Freeh report: “Total disregard” at Penn State for Sandusky victims

posted at 12:01 pm on July 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Former FBI director Louis Freeh released his report on the scandal surrounding Penn State and the years in which football coach Jerry Sandusky sexually molested young boys on and off campus … and it’s ugly, to say the least. Senior officials at the school — including its recently-deceased head football coach Joe Paterno — ignored complaints and warnings about Sandusky’s crimes, and “never demonstrated … any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims” until after the scandal exploded into public view:

Penn State University’s top officials, including head football coach Joe Paterno, failed to protect the children who were sexually abused by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, according to an investigation of the scandal that has roiled the school since last fall.

In a letter accompanying the release of the report Thursday morning, former FBI Director Louis Freeh had harsh words for the university’s top officials for failing to act on reports that Sandusky, once the football team’s top defensive coach, had molested children on the school’s grounds. Sandusky is in jail awaiting sentencing on 45 charges of sexually abusing 10 boys over a period of 15 years. …

Investigators found that in order to avoid “bad publicity,” university President Graham Spanier, football Coach Paterno, Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice PresidentGary Schultz “repeatedly concealed critical facts.”

Spanier and Paterno were forced out of their jobs after Sandusky was arrested last fall. Curley and Schultz are awaiting trial on charges of perjury and failing to report the abuse to outside officials.

All four knew of a 1998 investigation into Sandusky, the report pointed out, but none alerted university trustees or took any action against Sandusky. Those reports never led to any criminal charges against Sandusky.

As if that’s not bad enough, Paterno and school officials discussed going to the authorities after assistant Mike McQueary told them about the molestation he believed he had witnessed.  Paterno convinced the school to stay quiet:

Paterno then went to his superiors, who decided not to call in outside authorities. Freeh was sharply critical of that decision and said the action to keep the reports internal was due to Paterno, who convinced other officials not to take action outside of  the university.

“In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20th of this year, we see evidence … that included reporting allegations about Sandusky to the authorities,” Freeh stated.

“After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno, however, they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities. Their failure to protect the February 9, 2001 child victim, or make attempts to identify him, created a dangerous situation for other unknown, unsuspecting young boys who were lured to the Penn State campus and football games by Sandusky and victimized repeatedly by him. Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child’s identity,” Freeh said.

It’s a monstrous indictment of Penn State and its athletic program, from the top down.  Not one person in the loop had more concern for the boys victimized by Sandusky than of their own paydays.  It’s incomprehensible, especially for a school and a football program that styled itself as a rare ethical environment that cared more about scholastic achievement and honorable sportsmanship than national championships.    In fact, as the Freeh report states, they ended up enabling even more abuse:

These individuals, unchecked by the Board of Trustees that did not perform its oversight duties, empowered Sandusky to attract potential victims to the campus and football events by allowing him to have continued, unrestricted and unsupervised access to the University’s facilities and affiliation with the University’s prominent football program.  Indeed, that continued access provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims.  Some coaches, administrators and football program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky’s behaviors and no one warned the public about him. …

[T]he Special Investigative Counsel finds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, 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 from the authorities, the University’s Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large.

There had been some pushback after Paterno’s death to rehabilitate his memory as an unwitting bystander who just made a bad decision.  The Freeh report will destroy that impulse.  It contains repeated indictments of the head coach along with the rest of Penn State’s chain of command.

What can Penn State do to put this behind the university?  The Freeh report lists as its final contributing cause to this shameful cover-up “[a] culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community.”  Maybe that’s a good place to start, although it’s probably already a moot point.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’ve went to several colleges/universities in accumulating my bachelor’s and masters degrees. Never saw that occur.

chemman on July 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It was a semi-regular activity at the college (in the music department anyway) I went to, at least 3-4 such events per year. Being the naive 18y/o frosh that I was, I got suckered into going one time, and after it became obvious what was going on, I quietly left the ‘party’ and walked the 3-4 miles back to campus by myself. Let’s just say I was no longer the ‘darling’ of the music faculty after that day, and left after my soph year as it became crystal clear where I stood in the department.

