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 ...
Are those facts in evidence, or based on inference and supposition?
In his paternal role as a coach, Paterno should have seen the pattern!
“”I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster...” “
I don’t think there is any dispute that something happened that led to a coaching team member going to Paterno. “Inappropriate” is an opinion that covers a huge variety of actions. Never the less, Paterno reported it to those in charge.
You’re a n00b. I will help fix your statement...
“In my opinion, as a n00b, it is not credible to assert that Paterno did not fully comprehend what was going on after receiving two second hand sexual abuse claims against Sandusky in a 3 year period - the first of which was investigated and dismissed.”
“BTW: What is this fixation that some of you have in assuming I am new here?”
You are new. That is what n00bs are. It is a reminder to me that your feathers are still damp from your hatching and I should treat you as a fledgling - with understanding, kid gloves, some grace, etc. I am trying to do so, as you make blustery statements of certainty. I suppose I would have known you were a n00b, based on that alone, but I did check to see when you hatched. In either case, I understand.
My understanding is that he came on staff 3 years after said incident. That's hardly a quid pro quo.
Coli,
I never said what you are implying I said. The distinction has obvious implications in indicting anyone for something. Either it happened or it did not. Either he communicated it or he did not. Based on his testimony, he communicated he saw Sandusky in the showers doing something inappropriate. No more, no less. In other words, what he saw and what he reported to Paterno were different.
From the kid’s point of view, none of that matters. From the point of view of indicting a man when he had vague reports, it is signifcant.
ampu
I read the local State College newspaper (the Centre Daily) for a few weeks during/after the NCAA sanctions came out, along with a local media outlet Web site.
One of the articles highlighted that the NCAA made it quite clear to these Penn State admins that if they refused to accept these sanctions, the NCAA would "ante up" those sanctions.
Now you can look at that two ways: That the admins were between a rock and hard place and didn't want "I'll see your...and raise you..." challenge...not wanting to accept such a gamble...Or, they knew that there was very little to challenge -- and in the overall scale of things -- with more Penn State officials going on trial...that things could actually turn worse with even more "revelations" forthcoming...
You need to understand how this all comes across to non-Penn State people: It makes it sound like you're being advocates for the very people who have been on trial...or are going on trial (Sandusky; AD Tim Curley; Prez Graham Spanier; Gary Schultz, Sr. VP for Finance & Business).
Are you defending any of these four for their actions or (non-actions when something actionable was demanded)???
Source: Feb 10 State College newspaper: Paterno family pledges support for child sex abuse awareness and prevention; FBI profiler calls for investigation of Second Mile
Please, Chip, tell us all of the formal and informal arrangements between Second Mile and Penn State, OK???
The fact is, McQueary never told Paterno that he witnessed an actual rape. But the old man was creeped out enough by the possibility that his former assistant coach may have done something "inapproriate" that he did indeed send the matter up the chain of command to people who were supposed to look into it further. Those people failed to do so.
It's scary, all the big-mouth nobodies who love to crucify Paterno because they apparently think it's no big deal to point at a man and accuse him of being a homosexual pedophile. They never consider the ramifications of a mistake. (Obviously, Sandusky actually did turn out to be a homosexual pedophile, we now know.) But imagine if an accusation against a man turned out to be totally false, the result of a complete misunderstanding or even malice? What would they say then? "Oops. Sorry about that, heh heh."?
As far as I'm concerned, you don't make that kind of accusation against a man unless you see it with your own two eyeballs. Paterno did not. McQueary (apparently) did, although even that is by no means clear. (Anyway, I still don't get how McQueary, who was at the time in 2002 a 28-year-old employee of the university, has skated on this thing so far?)
All those years went by and no victim (or victim's guardians) ever came forward (aside from the woman in 1998 whose son came home with a wet head)? How is that possible? Like Paterno said, Sandusky had everybody fooled. Homosexual pedophiles are sneaky that way, by nature. I don't know how the cops investigate accusations of child molestation, but I suspect they do it very quietly and carefully. Actual victims coming forward would certainly propel the case.
Anyway, Sandusky didn't get away with decades of homosexual pedophile rape because Joe Paterno and a couple of other university officials looked the other way - - Sandusky got away with homosexual pedophile rape for decades because a hundred people, including his family and friends, his Second Mile associates, university donors and benefactors, and reporters looked the other way. Hell, even The Creamery made fun of Sandusky's affection for young boys with their "Sandusky Blitz" ice cream dish.
