Posted on 02/10/2013 7:10:13 AM PST by Uncle Chip
<>Where are you getting your information?<>
http://www.framingpaterno.com/
<>I already posted a link, but I’ll repost it especially for you.<>
Your link provides no evidence. He just makes an assertion that disagrees with the book that he is reviewing. If that’s your source then no wonder you are misled.
<>Can you provide documentation ....<>
At the link and partner sites. And you will find a copy of the [fact free] Freeh Report there as well which you clearly haven’t read.
I took these comments as a challenge and easily identified 20 errors and omissions in the report. It was hard to keep the list to twenty, understanding that the media has a short attention span, so I picked the ones that had the most impact on Freeh’s press conference statements.
The Freeh Report:
1. Omitted federal and state laws regarding the confidentiality of child abuse reports (prohibited by law from knowing the identity of the child in the 2001 incident or the children in the 1998 incident).
2. Incorrectly found that Paterno, Curley, and Spanier knew the details of the 1998 investigation (under the law, these men could not be informed of the details of the investigation).
3. Incorrectly found that Spanier failed in his duties by not informing the Board of Trustees about 1998 (under the law, the BOT could not be informed of the investigation).
4. Recommended revisions to PSU Policy AD39 that violated state laws (the revised policy, which is included in its entirety in the Freeh Report, states a report must be made to the General Counsel and Risk Management Department after contacting DPW. Those contacts are illegal under Pa. 055 Section 3490. That law provides the rationale for Wendell Courtney having no knowledge of the 1998 incident. Furthermore, the law requires contacting the DA if a school employee is the abuser. The new policy fails to meet the law on several fronts.)
5. Incorrectly found that Paterno, Curley, Spanier, and Schultz were kept informed of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky. (e-mail evidence shows just the opposite).
6. Did not investigate the potential conflict of interest issue between DPW and Second Mile, identified by police Chief Tom Harmon during the 1998 investigation.
7. Constructed an incomplete timeline of Sandusky’s crimes (omitted crimes prior to 1998).
8. Did not investigate the claims by Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney regarding contacting Center County Children and Youth Services (CYS) about the 2001 incident.
9. Omitted the testimony of Dr. Jonathon Dranov regarding the 2001 shower incident.
10. Did not address the changing testimony and non-specific information reported by Mike McQueary regarding the 2001 shower incident.
11. Incorrectly characterized e-mails as “cryptic” and “unique” to the 2001 shower incident (one of the exhibits was about the future employment of basketball coach Jerry Dunn).
12. Incorrectly concluded that the three officials, Schultz, Spanier, and Curley, had agreed to an action plan. (Spanier did not recall there ever being a plan to contact DPW — that was between Curley and Schultz).
13. Incorrectly concluded that PSU failed to report Sandusky in 2001 to avoid the consequences of bad publicity (based on a hearsay statement by the attorney for The Second Mile).
14. Incorrectly stated Paterno, Curley, and McQueary should have reported the 2001 incident to comply with the Clery Act (it had not been implemented outside the police force until after 2007).
15. Incorrectly found that Paterno and Curley provided Sandusky with access to facilities for conducting programs for youth (access was granted by PSU’s Outreach Office).
16. Incorrectly recounted the trial testimony regarding the Fall 2000/Victim 8 incident (provided the grand jury version that was very different than the trial testimony).
17. Did not critically analyze testimony in the Fall 2000/Victim 8 incident (how could Petrosky only see the bottoms of the legs if there is no obstruction in front of the showers?).
18. Incorrectly stated that Victim 6 was assaulted (Sandusky was acquitted of that charge).
19. Incorrectly stated that Victim 7 was assaulted (Sandusky was not charged with assault).
20. Incorrectly stated that Victim 5 was assaulted (Sandusky was acquitted of that charge).
http://www.notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/02/freehs-press-conference-undone.html
“I don’t see the facts
“You actually have to look at them.
I couldn’t disagree more.
I am not willing to hang a man and disregard +50 years of a good life based on innuendo.
Waco Freeh was. You are. You have that right. I expect more of “rule of law” conservatives, but I’m an idealist.
We disagree.
If there is any merit to your claim, then we will see it tried in civil court. There is no criminal trial because there is no evidence of criminality. I also doubt a case can be successfully made in civil court - using actual evidence versus innuendo - that will result in a jury making an award.
That is, unless there are jurors who do not care about facts and prefer innuendo, as you argue here.
Still, I doubt it will happen.
Time will tell.
If you had morals, you would be ashamed of yourself.
Also - you might want to read the Clemente report.
...and may God judge you and others who ‘rush to condemn without regard to facts’ - with leniency....
‘free me’ indeed
All the more reason PSU officials including Paterno should have acted in regards to Sandusky's activities on campus.
like obeying the law
Please post the law that protects serial child molesters.
My claim? I'm not a litigant.
It provides information. Where is your so-called evidence and when and where was it presented in court? Links please.
I requested documentation and you post "at the link and partner sites" as if they hold some legal status.
Freeh Report there as well which you clearly haven’t read.
True or false? "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized." "In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse,"
Answers to be found in post #202 above —
A blog?
Pa. 055 Section 3490.
Look it up
Evidence chippy, not a blogger's biased opinion. Why would Freeh make a report filled with false allegations and lies as you and your bloggers insinuate??
No, those are the opinions of a blogger. Where is your so-called evidence and when and where was it presented in court? Links please.
I requested documentation and you post "at the link and partner sites" as if they hold some legal status.
True or false? "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized." "In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse,"
Evidence???
Here is one other person who Freeh forgot to mention who must have been aware of Sandusky’s 1998 incident. How did he forget him. He left this person out of his report. His name — Louie Freeh:
Bombshell: MBNA bank while Freeh was co-chair and general counsel was major corporate sponsor of Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile.
http://www.tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/09/bombshell-mbna-bank-while-freeh-was-co.html
Read em and weep
Dude you are totally desperate.
Give it up.
Nobody but PSU zombies are falling for this crap.
Paterno knew.
Paterno covered it up.
Paterno squashed the Action Plan, thereby not reporting Sandusky to the authorities.
More blogs? Your desperation is pathetic.
Why don't you answer, emoter?
True or false? "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized." "In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse,"
... “Paterno knew”- No one doubts he knew something. The bigger question is what did he know? That is vague. Even McQueery says he was vague when he talked to Paterno.
... “Paterno covered it up” - no evidence. Just innuendo. What do you have?
... “Paterno squashed the Action Plan, thereby not reporting Sandusky to the authorities” - no evidence. Just innuendo. What do you have?
Your efforts are appreciated, but you are wasting your time arguing with some very small nobodies.
FRegards,
LH
You are blinded by your idyllic love for Paterno.
I’ve cited links numerous times and sycophants like yourself are still unable to admit that Paterno was a mere mortal failure.
You sycophants would sell your own children to Sandusky.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.