Skip to comments.Joe Paterno family releases report
Posted on 02/10/2013 7:10:13 AM PST by Uncle Chip
A report commissioned by Joe Paterno's family calls the July 2012 Freeh report that was accepted by Penn State trustees before unprecedented sanctions were levied by the NCAA against the school's football program a "total failure" that is "full of fallacies, unsupported personal opinions, false allegations and biased assertions."
The Paterno family report, which targets nearly every conclusion and assertion the Freeh report made about Paterno in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, states that while former FBI director Louis J. Freeh has had an honorable past and good reputation, his investigation -- especially as it relates to Paterno -- relied on "rank speculation," "innuendo" and "subjective opinions" when it concluded that Paterno concealed facts about Sandusky in part to avoid bad publicity.
Freeh was hired on Nov. 21, 2011 and paid $6.5 million by Penn State University trustees --
The Paterno family immediately roundly and loudly rejected the report, and, four days after its release, instructed its lawyer to form a "group of experts" to conduct a comprehensive review of the facts and conclusions. The Paterno family asked its attorney's law firm, King and Spalding of Washington, D.C., to start "a comprehensive review of the report and Joe Paterno's conduct. They authorized us to engage the preeminent experts in their field and to obtain their independent analyses."
The law firm hired former U.S. attorney general Richard Thornburgh, former FBI supervisory special agent and former state prosecutor James Clemente, and Dr. Fred Berlin, a treating physician, psychiatrist, psychologist and expert in sexual disorders and pedophilia at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine. The family's report attacks Freeh's conclusions, assertions, methodology, investigative abilities and choices, disclosures and independence.
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
A sentence just as likely to be uttered by the Brady Campaign in the aftermath of a school shooting. Having said that, IMO here's the crucial portion of today's release:
Sollers writes. "They ascribe motives to people they never met or interviewed and interpret ambiguous documents with a clarity and decisiveness that is impossible to justify."
We're talking about a report that served as the sole foundation for punitive action against a university and devaluation of an estate. Would you tend to agree that these types of actions can / should be taken on what we "instinctively know", or should the bar be set a bit higher than that?
And what of Freeh's motivation? If he starts turning out reports that claim there isn't a factual basis to establish any definitive conclusions, what's the likelihood that his next client will pay $6.5M to commission a report? I view his motivation as no different from that of climate change scientists - if they say "we're not sure" the gravy train will grind to a halt. There's an inherent investment in sensationalizing the subject matter.
That’s your source? Pathetic.
“Former athletic director Tim Curley and former Penn State vice president Gary Schultz both face perjury charges for failing to report suspected child abuse. Both declined to be interviewed for the Freeh Report on the advice of counsel.”
Lie and spin all you want. JoePa’s legacy is written in stone.
Where does it say in there that Joe Paterno refused an interview with Freeh??????
I wonder what Penn State University’s response will be in light of this new report. If the Paterno cultists are correct, the University should cease implementing the recommendations in the Freeh report.
I don’t know why we bother. They are cultist like you said. No different then the “Free Mumia” crowd.
Perhaps you should re-read the last line of your post to me (#42).
Mumia cultists. Interesting comparison.
That also went down in Pennsylvania iirc.
Coincidence? Maybe not.
Ok, but you asked for it.
Joe Paterno had a member of his staff (McQueary) come to him on Saturday, February 10, 2001 and tell him that he witnessed a former member of his staff (Sandusky) in the football team's showers, naked, standing behind a boy he estimated to be 10 or 12 years old (also naked) with his hands wrapped around the boy's waist. He said the boy was facing a wall, with his hands on it. And that "it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on" (A grand jury made up of every day normal Americans later correctly summarized McQueary's testimony as saying he "saw a naked boy ... with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.").
Joe Paterno's response to this was (after slumping back in his chair) to tell McQueary "Im sorry you had to see that. Its terrible. I need to think and tell some people about what you saw..." And in Paterno's own words "I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster...".