I’ve since put two sons through universities, (one with his Masters, the other one with a Bachelor degree), two different schools and programs of study, which both essentially were liberal indoctrination programs, at least as far as they could be pushed into the curriculum. The schools worked VERY HARD to inculcate them both with the full range of PC doctrines, sadly, with some at least temporary success.

That’s just been my own personal experience with academia. Your mileage may differ.

Harbingeing on July 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM

These kinds of people are no better than human traffickers or slave traders.

God, help us.

davidk on July 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You seem to have a strange definition of hard evidence.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 2:46 PM

There literally is not a single piece of evidence that Paterno concealed facts or made a decision to conceal facts. If you disagree, please point to that evidence, not Freeh’s unwarranted claims.

woocane on July 12, 2012 at 1:46 PM

The email from the AD to Schultz and Spanier referencing a conversation with Joe which made him change his mind as to turning Sandusky in, is pretty close to a smoking gun.

a capella on July 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

You have an awfully high bar to pass for acceptable evidence. I guess we should just forget this email right? Written correspondence about a third party’s action prior to investigating an event is not hearsay last time I checked. It is typically considered

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Let’s say your report initiated a law enforcement (police) investigation and nothing was done.

And, by the way, nobody ever lies about what they’ve seen.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Yep there you have it, everyone knows it is common practice to make up stories about a 50+ year old man raping 13 year old boys. Just common locker room tomfoolery. Why heck just the other day I found myself considering making up a story about a 2 year old and a 75 year old retired stonemason.

PATHETIC!

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Let’s say your report initiated a law enforcement (police) investigation and nothing was done.

And, by the way, nobody ever lies about what they’ve seen.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Doesn’t matter. I would still be bound to pursue it. If I didn’t I would have to admit I hadn’t done enough…sound familiar? And as another poster said, we’re talking about the lives of innocent children here, not some petty theft. That would put more onus upon me or anyone to be more active in pursuing it, especially if I was responsible for their safety. But you keep trying, it doesn’t matter to me. Have a nice day.

Deanna on July 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Shameful. The Paterno statue should come down and strong action should be taken against the program. It is hard to imagine how anyone could think football was more important than protecting children yet here we are.

McDuck on July 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Child sexual abuse is the most heinous crime there is. Unfortunately, there is much more to it than punishing Sandusky and his enablers. His victims will be living with this for the rest of their lives. Abuse victims also have a higher rate of turning into abusers themselves.

hopeful on July 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

This really turns my stomach. These are grown ups, for Chrissakes. Young boys are supposed to look up to them, they’re supposed to be trusted, they’re idolized. And for what? I could say for what, but I’d get tossed off of here. But you all get my drift, I’m sure. FBI should start flinging charges at everyone involved, until the last cowardly scumbag is serving time. Sickening.

scalleywag on July 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

The SMU football program was shut down by the NCAA for four years because they paid players. What happened at Penn State was infinitely worse. Their football program should be shut down for ten years at least.

Reggie1971 on July 12, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Penn State Responds!!
______________________

msnbc.com | Aired on July 12, 2012

Penn State responds to Freeh report
*************************************

LIVE VIDEO — Penn State Officials respond the university-backed report that found some leaders at the school concealed fact about Jerry Sandusky’s behavior.
==========================

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc.com/48165521/#48165521

canopfor on July 12, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I am sure Obama’s lieutenants are taking notes…how to hide facts and ignore victims until after it’s too late…

right2bright on July 12, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Also, Freeh is noted for delivering the report his superiors (the ones who pay his bills) want.

either orr on July 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Uh, didn’t Penn State ask for and fund this investigation?

If what you say is true, it must be worse than he’s saying.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Wow this is totally disgusting. The report literally provides hard evidence of written correspondence covering up the child rapists actions and some people at HA are actually still supporting this enabling group of filth known as Penn State leaders.

Now some are arguing “we don’t know what was actually said?”

Apparently nothing short of a notarized child sex video with a supporting video of actual discussions notarized and witnessed by 50,000 at the football stadium would shake some of you from your faith in football purity and the idols you worship.

For some there is no amount of proof that will cause them to leave the Golden Calf alter of the football religion and the priests of their faith.

JUST.PLAIN.SICK.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM

This.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I think his point was that Penn State paid this guy to pin as much fault on the fall guys that they had identified.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM

No. JoePa wasn’t a “fall guy” and he got hammered. And after this investigation, there is nobody left. The PSUBOTs were being asked at their presser if they were going to resign.

If Freeh was paid to deflect blame, he did a really, really bad job of it.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

No, the suggestion was made that he was paid to find specific blame.

I recommend that you take another read of what Freeh actually wrote and pay specific attention to what he’s omitting.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Why don’t you just tell us what, (a)he was supposedly hired (secretly) by the BOT to do, and (b) what he actually did (omitted?).

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 5:07 PM

This was already addressed. There is no claim that JoPa said anything to change anyone’s mind.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 4:39 PM

FTA

“After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno, however, they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities

If by addressed you mean ignored or being intentionally obtuse then I guess your right.

As for the rest of the world that reads very clearly that your saintly idol Paterno was involved in the decision to not report the child rapist. Which by the way is in itself a violation of the law because the university was required to report any such suspected activities. It is not the organizations responsibility to determine anything more than if the report has merit, which it did, especially given this wasn’t the first time your friend the child rapist was reported.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 5:23 PM

No, I asked you to reread what you wrote and take note of the information which he omits. Information which he implies but is careful not to definitely state.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 5:23 PM

And I’m asking you to quit playing “gotcha” games and just tell us what you think he omitted.

This isn’t some kind of game to most of us.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Then why the heck did they bother having a trial?

Honestly, you sound like the mob that’s already convicted George Zimmerman. Who needs proper investigations? Why needs rules of evidence? Who needs trials? Grab your pitchfork!

blink on July 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM

They had the trail, guess what they found Sandusky GUILTY! Which means all the failures to report his actions when they were told about it is now validated as failing to follow the law and enabling further rapes of young boys.

The guy raped those boys, the people who failed to act when told enabled more rapes that included the Penn State godhead Paterno may he rot in hell sharing Hitlers pineapple.

You now want to debate that those people somehow had no responsibility to act or were unaware of Sandusky’s activities? For heavens sake they had another staff coach freaking tell them he saw Sandusky personally doing the act and we have emails discussing what they new. GET A CLUE.

It is more like you want to put the evidence on trial since that is the only defense you have left to protect the obviously complicit actors in this pathetic scenario.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Why are you assuming that the “they” in the article include Paterno? Reading the entire paragraph seems to imply that “they” doesn’t include Paterno.
blink on July 12, 2012 at 5:32 PM

OMG read the report let me high-lite it for you.

After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno, however, they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities

Mr Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno. Most people understand consulted means in some way to have discussed. How can you keep denying this? /bog

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Check my second post in this thread and get back to me.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM

And you are chastising someone else for being sophomoric?

Are you too lazy to answer a question?

Anyway here is what you wrote:

2. What is Freeh’s definition of “conceal” when he claims that Paterno et al “repeatedly concealed critical facts”? The only definitive claim Freeh makes is that they failed to alert university trustees. Isn’t that the job of the university president? Should underlings really jump to the change of command and alert trustee’s despite the fact that a law enforcement (as defined by the the State of Pennsylvania) investigation is being conducted?

So now, please tell us what (a)Freeh was supposedly hired (secretly) by the BOT to do, and (b) what he actually did (omitted?).

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Tom for whatever reason blink is choosing to assume that Paterno was not a god on campus. Fact is whatever Paterno said went, what he wanted he got. Anyone doubting this has no credibility on the issue.

Given the status Paterno had and was fully aware of the power he had, if Paterno said report it it got reported. The fact it was not reported can only mean Paterno was against reporting it and the rest of the admin got in line behind his recommendation.

Having been raised in that area I can not emphasize enough how much power Paterno wielded at Penn State, anyone trying to minimize that fact is just plain dumb or willfully trying to obfuscate.

