Joe Paterno's Family Releases It's Own Report critical of Freeh Report

[Reader]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...fail-attempt-defend-paterno-article-1.1260527

...........Clemente, however, failed to mention in “The Rush To Injustice Regarding Joe Paterno,” or in his news interviews Sunday that as an FBI agent he worked closely with Stop It Now, an organization intent on preventing sexual abuse of children. Or that a month after the report was issued last summer he was helpful in passing along Stop It Now members’ messages of thanks and appreciation to Freeh for his groundbreaking report on the Penn State scandal. The messages passed on to Freeh spoke of the Freeh report being a “tipping point” in changing the way organizations and leaders deal with red flags involving possible child molestation. .............

Clemente’s co-author, Thornburgh, said the day after the Freeh report was released that it should be required reading for all college students. “I think there will be a lot of college administrators who will be perusing it very carefully because the implications are vast,” Thornburgh said then. “Colleges stand in the place of the parents and they have a high duty to make sure the welfare (of students) is looked after.”

So what made these men change their minds? I don’t think money changed their opinions, so perhaps they simply went “Kardashian” on us, blinded by the spotlight and the need for self-promotion. As one of Clemente’s former colleagues says, “My guess is he got a nice fee and welcomed the notoriety.”

Freeh got a nice fee, too, but he was commissioned by Penn State and produced a report that basically eviscerated the university and many of its top people, including the sainted Paterno, along with the school’s former president, its athletic director and a vice president.............

 

[HMSHood]

Sounds like the family is protecting the "brand".

Self-serving in nature.

Joe Paterno’s Troubling Attitude Toward Sex Charges
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-s-troubling-attitude-toward-sex-charges.html

Paterno continued to a group of reporters: “Geez. I hope—thank God they don’t knock on my door, because I’d refer them to a couple of other rooms.”

In late 2002, Penn State cornerback Anwar Phillips was accused by a classmate of sexual assault, and the university suspended him for two semesters. But before his suspension began, the Nittany Lions were to play Auburn in the middle of January in the Capital One Bowl. Paterno put Phillips in uniform.

Paterno added later: “That’s nobody’s business but mine. It’s not the fans’ business, and it’s not yours.” No one but Paterno, of course, knows whether what he had been told about Sandusky four years earlier crossed his mind.

I am not surprised Paterno covered Sandusky's track. I have to wonder prior to 1998 if Joe Paterno was aware of what Jerry Sandusky was up to.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In all fairness the Phillip's case was quite weak and he was acquitted.

 

[Rlaub44]

Nike co-founder blasts Freeh report

First he defended Paterno at the funeral, then after Freeh changed his mind...now on his side again......Easily swayed, eh? What a friend!

I think, like many people, he probably didn't actually read the entire Freeh report, instead relying on media coverage and Freeh's press conference to get his opinion about what the report stated.

There was nothing, at least in the Thornburgh portion of the Paterno report, that Paterno supporters haven't been arguing all along since the release of the Freeh Report. Perhaps seeing it crystallized in report form replaced Knight's own critical thought about Paterno and the allegations.

Regardless of your feelings about Paterno's culpability, isn't it scary that the CEO of a huge corporation such as Nike can be so easily swayed to a decision based on incomplete information, and then do a complete 180 when faced with an equally incomplete contrary viewpoint?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think, like many people, he probably didn't actually read the entire Freeh report, instead relying on media coverage and Freeh's press conference to get his opinion about what the report stated.

There was nothing, at least in the Thornburgh portion of the Paterno report, that Paterno supporters haven't been arguing all along since the release of the Freeh Report. Perhaps seeing it crystallized in report form replaced Knight's own critical thought about Paterno and the allegations.

Regardless of your feelings about Paterno's culpability, isn't it scary that the CEO of a huge corporation such as Nike can be so easily swayed to a decision based on incomplete information, and then do a complete 180 when faced with an equally incomplete contrary viewpoint?

Keep in mind the same CEO probably has less knowledge of this case than most of the posters on this board.

I think that Paterno has a level of culpability in the 2001 incident, but that does not make him the mastermind of the coverup.

 

[Rlaub44]

Keep in mind the same CEO probably has less knowledge of this case than most of the posters on this board.

I guarantee that.

It just unnerved me that Knight's opinion is so easily and capriciously swayed: First he very publically supported Paterno before having any evidence, just based on his friendship. Then he hears the basic summary of the Freeh report, decides Paterno was wrong, and vocally withdraws his support, removing his late friend's name from the child care center at Nike. Then he gets wind of the reports contracted by the family, and loudly proclaims his stance has shifted again.

I'm surprised Freeh's comments about the Paterno's report didn't push him back the other way.

 

[Steely Dan]

I haven't heard of anyone who thinks Paterno masterminded the cover up. I think most people believe he didn't do as much as he morally should have. JMO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I haven't heard of anyone who thinks Paterno masterminded the cover up. I think most people believe he didn't do as much as he morally should have. JMO

I have heard that, at least in regard to 2001. Even Freeh, who doesn't go that far, thinks Curley, et al., made that decision because Paterno didn't want the incident reported.

I go with Paterno having to have been aware that there was no investigation, because no one from LE/DPW interviewed him, and not asking questions about why there was no investigation.

 

[Rlaub44]

I haven't heard of anyone who thinks Paterno masterminded the cover up. I think most people believe he didn't do as much as he morally should have. JMO

As JJ alluded to, Freeh made certain to include in his report that Curley was seen as Paterno's errand boy. Reading between the lines, that was Freeh's way of suggesting that if Curley didn't want to report it, it was because Paterno directed him not to, or at the very least, talked him out of it.

Couple that with the "most powerful man" in the University storyline, and the narrative has been set to portray Paterno as the leader of the cover-up.

 

[Rlaub44]

I have heard that, at least in regard to 2001. Even Freeh, who doesn't go that far, thinks Curley, et al., made that decision because Paterno didn't want the incident reported.

I go with Paterno having to have been aware that there was no investigation, because no one from LE/DPW interviewed him, and not asking questions about why there was no investigation.

Not having been in that situation before, do you think Paterno was expecting LE/DPW to interview him, or would he have expected any questioning to go to McQueary, as the direct witness? When he checked back with McQueary to ask if he was OK with everything they had talked about, perhaps that was his level of inquiry. If McQueary didn't complain, then Paterno may have assumed he was satisfied that something was done.

Should he have followed up? Sure. But it is a stretch to assert that he had to know no investigation occurred. McQueary told him he was satisfied, and no emails exist after the decision was made not to report that discussed updating JVP.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not having been in that situation before, do you think Paterno was expecting LE/DPW to interview him, or would he have expected any questioning to go to McQueary, as the direct witness? When he checked back with McQueary to ask if he was OK with everything they had talked about, perhaps that was his level of inquiry. If McQueary didn't complain, then Paterno may have assumed he was satisfied that something was done.

Should he have followed up? Sure. But it is a stretch to assert that he had to know no investigation occurred. McQueary told him he was satisfied, and no emails exist after the decision was made not to report that discussed updating JVP.

He was aware of the 1998 investigation and that it involved others; it was fairly involved.

McQueary sat at his table and told him something, something potentially criminal. LE/DPW would have to talk to Paterno to determine if McQueary's story was the same. This would be like playing the 911 call in court.

There is a second factor. How did Paterno know if McQueary was telling the truth? If not, would Paterno want him on staff? If McQueary was fabricating the story, certainly Paterno would want to know if he could trust McQueary in the future. According to Paterno's children, he was big on honesty.

 

[Steely Dan]

I have heard that, at least in regard to 2001. Even Freeh, who doesn't go that far, thinks Curley, et al., made that decision because Paterno didn't want the incident reported.

I go with Paterno having to have been aware that there was no investigation, because no one from LE/DPW interviewed him, and not asking questions about why there was no investigation.

As JJ alluded to, Freeh made certain to include in his report that Curley was seen as Paterno's errand boy. Reading between the lines, that was Freeh's way of suggesting that if Curley didn't want to report it, it was because Paterno directed him not to, or at the very least, talked him out of it.

Couple that with the "most powerful man" in the University storyline, and the narrative has been set to portray Paterno as the leader of the cover-up.

You guys are right. It's in between the lines and I think I even said nothing happened without Paterno's say so.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

At this point, without more evidence, I would call it more of "turning a blind eye" to the situation. Though not in a molestation situation, there were times I've turned a blind eye as well.

Now, will there be more evidence?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think that in the situations like this, where we have a clear cut monster, there is the that automatic assuming of what people around him knew and the questions like " How could he not know?"
Or " why didn't they do more?"

I think in all this Paterno ended up being another victim of Sandusky's sins.

I think he was waiting to be interviewed, assumed that at this point the people who ought to have been handling it, were and he was waiting on an outcome.

I think his upbringing and era and age all played into how he handled his part. But I don't find him guilty of anything. I think it is so sad that he has been vilified.

I can not imagine what it is like for his family to have to see him also played as a villian.

 

[Rlaub44]

He was aware of the 1998 investigation and that it involved others; it was fairly involved.

Yes, but afterwards, he saw Sandusky around as if nothing had happened. What would make him think this time was different? Also, in 98, nobody from LE, DPW, or CYS interviewed him, and in 2001, he had only relayed second hand info, so I'd guess he had no expectation of being interviewed.

Back when I was a mandated reporter, if I had reason to make a report to CYS, they would come and interview the child; in almost no instances did the caseworker ever ask me about what the child had reported to me or interview me in any way. If a teacher had initiated the report through me, CYS never once interviewed the teacher who passed the information to me.

McQueary sat at his table and told him something, something potentially criminal. LE/DPW would have to talk to Paterno to determine if McQueary's story was the same. This would be like playing the 911 call in court.

There is a second factor. How did Paterno know if McQueary was telling the truth? If not, would Paterno want him on staff? If McQueary was fabricating the story, certainly Paterno would want to know if he could trust McQueary in the future. According to Paterno's children, he was big on honesty.

I believe I recall Paterno saying that McQueary was very upset by what he had seen. That level of emotion probably helped to validate that McQueary believed what he was describing. It isn't as if McQueary was someone Paterno was unfamiliar with; he played for him for 4 years in the most prominent of roles, requiring a great deal of trust, and had performed as a graduate assistant for a year or so prior to the report. IMO, Paterno had no reason to doubt McQueary.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yes, but afterwards, he saw Sandusky around as if nothing had happened. What would make him think this time was different? Also, in 98, nobody from LE, DPW, or CYS interviewed him, and in 2001, he had only relayed second hand info, so I'd guess he had no expectation of being interviewed.

In 1998, Paterno's knowledge of the incident was after LE was involved, and if Curley was relying the information to him, he knew that they did investigate.

Back when I was a mandated reporter, if I had reason to make a report to CYS, they would come and interview the child; in almost no instances did the caseworker ever ask me about what the child had reported to me or interview me in any way. If a teacher had initiated the report through me, CYS never once interviewed the teacher who passed the information to me.

The did not have the child; that was a key difference. This might be a lot different if they had interviewed the victim, and the victim said nothing happened.

Also, how would you know if they interviewed the teacher?

I believe I recall Paterno saying that McQueary was very upset by what he had seen. That level of emotion probably helped to validate that McQueary believed what he was describing. It isn't as if McQueary was someone Paterno was unfamiliar with; he played for him for 4 years in the most prominent of roles, requiring a great deal of trust, and had performed as a graduate assistant for a year or so prior to the report. IMO, Paterno had no reason to doubt McQueary.

That begs the question. If Paterno believed McQueary, then he believed that something very bad had happened. He obviously knew that Sandusky was still out there, not being prosecuted or inhibited in any way. He knew that Sandusky was heavily involved in a children's charity and had perhaps daily contact with young boys.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that in the situations like this, where we have a clear cut monster, there is the that automatic assuming of what people around him knew and the questions like " How could he not know?"
Or " why didn't they do more?"

I think in all this Paterno ended up being another victim of Sandusky's sins.

I think he was waiting to be interviewed, assumed that at this point the people who ought to have been handling it, were and he was waiting on an outcome.

I agree, but why didn't he press Curley and Spanier when the interview didn't take place?

I think his upbringing and era and age all played into how he handled his part. But I don't find him guilty of anything. I think it is so sad that he has been vilified.

I can not imagine what it is like for his family to have to see him also played as a villian.

Based on what is now out there, I think a lot of it is over the line. However, there is a level of culpability involved. I think there is some, but not as much as others.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree, but why didn't he press Curley and Spanier when the interview didn't take place?



Based on what is now out there, I think a lot of it is over the line. However, there is a level of culpability involved. I think there is some, but not as much as others.

Possibly because he thought it was handled. It is such ugly business. I know I can not imaging being eager to have that interview. And I am betting someone from her era? Was in some way hoping it would all be handled quick and be done. I can not fault him for that. I don't think he was hiding anything. I just think he wanted it to be over. I think the bigger culprit was McCreary. You see something like that you call POLICE. Not the coach.

 

[Rlaub44]

Also, how would you know if they interviewed the teacher?

The teacher's name wouldn't have been known unless C&Y asked me, which they never did. Also, I typically met the caseworker when they arrived, brought the child to meet them, and returned the child to the classroom while the caseworker left. Trust me, it didn't happen.

That begs the question. If Paterno believed McQueary, then he believed that something very bad had happened. He obviously knew that Sandusky was still out there, not being prosecuted or inhibited in any way. He knew that Sandusky was heavily involved in a children's charity and had perhaps daily contact with young boys.

Much of that supposition depends on what you believe McQueary told Paterno. McQueary himself claims he didn't go into too much detail out of respect for the elderly coach. We are again viewing this through the magical filter of hindsight, where we have all of the pieces now, but at the time, Paterno heard something that disturbed McQueary, and he put him in contact with the administrators who would know how to handle it. If I were in his shoes, I would have expected my involvement to be over at that point too.

Again, I expect we will hear more in the upcoming Spanier/Curley/Schultz trials, and we should know better how closely Freeh's conclusions came to the truth about Paterno's level of involvement.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The teacher's name wouldn't have been known unless C&Y asked me, which they never did. Also, I typically met the caseworker when they arrived, brought the child to meet them, and returned the child to the classroom while the caseworker left. Trust me, it didn't happen.

For a police investigation, they would almost have to, especially when they didn't have the victim.

Much of that supposition depends on what you believe McQueary told Paterno. McQueary himself claims he didn't go into too much detail out of respect for the elderly coach. We are again viewing this through the magical filter of hindsight, where we have all of the pieces now, but at the time, Paterno heard something that disturbed McQueary, and he put him in contact with the administrators who would know how to handle it. If I were in his shoes, I would have expected my involvement to be over at that point too.

BBM

According to both Paterno and McQueary, it was something of a sexual nature. Paterno said that was his impression in his grand jury testimony.

Again from the e-mail, and looking at 1998 as a model, it would not end his knowledge. Even in 1998, he was being kept informed, even if he wasn't aware of the details. He certainly wasn't a witness to that incident.

Again, I expect we will hear more in the upcoming Spanier/Curley/Schultz trials, and we should know better how closely Freeh's conclusions came to the truth about Paterno's level of involvement.

As I've said, I think there is a level of culpability in 2001, but I'd question if it rises to the level Freeh suggested. That Freeh Report did not make the case that it did. The other shoe may drop, however.

I still wouldn't be surprised if one of the three would flip.