Now having a 2nd accusation against Sandusky (and information including the 1998 accusation of molesting two young boys in the same football showers, Sandusky's subsequent retirement & unusual retirement/compensation package allowing him to remain on campus and use it's facilities) Paterno did not contact the "appropriate" legal authorities. Instead he went to the same Campus staff that afforded Sandusky emeritus status retirement after the first accusation. Compounding that error, after seeing that Sandusky was still not going to be held accountable for actions that Paterno himself said were inapproriate, he chose not to go to the "appropriate" legal authorities. And as a result, Sandusky's abuse was allowed to continue for 7 more years until a victim came forward and did tell the "appropriate" legal authorities.
Those are the facts. They can be spun 20 different ways but they cannot be changed/disregarded/ignored. They are not taken from either report. They are from official court testimony (which carries a hell of a lot more weight than the Paterno Family funded investigation).
Watching the Paterno apologists on here is like watching Obama supporters. Their threatened egos drive them to flights from commonsense. As a result, they defend horrible things that have allowed horrible people to prosper.
LOL Spot on.
Must be the water. I’ve only been here a couple of years so hopefully It won’t affect me. I’d hate to become like them!
But but McQueery didn’t tell Coach Paterno everything. The Coach thought Sandusky was up to his usual Tickle Monster shenanigans.
You know... in the locker room showers. Naked. With a naked little boy.
Paterno family cries “Taint so! Taint so!”
Facts? You can’t possibly be serious. Those are made up facts. Please read my post just upthread from yours, where an expert FBI profiler address what really happened.
I realize you are a n00b here. I want to give you as much grace as I can. What you described was as factual as Tina Fey, dressed to look like Sarah Palin and saying “I can see Russia from my front porch.” It amazes me how many people now think Palin said that.
<>Perhaps you should re-read the last line of your post to me (#42)<>
You mean this — the title of the article at the link:
“Why Freeh didnt interview Paterno, McQueary, Schultz and Curley.”
Perhaps you should re-read every line of every one of your posts.
Did you post this at #16:
“Paterno and the other higher ups refused numerous requests for interviews with Freeh.”
Did I post this to you at #20:
“Not true. Paterno didn’t refuse. Only Curly, Schultz and Spanier and that because they were facing indictments....”
Did you then post this to me at #21:
“It is true”
Did I post this to you at #42 with source:
Joe Paterno requested that he be interviewed by Freeh before his death. He wanted to be on the record. But obviously that was the last thing Freeh wanted....
Where is there anything in what you have posted to indicate anything to the contrary???
Show me anywhere???? You are as bad as Louie Freeh ——
Zactly! Strains credulity well passed the breaking point.
The Tickle Monster was a master manipulator. He tricked Joe Paterno.
Naked horse play in the showers with naked little boys certainly doesnt raise any red flags.
Now PSU has a basis for rejecting the Freeh Report and its recommendations.
What part of "they are from official court testimony" did you misunderstand?
If any of it were "made up", the individuals who gave such testimony (Paterno himself being one of them) are open to charges of perjury. Yet no such charges have ever been filed by the Sandusky or Paterno families.
You sir, have detached yourself from reality.
Let me guess your next languid retort:
"It's all a conspiracy!"
"It's all political!"
"It's all Bush's fault!"
Can you imagine going to work each day for years - and you are The Boss - and the Tickle Monster is still hanging around, post retirement, running a charity for little boys and sitting at the head table at company dinners alongside one of his boy toys?
And you’re like, “This seems legit. I mean, I told the ‘higher-ups’ about him horsing around naked in the showers with little boys. Their bowl game hotel room must have two queen sized beds. Nothing to see here.”
and yet your sign on date says 1998 -- no wonder you have difficulty with facts.
“What part of “they are from official court testimony” did you misunderstand?”
This part, to start:
“The grand jury presentment, in a very unusual move, declared McQueary to be highly credible, even though he apparently never testified in front of the grand jury panel which actually voted to indict. It will eventually become clear that there are many things about McQueary which make that pronouncement particularly absurd.
“McQueary has never testified that he told a specific person he saw sex of any kind and Dr. Dranov, a mandated reporter for child sex abuse, never reported what Mike told him the night of the episode.”
“Let me guess your next languid retort:
“It’s all a conspiracy!”
The only conspiracy I see is the conspiracy of a closed mind belonging to a n00b.
Penn State has risen to the level of irrelevence.
If they wish to sink back to non-existence, they can ignore the Freeh report.
> “Spot on.” <<
We have a ‘spot’ remover here that we affectionately call the Zot Cannon.
It comes in handy when some troll noob starts defending the ‘gay rights’ strategy.
You and your other Paterno apologists are nuts.
"if you examine Mike McQuearys subsequent testimony, which was given on 16 December 2011 at the preliminary hearing for Penn States former Athletic Director, Tim Curley, and its former Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz, youll see that McQueary is steadfast in his assertion that he never saw insertion. Twice, McQueary asserted the essence of this sworn testimony: I did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling, so I cant sit here and say that I know 100 percent sure that there was intercourse, but thats what I said to myself and thats what I believed was happening. [Transcript of Preliminary Hearing, pp.13-14, p. 72] When he was asked if he saw the look of pain on the boys face, McQueary said, no.[p. 97]
"Later, under cross-examination, McQueary was even more emphatic: I have never used the word anal or rape in thissince day one. [Transcript, pp. 71-72] Thus, the reader must doubt the grand jury presentment every time it summarizes McQuearys testimony by asserting he saw something anal.
The Second False Assertion:
"After falsely asserting that McQueary saw a naked boy being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky, the author who summarized the grand jury presentment made a very misleading assertion when he wrote that: McQueary went to Paternos home, where he reported what he had seen. [Grand Jury Report, p. 7]
"Obviously, by linking the false assertion that McQueary saw a naked boy being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky to the assertion that McQueary reported what he had seen to Paterno, the author who summarized McQuearys testimony wants American readers to believe that the grand jurors believed that McQueary went to Paterno and told him that he witnessed Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a young boy. Perhaps, the jurors did.
"In addition, McQueary testified under oath that he never used the term sodomy or anal intercourse when he notified Paterno about what he saw in the shower on 1 March 2002. [p. Preliminary Hearing Transcript, p. 25] (In fact, McQueary testified under oath that he could not recall using the words sexual assault, when talking to Paterno, or even using the word crime to describe Sanduskys behavior) Actually, McQuearys preliminary hearing testimony substantiates Paternos earlier assertion (in a news release) that McQueary at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report. [Star-Ledger Wire Services, Nov. 8, 2011]
McQueary said that that is not what he testified to before the Grand Jury.
What he testified to in the Sandusky trial was different and the jury there made up of every day normal Americans later summarized McQueary's testimony as a grooming incident and acquitted Sandusky of the rape charge in this McQueary incident.
But please don't let the facts get in the way of your lynching.
BTW Welcome to Free Republic, Newbee!!!
“You and your other Paterno apologists are nuts.”
I’d respond to the facts you outlined in your post I quoted, but there are none.
They are not unlike the Obama sycophants.
Totally deluded and enmeshed in hero worship.
How unfortunate for you that you do not have the requisite administrative rights necessary to remove remarks by someone you disagree with.
“During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno’s attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us”
Louis Freeh, in his response to the Paterno Report
“The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.”
Freeh Report, page 53
“Mr. Paterno passed away before we had the opportunity to speak with him, although we did speak with some of his representatives. We believe that he was willing to speak with us and would have done so, but for his serious, deteriorating health.”
From the Freeh July 2012 press conference
Care to read it and comment?
From Wick Sollers:
Wick Sollers’ rebuttal to Louis Freeh:
Paterno family attorney Wick Sollers issued the following statement in response to former FBI director Louis Freeh’s comments on the Paterno family critique, released on Sunday morning, of Freeh’s report on Penn State’s handling of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case.
“Mr. Freeh’s attack on the report this morning should trouble everyone who wants the truth on the Sandusky scandal. He criticizes a report he obviously hadn’t had time to read and consider. And he refuses to address the critical factual and procedural failures in his own report, particularly his flawed conclusions which have only added to this tragedy.
The assertion by Mr. Freeh that somehow the Paterno family declined to cooperate with his investigators is an unfortunate distortion of the truth. I personally met with the Freeh team and pledged full cooperation. Joe Paterno’s cancer diagnosis, treatment and subsequent death prevented him from being interviewed. But Jay Paterno was interviewed and I shared additional information available to me.
Being angry does not constitute a defense of poor work. A failure to consider the facts carefully is exactly the problem our expert analysis highlights. I encourage everyone, including Mr. Freeh, to take the time to study this report.”
But how will I have time to read OJs report on his investigation regarding finding the killers of the people he murdered?
Penn State accepted the Freeh report and its recommendations.
Paterno admitted his knowledge of the first initial report of sexual abuse. Paterno stated he also knew the second (McCleary report) that something sexual in nature happened.
Yet he did not notify the authorities.
Worse, when the Admin came up with an Action Plan, including notifying authorities regarding the incidents, the Admin decides to not notify authorities AFTER THEY TALK TO PATERNO.
Read the report sycophants. Accept Paterno failed many children who were molested and move on. If you are going to read the fiction from the Paterno family, try a novel instead.
(AMPU, I'd pull this quote if I were you...how many witnesses of a rape actually see specific "insertion"???...a ridiculous degree of actually disclaiming a rape...and a dangerous one...and one not worthy of Christians to introduce)
Care to respond to my #51?
Wow! AMPU...far from you to be introducing the thought that there's "nothing wrong" with men taking showers with boys -- with no one else around.
"Later, under cross-examination, McQueary was even more emphatic: I have never used the word anal or rape in thissince day one.
Tell us, AMPU: How many men are in jail -- or were placed there -- for molesting boys minus any actual rape? Why are you going to the nth degree to make distinctions without distinctions in this particular matter?
Given that you don't seem to deny that Sandusky bared himself before a boy, and that McQueary heard slapping sounds along the lines of intercourse as the two were close in a shower, is that something we as Christians should be promoting as "acceptable" in any way by defending the firsthand eyewitnesses and secondhand earwitnesses of this?
Cult of an athletics coach at a provincial college? Gimme a break!
Ya know, ANY university of this size worth its salt would have had its own undercover private investigator giving administrative decision-makers enough signals on this matter...even if such an investigator might not give them the full scoop so that such an admin could create distance as to exactly what he knew...The scandal broke early last Fall...the Penn State Admin had over 8 months before the Freeh report came out in July...and almost 9 months pre NCAA sanctions.
The Penn State admin knew -- or should have known -- exactly what was "challenge-able" from either the report or the sanctions...Such an investigator could certainly reinforce what was "defensible" from Penn State's angle...
Guess what? They did neither.
Your admins are still in place @ Penn State, are they not? (Then why are you posting any blame further than them?)
I watched Thornburgh and the other two bozos for about ten minutes this morning. That was all the time I needed to see they were acting strictly as a hired guns for the university and deserved no credibility whatsoever.
From his own mouth, Thornburgh claimed the SINGLE MOST MAJOR flaw in the Freeh Report was the fact that none of the four principals in authority at the university, the president, a vice president, the athletic director and Paterno, had been among the 482 people interviewed for the report, making it seem that Freeh had deliberately failed to interview them in an attempt to railroad them. But of course, the fact is that Freeh couldn’t interview them because their own lawyers refused to allow them to be interviewed!
Thornburgh’s report is a joke. It’s an attempt to muddy the waters and exculpate a once great university from the consequences of the egregious failures of its own leaders. It will be little noted and will cause no changes whatsoever to the sanctions assessed against Penn State.
