of who "coach" is, is unresolved. But Freeh doesnt do that. With no corroborating evidence, and with all the circumstantial evidence pointing to "coach" being Sandusky, but at the very least, knowing that he doesnt really know, Freeh says, "Coach is believed to be Paterno".

We will know eventually when Curley tells us who he was referring to when he wrote "Coach". But not till after his legal issues are resolved. And that could be some time. But Freeh doesnt want to wait. He wants to lynch Paterno right now because that's what he was paid $6 million to do. The last thing he wants to do is honestly say at the very least,  the issue is unresolved. Imagine the difference in the response to the report if thats what he had said.  But no time to wait for the truth. Get the rope and hang him now. And this from the man who was torn to peices by the 911 Commission for his bungling, mishandling and in some cases not taking seriously enough, terrorist related intelligence pre-911. And the press and the people who believed him swallowed every word as fact. This alone is what makes Freeh not just dishonest and incompetent but deceitful.

 The other preposterous point of the report deals with Paterno keeping it quiet to protect Penn State from bad publicity. How would Paterno be able to keep the investigation quiet with a full blown police investigation in progress and state psychologists from DPW already involved? To call Freeh's premise stupid is to insult stupid people. To call those emails proof of Paterno's knowledge is beyond absurd. At worst there is more than reasonable doubt as to who "coach" is, something Freeh never investigated to the point of actually having proof, and at best, barring further evidence, common sense says its more likely that "coach" is Sandusky not Paterno and that Freeh is something out of Les Miserables.

 One other point. Even if you wanted to say that Paterno knew of the investigation as Freeh tries to claim when all the available evidence contradicts it, then Paterno had to know the results of the investigation too, something pointed out in the previous article and something Freeh omits from his report -- because the results of the investigation exonerated Sandusky (rightly or wrongly) from any criminal behavior or child abuse. So if Paterno knew of the investigation ( which there is no real proof he did) then he also knew Sandusky was exonerated in the 1998 investigation. So what would he be trying to cover up? That Sandusky was exonerated? What was he trying to shield Penn State from in his grand jury testimony by committing perjury? That nothing happened and Sandusky was cleared? If Paterno really knew, it would be to his advantage to tell the grand jury he knew of the investigation and that the results exonerated Sandusky of any wrong doing, not lie about it and risk a perjury charge.

 This is how preposterous Freeh's premise is. It should also be noted that Freeh says in his report that " it is not known how the conclusion of the investigation was conveyed to Paterno". Why not, oh great sleuth? Did that one stump ya? Can't find one single piece of documentary evidence, not one email of the tens of thousands you went through that mentions that the conclusion of the investigation was "conveyed" to Paterno? And if you think Freeh's choice of words in using "conclusion" is an accident and not carefully and intentionally chosen, then you are a candidate for buying swamp land in Florida.

 Freeh uses the word " conclusion" and not "result" for a reason. He talks about Paterno "knowing" about the investigation but eliminates any comment about Paterno knowing the result, and instead uses the word "conclusion" as if the investigation just stopped with no result. Because the result of the investigation was that Sandusky was cleared of any wrong doing. And if Paterno knew that, there was nothing to protect Penn State from and throws Freeh's entire premise of Paterno covering up to protect Penn State completely out the window. Which is where anyone with a shred of common sense should have thrown this "report" a long time ago.

 Do these emails that reference "coach" refer to Sandusky? My bet is 2-1 that they do but let's be honest 2-1 shots lose. They are no sure thing. But even Freeh admits he cant say for sure and has no evidence to prove it. Which doesn't stop him from drawing the conclusion and doesnt stop the mob from wanting to take down the statue. Kind of like Paterno is now Saddam. Right?
Freeh was running a kangaroo court and intentionally distorting facts to fit his absurd conclusion,and people who have probably never stood up to or for anything in their lives and were chomping at the bit to pretend they were morally superior bought it.
 If Paterno was given the presumption of innocence that he was entitled to and a reasonable doubt standard applied, the Freeh Report would be a joke.Actually it's a joke anyway.
One other point about the 1998 emails. Freeh claims, and is central to one of his premises that Joe Paterno was the most powerful man at Penn State. He could do anything. But when it came to finding out the progress of an investigation he was supposedly "anxious" to know about" (even though the idea Paterno would be "anxious" to know is preposterous) we are supposed to believe that Mr. All Powerful doesn't pick up the phone and call Schultz himself to find out? He goes through channels instead and asks Curley to find out for him? If he's "anxious to know" why doesn't Paterno call Schultz himself? If Paterno isn't "anxious to know" then those emails refer to Sandusky not Paterno.
One last point about the emails. Every journalist and commentator in the country and the people who swallowed their nonsense criticized Paterno on only one major issue -- that "he didn't do enough". Every criticism of Paterno and their argument that he "didn't do enough" was based on their insistence that he didn't go to the police. Every criticism was based on their pontificating that Schultz "wasn't the police" even though he held the title of "Head of Penn State Police Services". It was the mob's mantra.

 But the emails produced by Freeh shows that in 1998 Thomas Harmon, the Capt. of Penn State police who was in charge of overseeing the Sandusky investigation reported directly to Schultz. It was Schultz to whom he gave constant updates as to the progress and status of the investigation. And when Curley wanted to get an update he went to Schultz. If Paterno going to Schultz was "not doing enough" because Schultz "wasn't the police", why was Harmon, the Captain of Penn State police reporting directly to Schultz ? Because he was vice president of Business and Finance?

 Would the mob have leveled the same criticism that Paterno "didn't go to the police" had he gone to Harmon, Captain of Penn State police? No. But the ignorant in the press, ignorant and too lazy to do the job they are paid to do, instead criticized Paterno for going to Harmon's boss. Lewis Carroll would be taking notes.

The rest of the report,especially the infamous "After talking with Joe"  Curley email that Freeh changes and misrepresents to fit his dishonest agenda,(Freeh writes that the email says one thing and actually changes the words in the report when the email clearly says another and the opposite of what Freeh wants to represent) an act which if committed in a court room might have gotten him disbarred, can also be demolished as it pertains to Paterno. And if it matters in the future it will be done.

 There is also now talk about the possibility of removing Paterno's statue. If they do they should at least have the intellectual honesty of doing the right thing and replacing it with a statue of Louis Freeh. And under it should be the inscription: " 'Coach' is believed to be Paterno' ".

 And if Penn State and the people who believe the Freeh Report  and want to remove the statue are really honest and don't want to be abject hypocrites, and a bunch of phonies don't stop at the statue. Don't be part time weekend moralists. Stand up for your beliefs and do the only honest and honorable thing based on your values and demolish the Paterno Library, the library built with contributions made by Paterno and has his name. But first take out every book and CD, DVD and document in the library, pile them up at the football stadium, pour gasoline on them, and burn them. Then demolish the building. And show that when it comes to morals you mean what you say. And that when you stand up for justice, virtue and morality you don't compromise. And don't forget to bring the marshmallows. And the swastikas.

 To paraphrase Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does.

And again, when another point of view by a political conservative who is on the opposite end of the political spectrum sees close to the same thing,its not smoke, its fire. That point of view can be seen here.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

For someone who accuses those who disagree with him of fostering a revival of fascism, you have a strange idea of how public debate works in a liberal democracy. In a liberal democracy, you attempt to PERSUADE others through the strength of your arguments. You don't persuade; you rant. In this posting alone, you have employed the following words to describe those who disagree with you : fascist, incompetent, blind, dishonest, spineless, immoral, stupid, coward, parrots, mob, lazy, phony, ignorant, degraded, absurd, dumb, brownshirt, preposterous, joke and swastikas. Do you think that this is how you participate in a rational debate? You accuse your opponents of fascism but you are the one who acts like a Weimar street-corner orator spewing invective at his audience. Guess who those guys were? Why would anyone make the effort to understand your arguments if they have to wade through "fascists", "brownshirts" etc. to get to them?

Here's a word of advice. If, after typing a posting, you find that you have spittle on your lips, don't post it.

Anonymous said...

You say that people who accept the condemnation of Joe Paterno in the Freeh Report are immoral, phony, torch-bearing brownshirts in a fascist mob. You call them cowards. Let's see how brave YOU are.

Michael Boni, the attorney for Victim 1, told ESPN on July 13, 2012 the following about his client's response to the Freeh Report:

"Right now, he just feels a sense of ire and frustration that Joe Paterno and these bumbling administrators thought more to protect the football program and their old pal Jerry Sandusky than to consider for one split second his actual and potential victims. I don't think the English language has a word for the level of frustration Victim 1 feels over being molested after they made the decision to cover-up what Sandusky had done."


and the following about his client's mother's response

"She is just filled with hatred toward Joe Paterno. She just hates him, and reviles him, and pins total blame on him for what happened to her son."

Are Victim 1 and his mother immoral, phony fascists? Are they torch-bearing brownshirts? Don't be a coward now. I know that you despise cowards. Look Victim 1 and his mother (you know, the people you say that you care so very, very much about) in the eye and tell them that they are spineless, dishonest, immoral fascists.

Don't punk out now. Man up and tell that fascist bastard and his ignorant mom exactly what they are.

Anonymous said...

Oh, oh, it seems that Victims 3, 7 and 10 have also been "goose stepping", so to speak, through State College, as confirmed by this response to the Freeh Report:

“It confirms that at the highest level, Penn State officials, including the University President and head football coach, knew that Sandusky was a child predator, but made the deliberate and reprehensible decision to conceal his abuse."

Paul Landis said...

Thank you, Marc, for a solid important look at the Freeh Report.
Clearly orchestrated to support the un-supportable decision of the Penn State Board of Trustees to Fire Coach Paterno.

There is much we do not know:
What was and are the skeletons in their closets that the PSU Board of Trustees are working so hard to protect?

Their actions with MBNA to agree to not use other credit card companies

That is where the truth of the Freeh report is.

Again, thank you.

Anonymous said...

snip snip: Now, further evidence that Jerry Sandusky’s TSM was being used to traffic underage boys to wealthy donors took a major step forward via a July 19 interview with Greg Bucceroni, currently employed as a school police officer in the Philadelphia, Pa. school district while also volunteering with the District Attorney’s office.

Bucceroni told this reporter, “In 1979 and 1980—when I was 13 and 14 years old—a well-connected pedophile named Edward Savitz took me on trips from Philadelphia to TSM fundraisers. I knew the minute I got there it was a breeding ground because of Savitz’s involvement. While [Jerry] Sandusky interacted with wealthy donors, the other men were sizing-up kids. I felt like a cheap whore because I was in these naked pictures that Savitz was passing around.”

When asked how certain he was in regard to these claims, Bucceroni replied, “I’m sure of it. Savitz talked about taking kids from Philly to TSM and introducing them to men—soliciting them to ‘his friends.’ They exchanged and swapped kids like baseball cards. It was a feeding frenzy. I felt like a prostitute or a go-go dancer at a bachelor party. I felt dirty, used and cheap.”

When it came to TSM’s founder, Bucceroni didn’t overplay what happened. “Savitz introduced me to Sandusky on two separate occasions, but he didn’t come across like a pedophile. The other guys at these functions, though, were different. I could tell from their body language what they had in mind. When I met him, Jerry was a like a movie star. Everyone called him ‘Coach.’ After Savitz hand-delivered my enrollment forms to him, Jerry grabbed me by the shoulder—not in a sexual way—and said, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you.’ Savitz told me that Jerry would take kids to football games.”

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=5116

.

Anonymous said...

So TSM fundraisers were auctions where pedophiles bid for children? Do you have any idea how many prominent Penn State people, especially athletes, not only attended TSM fundraisers but played key roles in them (e.g., Joe acted as MC at one)?

I don't understand. Is this an unspeakable attack on Penn State and Joe or what?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your lengthy review. While haters see it as ramblings, your points are clear. There is no proof that Joe tried to interfere with the investigation and the Freeh reports stands only as a $6 million bungler's rantings to justify his pay directed at a ready made and deceased scapegoat. Sad that we live in a society, a world, conditioned by repetition to grasp sensationalism and refuse think critically using facts. As the statue is removed ("stored" though the throngs of sheep would surely like it melted, delivered to S's victims as compensation), I fully expect years from now, in a 10-15 second spot limited by it's lack of destructive value to all the networks, a simple retraction will be made confirming that when calmer heads and critical eyes looked at the evidence that the truth of JoePa's limited capacity to do anything more than he did (despite wanting to) will be unveiled. And most will then say: "That's a shame that the networks did that to JoePa and to us" as they savor the next new morsel of half truth presented sensationally and successfully hijacking their attention.

Anonymous said...

Victim one's mother should be outraged for not having enough sense to send her child alone with a stranger. It's called accountability and since they had none for their children it's easy to place blame on everyone else. Parents never send your children alone with people you don't know. I wonder what will happen if Curley and Schultz are found not guilty?

Alessandro Machi said...

It's important to remember that not that many people had email addresses back in 1998. The internet and emails did not really take off until around 2000.

University's may be different, but lets not forget that the IMAC did not come out until 1998. It's possible that Paterno was more old school and maybe did not do a bunch of emailing.

Pat said...