You do not see any full life statues of any of the administrators at Penn State, I wonder why? Their sure is one of Paterno.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Having been raised in that area I can not emphasize enough how much power Paterno wielded at Penn State, anyone trying to minimize that fact is just plain dumb or willfully trying to obfuscate.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Johnstown, how about you? ;-)

(looks a lot clearer up close, doesn’t it?)

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Johnstown also!

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Johnstown also!

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Heh, the “Berlin Wall” of the Pitt/Penn State wars.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Oh for crying out loud.

Here is your ENTIRE POST:

Here’s what I don’t really understand.

1. Freeh claims that the Penn State guys reported “allegations about Sandusky to the authorities.” Freeh also acknowledges that an investigation followed.

But he then claims that “they” then changed the plan and decided NOT to make a report to the authorities. How can this be? Is Freeh claiming that they decided not to make a report to OTHER authorities?

2. What is Freeh’s definition of “conceal” when he claims that Paterno et al “repeatedly concealed critical facts”? The only definitive claim Freeh makes is that they failed to alert university trustees. Isn’t that the job of the university president? Should underlings really jump to the change of command and alert trustee’s despite the fact that a law enforcement (as defined by the the State of Pennsylvania) investigation is being conducted?

blink on July 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Happy?

So now, please tell us what (a)Freeh was supposedly hired (secretly) by the BOT to do, and (b) what he actually did (omitted?).

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM

The “they” doesn’t describe who discussed the incident. The “they” describe who changed the plan.

Seriously, have you ever carefully scrutinized what is being claimed versus what specifically isn’t being claimed? Have you ever had to carefully scrutinize specific language of a document? Or are you the type that gets easily duped by careful wordsmithing?

blink on July 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

It has become obvious you either do not or choose not to understand the authority Paterno wielded at the college.

I will repeat this but once more. Let’s go ahead and give you your supposition “they” is vague.

Does not matter. After the conversation with Curley if Paterno recommended report they would have reported it. To argue otherwise shows how little you understand the culture at Penn State and how well Paterno was “respected” So that means Paterno must have recommended to not report, which is what they did.

That you can not see this makes any further discussion useless on the issue, believe as you wish it doesn’t change the fact that the culture was what it was and Paterno protected a child rapist, ergo his last words regretting his actions.

Again remember this is child rape we are talking about reporting not stealing a candy bar. When in doubt on such a grievous issue wise and mature men decide conservatively, Paterno and the rest of the group hardly showed those qualities.

Also given Paterno had no legal responsibility to report the issue any further than he did, he sure as hell had a moral one. One he completely failed at. Paterno gets no pass on this one.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 6:08 PM

blink you can’t be serious. The whole reason for the Penn State investigation was to determine if they executed their responsibilities to report Sandusky’s activities to the proper authorities. Now you post that they did report it. Why bother with the investigation if they did report like they were supposed to. You are the one making no sense.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

There goes blink again defending a cover up of child molestation…puke. You’re as gross as an liberal.

CW on July 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Which is why it was reported.
blink on July 12, 2012 at 6:05 PM

“After Mr. Curley consulted with Mr. Paterno, however, they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities

Wow the report says they decided not to report but you say it was reported, who to belive, hmmm… Ex FBI hired to investigate or you…

Sorry you lose.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Sorry you lose.

Skwor on July 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM

blink is fighting a losing fight and all to defend those that rape children. sick.

CW on July 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Answer my questions (that I asked 4 hours ago), and that will help me answer this.

Happy?

blink on July 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM

How old are you?

Seriously.

Because I expect this kind of behavior from a teen troll.

Why is it so hard to answer my questions?

FFS, I’m going to have to take a shower after this thread.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Sara Ganim from the Harrisburg Patriot-News just tweeted:

Victim 6 mom told me months ago she was told #Paterno ok’d no chgs against #Sandusky in 1998. We couldn’t independently verify until now.

Not very clear as to exactly what she’s saying, but another witness to Joe’s lying.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

highlighting inconsistencies in Freeh’s report.

If by “highlighting” you mean, “I wrote it earlier, you just have to go and find it yourself”.

Heh.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Yes, Nancy Drew. If law enforcement’s professional investigators don’t take action, then by all means you would conduct your own investigation or keep pushing the issue higher. By all means, you would go down to the prosecutors office and demand more action.

Cases like this bring out the most blowhards. Talk is cheap, but I know that half of you wouldn’t have pursued this case any further than JoPa or the coaching assistant. Half of you would have been perfectly happy knowing that the president of the university had been informed and that an police department (a police department that is officially sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) had been informed and was investigating.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You know something? I didn’t resort to stupid sarcasm in my replies to you. All I said is what I would do and think should be done if I were responsible for these children. In your rush to defend you are making assumptions.
No I would not have been happy as you try to imply. To me child abuse is so heinous a crime, yes I would have wanted to pursue it more, especially if I was a coach in charge of these children. So go pound salt.
And I did read the report today, and interpret it much differently than you. On that note I’ll say have a nice evening.

Deanna on July 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM

How is this a witness of lying,

blink on July 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Paterno denied knowing anything about a 1998 investigation of Sandusky.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM

[T]he Special Investigative Counsel finds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, 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 from the authorities, the University’s Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large.

Blink cannot read.

CW on July 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

And by all means, keep claiming that I’m sick for highlighting inconsistencies in Freeh’s report. I’m not the least bit intimidated by it.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM

That’s why you responded…sure.

You were here last time this topic went crazy defending the indefensible. The facts are not on your side….why are you so passionate. I don’t see you this way on ANY OTHER TOPIC. Hmmmm.

CW on July 12, 2012 at 7:01 PM

3. I know that half the people that are talking tough in this thread wouldn’t have done more than was actually done. ….
blink on July 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Projection.

CW on July 12, 2012 at 7:02 PM

How many times do I need to write something in order to claim that I’ve highlighted it?

blink on July 12, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Nothing you’ve written before answers these questions.

You said earlier:

I think his point was that Penn State paid this guy to pin as much fault on the fall guys that they had identified.

So now, please tell us what specifically (a)Freeh was supposedly hired (secretly) by the BOT to do (i.e. pin what on whom), and (b) what he actually did (omitted?).

No more “I answered this before” or “you have to look for yourself”. Just answer those questions.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 7:04 PM

And my 2nd question? Or is that too inconvenient for you to answer?

blink on July 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

and who’s the witness? The mother or the person that “told” the mother?

The mother is the “witness”, this NOT being a court of law.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Nothing you’ve written before answers these questions.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 7:04 PM

What are you talking about? My questions highlight inconsistencies. Good grief, your dense.

please tell us what specifically (a)Freeh was supposedly hired (secretly) by the BOT to do

I never claimed that anything was done secretly, and I explained what I meant. Why are you ignoring that?

(b) what he actually did (omitted?).

I’ll give you one. He omitted his definition of conceal. That should have been obvious by my question.

Now, answer my questions.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I think I’m being fair here in reading what was written, so someone else is going to have to translate for me. Is blink making an even remote attempt to answer my questions?

Because for the life of me “My questions highlight inconsistencies” or “I explained what I meant” isn’t an answer in my book.

What an utterly dishonest person you are. I’m sure JoePa rests well knowing you are the last bastion of defense left for him.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Except that the mother only actually witnessed someone telling her something. Right?

blink on July 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

And my 2nd 1st question? Or is that too inconvenient for you to answer?

(I’m just recycling for simplicity sake.)

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Btw, the president seems to have had some other strange thing going on. He seems to have resisted taking immediate, strong action becomes he viewed such swift actions as being anti-gay or something.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

I got the same vibe from a commenter from Nebraska back in November, when all this first hit the fan.

Consider this, folks (if some of you can take the hate out of your eyes)…

If Spanier had done the right thing in 1998, Sandusky would have been fired/forced to resign then and there. Paterno would have been given no choice. (And, based on what I’ve read from long-standing beat writers, there wasn’t a lot of love between the two.) Remember, the 1998 incident nol prosse was approved by the now-long-since-missing DA of Centre County, a man who, by reputation, had no particular love for Penn State.

