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 ...
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.
Breaking:
Paterno family cries “Taint so! Taint so!”
.
LOL!
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 didn’t 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 doesn’t 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!"
Haha ;/
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 McQueary’s subsequent testimony, which was given on 16 December 2011 at the preliminary hearing for Penn State’s former Athletic Director, Tim Curley, and its former Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz, you’ll 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 can’t sit here and say that I know 100 percent sure that there was intercourse, but that’s what I said to myself and that’s 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 boy’s 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 this—since day one.” [Transcript, pp. 71-72] Thus, the reader must doubt the grand jury presentment every time it summarizes McQueary’s 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 Paterno’s 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 McQueary’s 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 Sandusky’s behavior) Actually, McQueary’s preliminary hearing testimony substantiates Paterno’s 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.
LOL!
How unfortunate for you that you do not have the requisite administrative rights necessary to remove remarks by someone you disagree with.
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.