If you're mad at anyone other than the people who could have turned in Jerry Sandusky, you're wrong. One phone call could have stopped all of this. ONE PHONE CALL. That list includes Paterno, Harmon, Baldwin, Spanier, Curley and Schultz

Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that you consider those who believe anything in the Freeh Report as mindless sheep, when your desire to disagree with everything based simply on your own conjecture makes you exactly what you protest against. It reminds me of a rant by an angry, rebellious teenager who simply disagrees with anything proffered by any adult in a position of authority.

Also ironic is the way you dispute the factual nature of the Freeh Report by using massive amounts of conjecture.

I came to this blog post searching for intellectual discource on a complex topic. Unfortunately, I found the exact opposite. I am quite comfortable with your right to publish your own opinion in your own blog, but I did feel a need to discuss the extremely poor logic used in the entry in the comment section.

I must admit my own bias though. I was immediately skeptical about the entry when I noticed that you butchered the supposed Will Rogers quote at the beginning (although it did accurately relay the intent of his quote), and the multiple spelling errors did make me question your attention to detail before I read your main argument. I do feel that you have the potential to write intelligently on this topic, but you do set the Support Joe Paterno movement with this illogical drivel.

Anonymous said...

Reading the report before reading the reviews, I completely agree. I expected to find the "smoking gun", but it just is not there. It is sickening to me how many media outlets and people imn general just accept the perception of Freeh's report without critically reading it and discovering how troubling it is. This report does not prove anything to me, except how uneducated the sheeple really are. I am nearly speechless and shocked over this UNDERWHELMING report.

Anonymous said...

To the individual who stated this,
"I find it ironic that you consider those who believe anything in the Freeh Report as mindless sheep, when your desire to disagree with everything based simply on your own conjecture makes you exactly what you protest against"
I find it ironic how you prove his point. Paterno is innocent until proven guilty. Nothing is even remotely close to proven, except Freeh's "leaps of faith" and unfouned conclusions. If Paterno did know about the investigation in 1998, then he also knew it had been thoroughly investigated and it deemed not illegal.
Did you actually read the report?

Anonymous said...

For all the Penn State fans in denial, you have Victim 1's mother who stated Paterno knew and did nothing. In addition, the second incident was reported at Paterno's home by his assistant in detail. Paterno indicates that "something of a sexual nature" had occurred; however, he failed to notify anyone because it was the weekend. He did not want to "disrupt" anyone's weekend. Hopefully, you will not continue to idolize a man who fails to act on an allegation of sexual abuse of a child to not disrupt someone's weekend. That is totally logical--right? It is appropriate to mention the problem the athletics department had with the incident involving Rene Portland and her discrimination. Armed with this inforomation, how can you be sure Paterno was not aware of her position to defy university policy? He did make the recommendation for her hire. Obviously Penn State has a huge problem with the tail wagging the dog. Your administration and coaches have demonstrated the opinion policy and law is subjective to interpretation. They are WRONG. It is time to remove your head from the sand, admit there is a problem, and take every measure to prevent a future occurence. As some have stated, sanctions will not reverse any damage these children suffered, but hopefully it will deter universities that seek to enable child predators in the name of a game. Penn State is an academic institution, but it is apparent they desperately need an education--enter NCAA.

Aurabass said...

The key to who is responsible for the whole situation besides Sandusky could very well be in 1998

Joe and the PSU admin's could not have made DPW take over for CYS
They could not have authorized CYS and Second Mile counselor to interview 6 over the objection of DA Arnold
They could not substitute Seasock's report for Dr. Chambers psych evaluation and they could not engineer the loss of Chambers report

That had to come from someone in power at the State level

Brief Summary: In 1998 CYS is replaced by DPW in the Victim 6 investigation and in the process A.Chambers damning psychological evaluation is hidden from DPW investigator Lauro. Instead a CYS counselor who worked with The Second Mile gives a "pedophile free" evaluation over the objection of DA Arnold to Lauro who advises Gricar to close the case. Sandusky goes undiscovered. Sounds downright Machiavellian but the Freeh Report reveals that's what happened. Ironic isn't it? Freeh could have actually cleared Joe and PSU and discovered the real reason that Sandusky was not found out in 1998?

The Second Mile may be up to their necks in this but we will likely never know what they knew. The organizations assets and likely all their files and computers have been taken by Arrow Ministries of Houston headed by a Republican who hails from central Pennsylvania and is close personally with the Governor and other prominent PA Republicans. Arrow Foundation Ministry and Arrow to take over Second Mile see second item down the list

Who was it? Mike Fisher then the Attorney General or Tom Corbett his predecessor? It certainly wasn't Joe Tim or Gary. Who let JS off the hook in 1998? Someone invested in the Second Mile.

Link: 1998 So Close to an End for Sandusky http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-second-mile-involvement-suspicion.html

Anonymous said...

Post in summary: Paterno COULD NOT have been the "coach" referred to in the Freeh report because you put 2-1 odds on it being Sandusky. This is purely an assumption made by a man who will deflect blame towards everyone BUT the holy Paterno and cherry pick half-truths to prove a point that is vague at best.

Note to other posters - Be careful. Marc is the only one allowed to make assumptions. If you make some of your own based on the evidence, be prepared for an attack that features 5th-grade name calling and a blatant lack of desire to discuss a complicated matter like a civilized human being.

-MC

Anonymous said...

The burden of proof is on those making the accusations big guy.

Anonymous said...

hi tom! pedojoe is dead. no matter how hard you suck, his dick won't get hard for you.

Anonymous said...

"Victim one's mother should be outraged for not having enough sense to send her child alone with a stranger. It's called accountability and since they had none for their children it's easy to place blame on everyone else."

You miserable excuse for a human being. Did Victim 1 himself "place blame on everyone else"? Let's look again at the person on whom Victim 1 placed the blame for his rape :


"Right now, he just feels a sense of ire and frustration that Joe Paterno and these bumbling administrators thought more to protect the football program and their old pal Jerry Sandusky than to consider for one split second his actual and potential victims. I don't think the English language has a word for the level of frustration Victim 1 feels over being molested after they made the decision to cover-up what Sandusky had done."

You are more blatant about it but you are typical of Joe's supporters in your attitude toward the victims and their families, namely that they're trash. It's killing you that your hero was brought low by people whom you consider worthless. How dare they?

Yes, it's true that when a mother is inattentive (for whatever reason), her child may "stray from the herd". But when HONORABLE, DECENT men and women see that child threatened by a predator, they don't, as Joe did, help the predator savage the child.

By refusing to recognize the victims and their families as people like them, Joe's supporters are able to ignore the feelings of the victims towards Joe. You make me sick.

Anonymous said...

At the end of the day people will believe what they want to believe.
For those that feel that there's no way the Joe they thought they knew would have ever done this they will continue to believe he fostered no blame.
For those that believe he was just like most other coaches and primarily interested in wins and losses and his legacy, they will believe he helped cover it up.
It will be interesting to see if Curley elaborates on the conversations and emails in his trial.
That may answer a lot of questions.

Diane Schubach said...

More innocent people may suffer before this blows over; I say, too bad.

Anonymous said...

Whew..Diane...time for a makeover.

Anonymous said...

"Everything about the Freeh Report and the reactions of the press and people who believe what they read without checking facts, or even applying common sense is how fascism took a foothold in Europe in the 1930's."

Drooling Fascist says : Get a grip on yourself.

Anonymous said...

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State"

Joseph Goebbels

Anonymous said...

If the "lie" is that Joe covered up child rape, people certainly have "come to believe it". But what are the "political, economic and/or military consequences" of that lie? That a football factory in central PA is going to lose a few more games for the rest of the decade? Who cares?

Don't try to turn a sordid little band of immature and morally deficient men into world historical figures. Have a sense of proportion.

Anonymous said...

Try this http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=220. Not that I don't think this is an excellent blog, but Ziegler's style may appeal to you more.

Anonymous said...

How do you know that.....oh forget it...this one is too far gone.

Anonymous said...

I don't need to read this report (but I did) in order to know that Paterno knew what was going on and did nothing. Coach Paterno was very successful at what he did and I'm sure ,like most successful people, he had a handle and knew about all things that concerned his program including Sandusky's disgusting habit of showering and touching boys. Anyone who thinks or believes otherwise is choosing to be blind.

So many people had the opportunity to step up and intervene, and they didn't. So very sad...

1998 incident: All those involved should have called the PA Police (not a psychologist, not the president, not the director of atheltics, not university police) and should have had Sandusky arrested. Including the mother of this victim. Charges should have been pressed. (Even if allegations were not enough, Sandusky should have been kicked off campus, keys revoked and removed from further association with University)

2001:
Janitor #1: Walked in on Sandusky having oral sex in the shower. Right then and there he could have screamed, tackled Sandusky, hit him with a broom, wrapped a towel around the kid. Called the POLICE! Instead...nothing....