But no - - small people have more fun laying everything at the feet of Paterno.
FRegards,
LH
Sure it is. Universities utilize grad students all the time with their programs.
And what pattern should Dr Jack Raykowitz have seen in his legal and professional and paternal role as Director of Sandusky's Second Mile Charity, whose kids were the ones molested by Sandusky.
He was/is a child psychologist with connections to the state department of child welfare. And he was told of the shower incident 2 weeks after it happened and was by law required to report Sandusky and did not and yet he still keeps his license.
Where is your rebuke for him and DPW??? or are football coaches supposed to do their jobs too???
Personally I think it was closer to the first, but with a heaping dose of incompetence sprinkled in. In truth Penn State's leadership mishandled this situation in every way possible, beginning with the 1998/2001 incidents (albeit limited to a few people at that point), continuing through the time a grand jury was convened and the Board did nothing to prepare a PR strategy, and ending with the bungled Freeh Report and response. The incompetence was so apparent that even an equally inept NCAA could sense the upperhand, and so they jumped in to score a PR win of their own.
You need to understand how this all comes across to non-Penn State people: It makes it sound like you're being advocates for the very people who have been on trial...or are going on trial (Sandusky; AD Tim Curley; Prez Graham Spanier; Gary Schultz, Sr. VP for Finance & Business).
Yeah, on some level I get that. Unfortunately these parties are viewed as a monolith by many, when in reality there are quite a few separate players/agendas involved here: Paterno's family is attempting to salvage his legacy, Gov. Corbett is desperately doing anything to get reelected, and the university administration is continuing to sit idly by. Theoretically there could be some Machiavellian plan for Penn State itself to do nothing and thus be able to deny anything other than compliance, but based on track records I highly doubt the people involved are that capable.
Are you defending any of these four for their actions or (non-actions when something actionable was demanded)???
No, certainly not. In my view there's enough hard/confirmed evidence available to say that Curley/Spanier/Shultz did execute a coverup. There's enough evidence about Paterno to provide good fodder for internet speculation like what we see here - but not enough for people like the NCAA or Freeh to state it as unambiguous fact, as they have a responsibility to uphold some level of due process.
In truth my argument isn't that Paterno is innocent, it's that the standard isn't met to find him "guilty". The portions of today's report that state that case resonate with me, and the portions that draw definitive conclusions of innocence seem like the mirror image of Freeh's report.
Really? You don't want to deal with the whole truth, do you?
Joe Paterno; "This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-paterno-statement-2011-11#ixzz2KXMsmFYk
You should be ashamed of yourself for mindlessly defending the people responsible for failing to protect children. "Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University -- President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno -- failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade," according to the report. "These men concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky's victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001.
(I appreciate your reasonable tenor / attitude in your remarks)
You don't know what "on staff" means, do you???
But don't let that stop you blabbering.
Elvis Presley Fan Club members to this day don’t believe that their hero was a druggie. That’s the way the world turns.
Others, with a permanent chip on their shoulder, fail to recognize a pun filled sentence if it bit them in their face.
Yes, likewise and I was about to say the same. The civilized exchange is much appreciated...
What part of those words escape your understanding.
Can you make that statement???
With the benefit of hindsight, do you wish you had done more???
State College psychologist accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with two patients
From that article: Accusations that a State College psychologist had inappropriate sexual relationships with two patients could cost the local doctor his license and subject him to more than $1 million in civil penalties. The state Board of Psychology has filed a formal disciplinary action against Richard Scott Lenhart, accusing him of 111 counts of professional misconduct relating to two long-time patients...According to the charges, Lenhart engaged in a pattern of sexual grooming and repeated sexual misconduct with the two patients over years of treatment. Both patients were survivors of prior sexual trauma and were seeking treatment, in part, because of that past abuse, according to the order. The Department of State said Lenhart exploited the patients, “re-traumatizing them in his role as psychologist.”
So then this whole thing is about hero worship being bad and so we should let someone be falsely accused as a cure for that.
You are willing to slander someone without any evidence to back up your claim?
For those not paying attention, the Freeh report was garbage.
Now go ahead with your argument.
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.