If Spanier had done the right thing in 2001, Sandusky would have been barred from campus, stripped of his emeritus status and reported to Children’s Services. But the business relationship between the university and Sandusky’s Second Mile continued unabated, with the full support of the board, for several years thereafter.

The Freeh report has given the board, which Spanier courted assiduously for years, a virtual pass.

That, I submit, is what he was paid to do.

Remember Freeh’s investigations into Ruby Ridge and Waco?

either orr on July 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Yes, I told you that point being made about Freeh was that he was hired because it was hoped that he would produce this type of report.

Yes, you did say that.

You said:

I think his point was that Penn State paid this guy to pin as much fault on the fall guys that they had identified.

then you said:

No, the suggestion was made that he was paid to find specific blame.

And at that point you invited me to find out for myself what you meant:

I recommend that you take another read of what Freeh actually wrote and pay specific attention to what he’s omitting.

To that non-answer I asked (and rightly so, it seems):

Why don’t you just tell us what, (a)he was supposedly hired (secretly) by the BOT to do, and (b) what he actually did (omitted?).

I hereby officially and in the sight of God Almighty strike the word “secretly” from the question.

So we are left with:

Why don’t you just tell us what, (a)he was supposedly hired by the BOT to do, and (b) what he actually did (omitted?).

I leave your final quote here as simple irony:

Even if you don’t understand, do yourself a favor and pretend that you do so that you save yourself from any additional embarrassment.

blink on July 12, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Now really, is there any attempt on your part to address those two questions in all these posts?

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM

The Freeh report has given the board, which Spanier courted assiduously for years, a virtual pass.

That, I submit, is what he was paid to do.

either orr on July 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Ah yes, the epic fail.

The first hit on google for “Freeh report board of trustees”

Freeh Report: Lack of oversight by Penn State board of trustees to blame in Jerry Sandusky scandal

or:

Penn State’s Freeh report highlights leadership failings of university’s board of trustees

or:

Freeh report: Penn State trustees did not demand enough info from Graham Spanier

As I said earlier, at the presser, the BOTs were being bombarded with questions about if they were going to resign.

Does “virtual pass” mean “fail”?

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Good grief, Tomblvd, I’ve explained that the claim about Freeh’s hiring is that he was hired to write the exact type of report that he wrote – that he would find specific – rather than systemic blame.

Er, as I showed above, it didn’t work. I’m not aware of Freeh’s report sparing anybody. Most certainly not the BOT.

Can they get their money back?

Notice again, that I’m not claiming that he was given specific instructions.

Now, maybe I should have written, “…paid because he’d find specific blame…” to be more clear.

No, you aren’t being clear because you, well, aren’t being clear. You do say that the BOT hired Freeh for a reason, but you never tell us what that specific reason is. All you do is complain about how I frame my question. So the BOT hired Freeh because they believed he’d come back with a report casting the blame where they wanted. Well, where did they want it? And why all the crypticism?

It seems as if you’re simply not bright enough to realize that I’ve provided you plenty of information regarding your question – either that or you’re simply being disingenuous.

You know, you’re right. I’m just not bright enough to understand and decipher the brilliance of your posts. You put the answers to my questions in clear view, and I was too dim to ferret them out.

So you win, now reveal to everyone just where these answers have lain, hiding in full view.

I shall peruse them in the morning, so as to hide my shame from my family.

Tomblvd on July 12, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I always sensed thar paterno was an enabler in order to protect his perks. That he died so soon after convinced me that he knew he was guilty(at least he had enough integrity to be hard on himself) and allowed himself to give up the will to live. Freeh just confirmed all my suspicions. Now Penn atheltjc program needs the death penalty — we’ll see if NCAA has the balls to do it. In the meantime, I’m fine with every single kid that ever passed thru Jerry’s program taking a megasized bite out of Penn, even if Penn becomes penniless in the process.

AH_C on July 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Okay call me a skeptic, but WHO exactly hired Feech to do this report and was it the victims families?

