OSU alum chimes in...

[KirkHerbstreit]

That was a great write up TAE. Joepa was morally wrong in not following up. He said himself he wishes he had done more, but those who have watched PSU know for a fact JoePa did not sit around knowing kids were being raped and abused but thought it was fine as long as the football program was ok. That is utterly ridiculous. He reported the matter to whom he thought were able to handle it. In the Freeh report, Curley states, "After talking with Joe, i am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps" That could mean a multitude of things happened. Joe had known Sandusky all his life. He knew the 1998 case was thrown out after a multitude of people were involved. Ask yourself this, if someone told you that they think they seen your uncle horsing around in the shower with a young boy and you report it to your authorities...then the authorities call and ask you if you think he did it....would you say report him I know he did it or would you say maybe we should confront him? It might be possible that Joe said "Maybe you should confront Sandusky on this and tell him what we know to see how he reacts" Yet, People read that Paterno said "Don't tell anyone it will kill the football program" Could it be possible that Curley called Paterno to see if he felt this could be true and Paterno said confront him? It could mean anything. People read what they want to see. As I said, did Joe Paterno handle this wrong? Heck yes, but as he said himself he had no idea how to handle the situation. People act like the Freeh report opened up something new when it basically states the same things Paterno said himself. I am NOT saying what Paterno did was right. I AM saying it's very possible it had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the program like people have said to be a proven fact.


THE CASE AGAINST JOE PATERNO: WEAK TO NON-EXISTENT ON THE CURRENT RECORD

I haven't followed the Penn State child molestation scandal closely. My interest in sports is an interest in sports, not investigations of crimes by people involved (or formerly involved) with sports.

Nonetheless, I am aware that a consensus exists that former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno acted improperly in connection with Penn State's response to allegations of child molestation committed by one-time assistant coach Jerry Sandusky. This consensus led to the removal of a statue of Paterno, whose contributions to Penn State as a coach and financial contributor were enormous.

The consensus emerged from the report of Louis Freeh regarding Penn State's actions related to the sexual abuse committed by Sandusky. But a friend of mine ? a top-notch lawyer and former federal prosecutor ? has carefully reviewed the Freeh Report. He concludes that the Report does not establish wrongdoing by Joe Paterno. Having now looked at the Freeh Report, I agree.

Here is what my friend wrote:

I believe the media, the Freeh Report, and many others have misrepresented Joe Paterno's culpability in the Jerry Sandusky matter. The evidence against Mr. Paterno amounts to virtually nothing. After more than 430 interviews and a review of more than 3.5 million documents and other information, the Freeh Report concludes that three emails from other people ? former Penn State President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and Senior Vice President Gary Schultz ? prove that Mr. Paterno was a co-conspirator in a cover-up. I do not read the evidence in the Freeh Report that way, and I do not believe the conclusions about Mr. Paterno are either warranted or fair.

The claim seems to be that Mr. Paterno knew about a 1998 allegation and did nothing, and that in 2001, when he learned about Mike McQueary's information, he waited a day before he reported the information to the athletic director (Curley) and the vice president in charge of the University Police (Schultz) and then did nothing else.

First, with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report says that several authorities promptly investigated and reviewed the matter, including the Department of Public Welfare, the University Police Department, the State College police, and the local district attorney's office. Freeh Report at 42-47. A "counselor" named John Seasock issued a report that found "no indication of child abuse." Freeh Report at 42-46. Mr. Seasock interviewed the alleged victim and determined that "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children." Freeh Report at 44 (quoting Mr. Seasock's 1998 evaluation of the alleged victim). The Freeh Report adds that Mr. Seasock "couldn't find any indication of child abuse." Freeh Report at 45.

The police investigated and "did not question Sandusky at this time," and the Freeh Report says that "the local District Attorney declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions." Freeh Report at 45-46. A "senior administrator" explained that "the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report." Freeh Report at 46. The University Police also investigatedthe matter and unlike the local police, they interviewed Sandusky. Sandusky claimed "nothing happened" (Freeh Report at 46) and the University Police concluded that "no sexual assault occurred." Freeh Report at 47.

The only evidence of Mr. Paterno's involvement is a passing reference in an email from Curley to Spanier and Schultz that says that Curley "touched base with the coach. Keep us posted." Freeh Report at 20, 48. A second email from Curley to Schultz that says "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Freeh Report at 20, 48. There is no other information about Mr. Paterno's involvement in the incident. In fact, the Freeh Report does not even establish that the references to "Coach" refer to Joe Paterno. The most it can and does say is that "[t]he reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno." Freeh Report at 49. The Freeh Report cites no evidence to support this assertion, but even if "Coach" refers to Coach Paterno, what do these emails prove? The answer is: nothing. At most, these emails suggest that Mr. Paterno was concerned and wanted to know whether Sandusky was guilty of any wrongdoing.

Of course, if Mr. Paterno did express concern about the matter, then the question becomes: what did anyone tell him about the allegations and the investigation?

The Freeh Report provides no answer to this question. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 allegations against Sandusky. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Mr. Paterno did or said, or what anyone said to Mr. Paterno. Indeed, the Freeh Report suggests that both law enforcement and the University police agreed that nothing improper happened and that the allegations lacked merit. Did anyone tell Joe Paterno about those findings?

The Freeh Report concludes that the "record" is "not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno." Freeh Report at 51. The Report includes many statements that assert things like "nothing in the record indicates that Joe Paterno spoke with Sandusky." See, e.g., Freeh Report at 51. The absence of evidence or information proves only that Mr. Freeh did not find evidence. It does not affirmatively prove anything about Mr. Paterno.

Furthermore, despite the lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno's culpability with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report accuses Mr. Paterno of "allow[ing] Sandusky to retire in 1999, not as a suspected child predator, but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy." Freeh Report at 17. The Freeh Report's expression of outrage may sound compelling now, with the benefit of hindsight and the evidence that now exists about Sandusky's criminal misconduct. But given that (1) law enforcement officials and other people investigated the 1998 incident and found no wrongdoing; (2) Seasock's report exonerated Sandusky; (3) the District Attorney declined to prosecute the case; (4) Sandusky denied the allegations; and (5) the complete lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno's knowledge, involvement, and actions, it is difficult to see how Mr. Paterno can be subject to ridicule because he "allowed" Sandusky to retire "not as a suspected child predator."

As to the issue about whether Joe Paterno should have done more with the McQueary information, I keep coming back to one critical missing piece of evidence: what did Curley and Schultz tell him? Schultz, in particular, is the important actor here because he was the top university official in charge of the University Police. Freeh Report at 33. If JoePa wanted to cover this up, he would never have reported McQueary's information to Curley and Schultz within a day of receiving it. Is waiting one day on a weekend evidence of a cover-up? Mr. Freeh and others seem to think so. The Freeh Report repeatedly cites Mr. Paterno's comments about not interfering with the weekend as evidence of some kind of evil intent. But, again, this proves nothing. Would the Report conclude differently if Mr.Paterno had spoken with Curley and Schultz on Saturday evening instead of Sunday?

Furthermore, if Mr. Paterno had reported the McQueary information to me (were I, like Schultz, the official in charge of the University Police), I would have told him to keep his mouth shut going forward and let the authorities handle the matter. Otherwise, Mr. Paterno could have tainted the investigation. And, because he was a potential trial witness (to McQueary's prior consistent statements, see Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence613(c)), any further statements or action by Mr. Paterno could have become cross-examination fodder for the defense. Any further action by Mr.Paterno could only have damaged the integrity of the investigation and any prosecution against Sandusky.

Indeed, Mr. Paterno explained his actions before died by saying that "I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did." Freeh Report at 77-78. This statement makes perfect sense, and the notion of a football coach supervising a criminal investigation is ridiculous. It is very possible that Curley or Schultz or both told Mr. Paterno to stay out of the matter; in fact, Schultz should have told him as much. But we don't know because Schultz and Curley are under indictment and not talking, Paterno is dead, and the Freeh Report did not find any information about this issue.

Much of the case against Mr. Paterno seems to rely on (1) the theory that the Athletic Director, Curley, was JoePa's "errand boy"; and (2) an email dated February 27, 2001 from Curley to Schultz and Spanier which says that Curley gave the matter "more thought" after "talking it over with Joe" and was "uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps." Freeh Report at 74-75. But the "errand boy" evidence amounts to a reference by an unidentified "senior Penn State official" (page 75), and what does it prove anyway? That one person viewed Curley as Paterno's "errand boy"?

There is no evidence that Curley-as-errand-boy covered up because Joe Paterno told him to do so. And the February 27 email at most suggests that Mr. Paterno spoke with Curley. It does not say what Curley and Paterno discussed, and without any explanation from either Curley or Paterno, it is absurd to read into this that Mr. Paterno was the puppet master behind a coverup orchestrated by Curley, Spanier, and Schultz.

Mr. Paterno was a football coach, not an expert in criminal law or investigations, and this notion of him as some kind of omnipotent and omniscient God who callously turned his back on a serial child molester is unsupported by any evidence.

This is a rather sorry record upon which to condemn Joe Paterno.

People are rarely as good or as bad as they seem at any given time. In Paterno's case, however, I believe that the old, highly favorable narrative ? to which some of the same media types who condemn him now contributed ? is much closer to the mark than the revisionist narrative.



This post was edited on 7/26 5:26 PM by WideWorld

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... cord.php

[WPIAL~Titan]

Is your friend a PSU alum, or a lifetime PSU football season ticket holder?