Actually I agree 100%, and if you talk to most Penn Staters they'll tell you that after Sandusky their anger is directed at an inept and self-serving board of trustees. There's a very strong argument to be made that the BoT and university president breached their fiduciary responsibility by failing to do exactly what you suggested above.
“(AMPU, I’d pull this quote if I were you...how many witnesses of a rape actually see specific “insertion”???...a ridiculous degree of actually disclaiming a rape...and a dangerous one...and one not worthy of Christians to introduce)”
I believe it is germane to the conversation and inclusion doesn’t detract from the rest of what M. testified to seeing or not seeing. It is important because the grand jury said “anal rape”. There is not anal rape without insertion. If he did not witness rape, as he says he did not, then he did not tell Paterno he saw anal rape, as was claimed by the grand jury.
And yet he was fired. I guess he wasn't the "most", was he??? [Uncle Chip]
Chip, please don't retroactively plead ignorance here; Ontap is referencing all those years where witness McQueary was bumped from grad student (at time he saw Sandusky & the kid in the showers) --> WR coach --> plus head of Penn State football recruiting.
Your firing ref to JoePa comes post-eruption of this scandal. You can't pretend that you really don't know the difference, here, right?
So then, Newbee troll, o great defender of Louie Freeh:
You have been here before.
Would you like to tell us who you were in your past life.
“Why are you going to the nth degree to make distinctions without distinctions in this particular matter? “
First, I am quoting what the “witness” says he saw and did not see. Since the grand jury claimed something very different than was testified to, the grand jury was giving an opinion.
None of that would justify abuse. It is, however a fact of this case and was used to draw a conclusion that was not supported by that fact.
This comment needs to be repeated for the benefit of the Jopologists.
This scandal broke 15 months ago...and somehow the Joepologists think that they can begin to do some "damage control" now.
I've got a suggestion for you Jopologists: Go take a Public Relations 101 course from your local community college. Ask that prof if he/she thinks that 15 months is the "optimal" time to conduct reputational damage control...
Haha you sir are a funny guy.
Paterno's own testimony reflects the reality that he did not require a declarative statement from McQueary: "I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster..."
Had Paterno not known about 1998, then Paterno would've understandably been surprised. I'd allow some confusion at what one of his staff members told him and as a result, an instinctive presumption of innocence. I could maybe excuse the overwhelmingly poor leadership he displayed in not contacting the "appropriate" legal authorities and simply passing it up the administrative line and then not following it up. That wouldn't be a completely inexplicable response.
However, that is not what happened. Paterno did know about 1998. And as a result, a second allegation that this same man was showering with boys, much less caught in what McQueary, at a minimum, conveyed as inappropriate conduct, should've led Paterno to act decisively and contact the "appropriate" legal authorities.
It is not credible to assert that Paterno did not fully comprehend what was going on after receiving two sexual abuse claims against Sandusky in a 3 year period.
BTW: What is this fixation that some of you have in assuming I am new here? Do the numbers that show up when someone scrolls over your user id confer upon you an Honorary Degree in "Not Being Stupid"? :)
AMPU, are you really telling us that if you as a witness saw what appeared to be rape -- but you couldn't tell if it was "mere" sexual abuse or actual penetrative rape -- that this would all somehow be relevant to the overall dimensions of this case...particularly now that this repetitive child abuser has been placed in prison for both child sexual abuse of a more general nature -- and rape itself???
So what if Joe didn't actually know if it was actual "rape" -- or, to shutter me even using the word -- "only" -- sexual abuse of another kind?
Can't you see why you're making distinctions without a distinction?
I tell you what: The jury in Sandusky's cases -- many of which haven't been tried -- made no such "well, that depends on the meaning of the word 'penetration'" parsings as you have done in posts here...
“Years later, Mr. Paterno would explain to a reporter he chose to discuss the event with that he told McQueary, ‘I said you did what you had to do. Its my job now to figure out what we want to do.”