JeffinSac on July 12, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Washington Nearsider on July 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

We all wished it wasn’t what it is.

Bubba Redneck on July 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM

PSU football needs to be banned from the NCAA in all divisions for all time.
It has earned the privilege.

Bubba Redneck on July 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM

OK, I’m reading the report and I fail to see Blink’s point. I suppose that makes me incapable of reading comprehension above a 5th grade level. But it is clear who “they” is. Curly, Spainer, and Schultz. In numerous places in the report Freeh refers to notes, emails, and testimony given by the 3 stooges. They had a plan, met with Paterno and the plan was changed.

It is also clear what University people thought of Curley. They thought he was Paterno’s errand boy.

Sheesh.

I know it’s late and all, but I’m pretty sure I can read.

armygirl on July 13, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Penn state should be suspended from NCAA for 10 years. In 1999 Paterno was so sure that Sandusky was a pervert he somehow got him to retire. Then magically he was given an office on campus and was taking the young men into showers. Imagine all of the damage done since 1999. They had the perfect opportunity to end the madness in 1999 and did just the opposite.

iam7545r on July 13, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Haven’t got time to read all the comments, but some of the attacks are without foundation. Let me focus on just one.

You wrote: > Paterno convinced the school to stay quiet <

Now, exactly where is the proof of that? I know, Freeh – and a host of others have made the same CLAIM, but where is the proof?

The stuff you quoted after that comment did not provide any proof at all about Paterno.

We know, from email, that the AD did that, but nothing about Paterno.

Yeah, I know, the AD talked to Paterno. What did Paterno say? What was he asked? What was he told?

I've seen NOTHING on those key points. Since the AD said he was changing his mind, isn't it just as reasonable to think he did nothing more than ask Paterno what McQueary told him, in case there was some information he didn't have?

It doesn't mean Paterno told them to not report it. It doesn't even mean the AD told Paterno that he was thinking that way.

And if Paterno did favor it and had such influence, why did the AD only say he TALKED to Paterno? Why not support his own ideas by saying Paterno agreed or suggested it?

It's easy to say, "Of course he knew" or that he promoted the idea. But that just serves the views of people who already made up their minds.

dabbigkahuna on July 13, 2012 at 2:34 AM

(looking around)

Nope, no new information. I guess blink is taking his ball and going away. So much for helping us stupid people out.

Actually, armygirl, you’re completely supporting the point I was making to Skwor. I’m not sure how you didn’t realize that.

blink on July 13, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Which was?????

Tomblvd on July 13, 2012 at 6:09 AM

Actually, armygirl, you’re completely supporting the point I was making to Skwor. I’m not sure how you didn’t realize that.

I know it’s late and all, but I’m pretty sure I can read.
Yup, you did a great job. Thanks.

blink on July 13, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Then I don’t understand your point. It seems pretty clear that those 4 individuals wanted to keep things quiet and did not want the BOT to know much. It doesn’t look to me like there is much vagueness in the report.

It is also pretty clear how much power JoPa had at PSU. (I stated that in threads in the fall when this all came out).

Just not sure how this report does anything but clear out the coffers of PSU and transferred to boys (now men) who went through Second Mile and the lawyers representing them.

armygirl on July 13, 2012 at 7:24 AM

When I was a kid, my daddy taught me that, regardless of cost, the first duty of a man was to protect women. As I grew, he amended the lesson to include children. I have male relatives who were on board the Titanic, who helped the women and kids into the lifeboats and chose the sea for themselves.

No matter how anyone argues this one, it is a soul-damning crime for which the university is institutionally responsible.

The NCAA should kick out the Penn State football program – permanently.

Cricket624 on July 13, 2012 at 10:17 AM

The Romans had the right idea with damnatio memoriae. Paterno’s statue should meet the same fate as Saddam Husein’s

Yet again Western thought, that is in its revealed religions chooses to sacrifice the innocent for the comfort of the powerful.

The only solution for a good person is to walk away from all such groups. Staying only ratifies their evil.

Denver Bob on July 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2