[KirkHerbstreit]

Not my friend. It was taken from a site if you notice the link. Also, there is more than one way of looking at this than saying "Oh Paterno did it to protect the football program"

[WPIAL~Titan]

True, Kirk. There are a lot of ways to look at this. Many in the PSU cult refuse to believe that Paterno had any culpability. They blame everyone else, including the janitors and the victims.

The facts are that Paterno knew about 1998 AND 2001. Paterno either covered it up because of the damage it would have done to his reputation/football program/business interests/bank account (he stood to lose large sums of money due to incestuous business interests with PSU BOT and Second Mile board members...I will link articles if you wish), panicked, washed his hands in the whole thing by passing the buck to his "superiors" (in title only) for the first and only time in his life, or all of the above. Paterno was the most powerful man in the Commonwealth of PA at those times. He clearly should have done more. Paterno also lied to everyone (including lying to his own family who continues to release statements about his innocence) about his knowledge of 1998.

Paterno's lies certainly will be more than enough to allow his estate to be pillaged in civil suits, where the burden of proof is significantly more relaxed. Paterno sold his house to SuePA last summer for $1, one hint that he knew what was going to happen. Who knows, Scott has probably moved the family fortune into offshore accounts under assumed names by now. That's if Scott didn't eat the money first.

Put the Curley e-mail aside: Do you REALLY believe that Paterno, the most powerful man in PA, had no clue about the 1998 incident that directly involved his right hand man? If you believe that, I have some beachfront property in Sidman or Altoona to sell you.

Paterno knew. The last year of his life, particularly beginning with Ganim's initial report about Sandusky in April of 2011, probably featured a lot of sleepless nights. Joe knew what was going down, I am sure he knew that he was much better off dead.

[KirkHerbstreit]

I think Paterno is morally culpable for everything that happened because he did not take the right steps to follow up and have a sick man put away. I also think it had nothing to do with football and have yet to see an email proving otherwise. I have seen assumptions made. I have not seen facts. I have not seen what he would have gained. If reported and Sandusky was outed it would not have been a blackmark on Paterno or the football program. He would have been looked at as a hero.

Joe Paterno was not the police of the university unless the arrest list you presented continually for 2 years was a farce. So, which is it Joe was the police and could do what he wanted OR Joe had a lot of players arrested? Because if you are the most powerful man in the commonwealth how did the arrests happen? Which is it?

[Coach]

Titan you are in your own cult as well and have been since 2003 or whenever you joined the site. It is a 2 part cult.

1. The WPIAL is superior to all other athletics anywhere. It is the be all and end all. D5 and D6 should fold up and go away forever.

2. Anti Penn State cult leader brainwashed into thinking everything PSU is horrid and wretched. Joe was so powerful they built a baseball field right beside the stadium that he despised. They agreed to the B10 network and he didn't want to. They fired him. Powerful guy....

[The Ancient Enemy]

I honestly have not talked to any Penn State fans that think Joe didn't do anything wrong, and that includes the PSU crowd on this site. I just think there's a lot more to this story.

My whole thing is this: I am in this for the kids. The victims, and the roster. As a coach, I know personally how devastating it can be for ONE KID to transfer from your team, and how it upsets a locker room. Then you have a lot of people who have probably never played an organized sport in their lives just throwing it out there that the kids can all transfer and play right away. Okay... that's not how this works. You really think that 1. Those kids are all going to abandon each other in the toughest time of their lives, and 2. Who is going to walk onto another campus, learn a new offense or defense in 3 weeks, and be able to start? That's just not how this works. Every head coach has his own organization and structure; You dont just learn this overnight, or in 3 weeks. That is NOT a smooth transition.

I dont understand how the NCAA doing what they did to the roster is much different than Penn State turning their backs on kids as well. Obviously, Sandusky's ACTIONS were worse, but it is still has the same outcome: Innocent people were unjustly treated to fit someone else's agenda.

Then you have Illinois and Purdue prowling the campus. Are you serious? I will NEVER root for Purdue or Illinois ever again, and I always used to root for the entire Big Ten. That is just unbelievable to me. Joe Tiller would have NEVER done that. And I dont think Zook would have either. It just goes to show you how vastly different every head coach is compared to everyone else. Then we have Kiffin pursuing Silas Redd, thats the same exact guy who cried foul when other coaches tried to steal his kids when USC was sanctioned.

I honestly don't think that there are many of the "Joe supporters" who are not in the same camp that I am in: No one doubts the cover up, we just want an investigation, not by an independent counsel hired by the Board of Trustees, or whoever else. I want a criminal investigation, not an opinion piece by a guy who already has precedence as someone who draws conclusions w/o any evidence. I just do not understand how this guy's opinion outweighs the conclusion of the attorney general.

In my own opinion, I think Curley and the rest all get nailed. That's fine, and probably exactly what SHOULD happen. I know there was a cover-up. Whether Paterno was a very staunch member of that club, or a guy from a generation where things like this are just never spoken about and no one knows how to handle it, I don't know. I just want the criminal investigation, not something paid for by people who need to protect their own interests.