McQueery:
Walked in on Sandusky...Could have done all of the above as well instead, Did NOTHING

Paterno, Curley, & company: could have notified the BOT, had him arrested, refer to these incidents as the crimes they were and not "horseplay" Kicked Sandusky's ass off campus for life and dragged him through the mud, had him arrested...anything would have been better that what they did which was absolutely NOTHING.

Actually, no what they did was line his pockets with $168,000, gave him full access to the facilities, allowed him the use of the various campuses for his summer camps, gave him the status of emeritus, gave him special box seats to games...practically rolled out the pedophile carpet and said "here, don't shower with kids, but we're giving you all other opportunities to groom them and make them feel all special and vulnerable so you can do your thing."

Please, all these people defending this institution make me sick.

Anonymous said...

Victim 2 has come forward :

"Our client suffered extensive sexual abuse over many years both before and after the 2001 incident Michael McQueary witnessed in the Penn State Lasch building shower.

"Penn State has now admitted and there is no longer any question that its top officials could have and should have prevented these acts.

"Jerry Sandusky's abuse of Victim 2and other children is a direct result of a conspiracy to conceal Sandusky's conduct and the decisions by top Penn State officials that facilitated and enabled his access to victims."

Now it's time for Marc and Aurabass to stop spreading that poisonous crap that Jerry and Victim 2 were playing patty cake or whatever bullshit you two and the other Joepologists concocted.

Game over; Joe's in Hell.

Anonymous said...

Marc,

You might want to follow Aurabass and eliminate anonymous comments. He must have gotten the idea from being booted off BSD. Anyway, he must have gotten tired of being mocked for his "World Conspiracy Against Joe" and "Man-Boy Shower" theories. You must be getting pretty tired too, I expect.

Eventually, all cults turn inward. Joe's defenders, at least the true believers, really can't function in the light of day. People just won't tolerate child rape enablement.

Anonymous said...

This.

It's not Sandusky. It's not even that devil Paterno. It's this thing that has and continues to prop up Paterno. Part of the brainless, rabid, maniacal mob.

Their mantra: "Mr Wins is the only god worth worshiping and Joe Paterno is His messenger."

No mob. No Paterno. Sandusky nailed. No child abuse.

And with that one groupthink brain synapse the mob sparked, it KNEW it was enabling criminality. Paterno openly obstructed justice when his football was caught commiting breaking, entering, assault, and battery felonies. Because he could backed by the mob. The mob was and is in effect a bunch of child rapists. Beyond dispicable.

Too bad when their god, Mr. Wins forsook them around 2004 the absolute believers and the Paterno apostates didn't destroy themselves in battle.

At least some kids would now have lives.

Screw the school. Carve out the whole state out.

These things can't be human. If so, there really quite mad.

Anonymous said...

I think this blog raises some good points about the Freeh report and the lack of evidence that it bases its assertions. I use the word assertions because if the there was any substance to this report then there would be things in the report resembling FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

The Freeh report is a pile of crap and who cares if the author of this blog sounds pissed off. More people should be angry. Angry that this report is the sum total of our expert people busting a case wide open. What a joke!

Anonymous said...

enCarve out the whole state? Thank goodness the legal system isn't run by barstool moralists. Why not a human sacrifice? Let's start burning people we believe to be witches?

Anonymous said...

SCrammeI am sick of the condemnation of Paterno. "Coach" in the emails could have been Sandusky, Paterno, or any other coach for the Nittany Lions.
Sandusky's victims are survivors and deserve respect for having the courage to testify and stop a subhuman predator. Each of those men went up against "the powers that be" to end the sick run of a twisted individual who used football and fame to prey upon children.
How many of Sandusky's victims actually blame Paterno? Has anyone researched that? Everyone seems to assume they all blame Paterno but I haven't seen anything that indicates that more than one of them blame Paterno.

Anonymous said...

It is good to be angry in the face of injustice. The students who went to the street did not go because they are football crazed idiots. They smelled the injustice with unjaded and young noses. Then our socalled leaders put them down to shut them up. You don't need guns and tear gas just humiliation and pr stunts now. Much less violent but not different from other forms of fascism. We live in an era where the weapon used to control others is information. This story is not scary because a great football coach was harmed, it is scary because it is evidence that we can no longer rely on the free press to protect our form of democracy. If this type of dishonesty passed all major news outlets, what the hack is going on at the federal level? We are sheep and we are being herded and it is about time for someone to get angry.