While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it seems to me that the “facts” are certainly not all in. In an affair as serious, and as sordid, as this, I believe we need to be careful about passing judgment until everyone’s story has been told.
We know some of the testimony from the Grand Jury, we know the testimony that was presented during the Sandusky trial, we now have the Freeh report, although I doubt many have actually read it. If you do read the Freeh report, it is quite curious that he never talked with any of the principals in the case. And how independent can it be, being it was paid for by the PSU Trustees.
We still do not know the particulars of the Curley and Schulz perjury charges, nor their defense to them. We really don’t, as of yet, have any idea of what verbal communications there may have been. We may never know.
We all know how much the MSM gets the facts wrong; if there is eventually proved to be a cover-up the individuals and the university should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But trying them in the court of public opinion is as wrong in this case as it is in the Zimmerman case, or countless others.
The whole basis of our justice systems is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. I prefer to wait until the justice system performs its function before passing judgment.
Why do you find that curious?
Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were under indictment; there's no way their attorney would have let Louis Freeh interview them. I know Wick Sollers; there's no way he (and the rest of his colleagues at King & Spalding) would have let Louis Freeh interview Joe Paterno during the brief period that Paterno was alive after Freeh was appointed. Graham Spanier? Same thing. Penn State wasn't even giving Spanier access to the emails Free was reviewing; Spanier's attorneys weren't going to let Freeh interview him.
But Freeh (and by that term I include his associates) interviewed hundreds of others and reviewed over a million documents, including emails, memos, and handwritten notes.
I went into this not trusting Freeh, given his role in Ruby Ridge, Waco, TWA 800, the Centennial Olympic Park Bombing, and so on. However, he had the decency to request that Janet Reno appoint a special investigator on Chinese political contributions to political campaigns during the Clinton reelection.
There are no missing verbal communications, or explanations, to make up for the written communications among Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. Freeh knows they are going to become public during the prosecutions of Curley and Schultz, and will become part of grand jury proceedings against Spanier and others at Penn State.
You're living on a dream if you think the Freeh report - added to what we already knew - was anything but a nail in the coffin for Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno.