Paterno Investigation Finds the Real OJ Killers
Paterno family has released their own investigation today (in coordination with ESPN as it seems since they did such a great job with Te'o).
You can read about it here
And surprise, surprise, they find Paterno completely innocent of all allegation, scouts honor.
The "report" basically is a what a defense attorney would argue if this was tried as a criminal case in a court of law. They are arguing that none of the evidence the Freeh Report is beyond reasonable doubt. Which is correct since Freeh Report was never meant to be beyond a reasonable doubt. It was more like a Civil Case conclusion where you just need more than likely as the basis. Shift the goalpost and it is easier to score, go figure.
Here are parts of the new report pretty much says all you need to know
There is another troublesome email implicating Coach Paterno that the Paterno family experts challenge. In February 2001, Spanier, Schultz and Curley met to figure out an action plan about the McQueary allegation that he saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the shower. The options, according to Schultz's notes: report it to the Pennsylvania Department of Child Welfare, tell the chairman of the board of Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile, and tell Sandusky "to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg."
Two days later, Curley reported he had changed his mind about the action plan "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday." Curley decided to talk with Sandusky: If Sandusky was cooperative, they would inform The Second Mile, and not alert authorities. And if he was not cooperative, Curley said then, "We don't have a choice and will inform the authorities."
Spanier agreed to this approach, saying, "The only downside for us if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
All three of the Paterno family's experts say this single email is insufficient grounds for Freeh to have concluded that Paterno conspired to cover up the 2001 incident. "The report falls glaringly short of suggesting, let alone proving, any concealment by Mr. Paterno," Thornburgh writes in the report.
Insufficient? By whose standard? Seems pretty damning to most people who read it. If I say it is a cold day today, I think these people would also argue that that statement is insufficient to conclude that today is cold
I am sure the folks at Black Shoe Diaries are celebrating this "report" like a Fourth of July today.
Is it still too late to kick them out of our conference?
February 10th, 2013 at 11:09 AM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 11:39 AM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 11:17 AM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
I felt it was a matter left up to the authorities, not one the NCAA should involve themselves with. As time went on, I changed my mind. The authorities need to be investigated, and the NCAA needs to be involved because the PSU community truly seems to believe they were victims. I think the longer they drag this on, the worse they look. I suspect that when the entire truth is known, there will be plenty of guilt to spread around the athletic department, the school, the community, and most likely the surrounding area up to and including the state. Be careful driving past, you will probably become dizzy from all the spinning that is, has, and will be taking place there. His family is doing a fine job of continuing to make a mockery of the ideals that were once represented by the statue. The statue is gone, the family needs to go away as well.
February 10th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
Why wasnt there one more option in Shultz's notes? CALL 911 NOW!!
Paterno knew what was going on. He thought he could hide behind the old (But I told my boss about it) line; plausible deniability. When a crime is committed and it is personally witnessed by a member of the staff; most reasonable people will call 911.
These guys all conspired to cover it up. What I find more disturbing is they did not fire Sandusky on the spot. If they did, then I would just say the leadership used poor judgement. But when they considered asking Sandusky to "AVOID" bringing young kids on campus; that proves they did not care about the health and welfare of the children.
Can the DOE pull their charter? We have always wondered what to do with spent fuel from nuclear reactors, I say we level the entire town and bury it in Happy Valley.
February 10th, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
The others were ready to report, but changed their minds after Curley spoke with Paterno. The e-mail record is pretty clear on that point; I can't think of any other plausible explanation other than that Paterno talked Curley out of it.
He didn't just know what was going on; he was an active participant, even the driving force, behind that particular moment in the cover up.
February 11th, 2013 at 7:40 AM ^
I'm not saying this implies directly to Jerry Sandusky by any means but, innocent people accused of crimes like this. They should have called the police so it could be investigated further and put Sandusky on leave but, firing him on the spot is ridiculous.
February 10th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^
From CBS News: Among the many criticisms in the lengthy report from the Paterno family, there are a few notable conclusions:
- Freeh's investigation concluded exactly what it set out to find. Specifically, investigators "produced a report that fit their expectations despite contrary evidence or a more reasonable interpretation."
Unlike THIS report which obviously had NO bias in it whatsoever.......
- There was no factual evidence to prove Joe Paterno avoided sharing information regarding Jerry Sandusky to avoid bad publicity for the school and/or football program.
Other than those pesky emails that we choose to ignore
- Jerry Sandusky was an "exceptionally effective manipulator and deceiver." The Paterno family report suggests Joe Paterno did not recognize the former assistant coach as a child molestor after the 2001 incident.
Joe's reasons for asking for his sudden retirement, cancelling his long-planned vacation and asking him to not bring young boys into the locker room were for COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED THINGS. Honest.
- The Freeh report was negligent in understanding and analyzing a child sexual victimization case.
Unlike our report which does an excellent job of understanding and analyzing a child vicitimization case.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^
I haven't read the full Paterno report yet, but one point was very clear. The Paterno report did not take a fresh look at the evidence. Without looking at evidence, which Freeh did to the extent possible, all you can create is spin. I'm not sure why PSU would have given Paterno access to the school's information in the first place. They don't have FOIA (crazy in itself) at PSU and a couple of other Pennsylvania universities, nor are the Paternos and PSU in litigation against one another and consequently, without discovery, the university has no reason or requirement to give the Paternos anything.
There are still three criminal trials scheduled, and I would almost bet that someone is going to do a plea agreement in exchange for testimony. Assuming that happens, it should be interesting to hear what Spanier et al. have to say.
Penn State would love this to go away. I find a bit of irony in the fact that this family that so loved the school would again create a firestorm of publicity.
February 10th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^
...because they care about Joe's legacy more than the university.
February 10th, 2013 at 8:41 PM ^
The team, the team, the team.
So that's Bo's version. I suspect the Paterno version would have an asterisk: *Except Joe and any legacy-related considerations.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ^
The only good move PSU made in this whole affair (and of course it was well after the fact) was to commission the Freeh report. an independent investigation into what went on. The Paterno family, et al, however are appalled that the report was not a whitewash.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^
When you need to release all kinds of statements and reports to clear your name regarding child abuse, you've already lost. A decent person wouldn't care what incidental dirty laundry was aired in the process of digging out the child molestors. Had PSU thrown the doors open and let the FBI sort through the entire athletic department, I would have been fine with PSU getting immunity from the NCAA for any infractions, not related to the child abuse, that bubbled surface when the FBI went through their files. Given how thick the NCAA rulebook is, it is basically impossible to avoid racking up some minor violations these days.
At the end of the day when you need your kids to buy a tailor made report to attempt to clear your name, you end up looking that much more guilty. If Paterno had been a driving force in supporting the efforts to find about the child abuse and hang the guilty parties, he wouldn't need a fluff piece report to save his good name.
He's scum and PSU needs to grow up and admit their great coach was an enabler of child rape.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^
what i don't get is the paterno report says paterno was not given an opportunity to refute anything in the freeh report; freeh says paterno declined.
at the very least, both paterno and mcqueary are guilty of willful ignorance.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^
Jim Delany groans...
February 10th, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^
That voice in his head once again says "You know, Pittsburgh would also secure us the PA cable TV market...."
February 10th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^
• One major flaw in the Freeh report is that it does not follow a typical standard of courtroom examinations and independent investigations -- the consideration of a person's lifetime record of "moral conduct and altruism." It treats Paterno's long life "as if it were irrelevant to the case."What in the flying fuck does his lifetime of "moral conduct and altruism" have to do with this??! His long life IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE YOU IDOTS! Screw the Paterno family. Still only concerned about themselves and can give a rats ass about the victims.
February 10th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^
"He (Paterno) was a true philanthropist, an altruistic community leader, and a national icon. Paterno worked with Sandusky for 30 years. He thought he knew the man. However, he and everyone else in State College who thought they “knew” Sandusky were very wrong." - from the full report
In skimming some of the more illuminating highlights, I might have missed something, but there are pages and pages of rationalizing here, as well as paragraphs of praise that are ultimately not relevant. They seem to claim that Paterno was not keep in the loop after he took McQuaery's revelations to the administration, but obviously he must have known something since discussions with Paterno were clearly the driver for everything that, well, didn't happen next, if you will. Saying that Paterno "trusted them and their judgment" in no way excuses him from failing to follow up when he heard nothing, nor does pointing out that Paterno simply had not been trained to recognize the signs that Sandusky was an "acquaintance offender", as they term it. Sorry, but Joe doesn't get a free pass because he didn't go to the training.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
Of course he hadn't...that's why the law requires you to report, so the situation can be evaluated by someone that HAS been trained.
Crikey.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
That is the the purpose of the report though. It is long, it has some quotes from people like former governors, and all kinds of one liners you can easily lift out of the report and throw at people who are critical of Paterno. The entire thing is written so that when someone says something bad about Paterno, you just throw a couple pieces of this report at them and go "Oh how can still believe the Freeh report? This one is long and has quotes from important people!".
It will let the boosters go back to swaggering around and acting like the Grand Experiment was an unqualified success. Plus now they can piss and moan about getting the statue put back up.
If the Paterno family has proof that Freeh threw Joe under the bus, lawyer up and go after Freeh for slander, libel, and character defamation. Only they won't, because know this paper shield would be laughed right about of court when Freeh's side brought in the emails and things like that.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^
Title pretty well states it all.
Edit: To my way of thinking, this is the salient point. I am a simple person, but until this goes away, I won't listen to anything attempting to refute what happened.
Mr. Paterno was on notice for at least 13 years that Sandusky, one of his longest serving assistants, and whose office was steps away, was a probable serial pedophile. Mr. Paterno was aware of the criminal 1998 investigation into Sandusky's suspected child sexual abuse. Indeed, the evidence shows that Mr. Paterno closely followed that case. Later, in 2001, another one of his assistants, Mr. McQueary, directly reported to Mr. Paterno that Sandusky was sexually abusing a young boy in Mr. Paterno's Penn State football locker room. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno purposefully ignored this evidence.
February 11th, 2013 at 7:50 AM ^
This was the main thing that got me. Paterno knew about the 98 investigation why would you not take the 2001 allegations from your assistant coach more seriously
February 11th, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^
He did take it more seriously.
He did nothing the first time; this time he intervened to keep the incident from being reported.
February 10th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
/s
February 10th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
Joe is dead, and most people outside of happy Valley know him now for what he is. The NCAA is not going to reverse the sanctions that the University accepted. All this does is show how out of touch they are with the rest of the country. The Freeh report was never meant to be a legal document. Trying to refute it as though it is is dumb
February 10th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 1:34 PM ^
The only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 and the agreement not to report on February 27, 2001, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley regarding what to do about Sandusky. Again, this conversation was memorialized in the contemporary email, where Mr. Curley said “(a)fter giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.”
http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/10/3497030/text-of-louis-freeh-respo…
Not a "mastermind", perhaps, but certainly a driving figure.
February 10th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^
How the hell does that not indicate a cover-up?
Because to me that seems to be exactly the thing it indicates....... smh.....
February 10th, 2013 at 2:34 PM ^
I hate anything and everything about that vile institution and its delusional fan base. I loathe them more than OSU, MSU and ND combined.
February 10th, 2013 at 2:38 PM ^
Paterno is dead, the court of public opinion and the NCAA have spoken, and all the horse manure pumped out by Paterno apologists including his family and the state of Pennsylvania are not going to change this one iota. Ignore them and let them flap their gums in the wind, that is all they are doing as they are simply engaging in self-masturbatory delusional speculation that matters not a bit.
February 10th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^
Ahh, the court of public opinion. We all know how infallible that court is.
I'd like to make a living, handling appeals from "the court of public opinion." The only problem is the one that former Labor Secretary Ray Donovan asked after being aquitted of fraud charges in a Bronx federal court: "Which office do I go to, to get my reputation back?"
February 10th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 5:26 PM ^
Do you imagine that the Sollers report in any way diputed the Sandusky guilty verdict? It didn't. It dealt only with Paterno's personal involvement. Paterno wasn't found guilty in court, and he wasn't a personal party to the NCAA and Big Ten inquiries, so Paterno never had a chance to defend himself personally.
But notice what is going on here. The position that I have taken isn't that Paterno is innocent or guilty. I've just asked about a careful analysis of both sides. And of course I am pretty cynical about people who are lambasting the Sollers report without even having read its 238 pages.
Just speaking personally, I am always interested in the instances and methodologies by which large numbers of people come to incorrect conclusions.
[Bonus: Your citation of the trial court verdict in Sandusky's case (a verdict with which I have no basis to quarrel) is so funny, in the context of the thread's title. And the OJ verdict. We all know how well that L.A. criminal jury did in identifying the killer.]
February 10th, 2013 at 5:26 PM ^
"During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report."
February 10th, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^
Look, it has never been my aspiration to be the defense attorney for the Estate of Joe Paterno, Deceased. He declined to be interviewed. He wasn't a party, was he? He didn't have counsel in the case. Penn State was doing an elaborate dance of contrition. Paterno might have thought that he'd have been made the fall guy in the University's dance, no matter what.
I'd feel bad about your cited quote, if I was somebody like Wick Sollers, protesting every charge against Paterno. But I'm not. If Paterno is truly guilty as sin, it's no problem for me. I just like the best-told and most interesting story.
February 10th, 2013 at 8:54 PM ^
"Paterno never had a chance to defend himself personally."
I don't expect you to feel bad about the Freeh quote. I don't even expect you to notice that it contradicts what you had just posted.
February 11th, 2013 at 2:34 PM ^
See; reply to burtcomma, below.
February 11th, 2013 at 1:52 AM ^
the point, oh ye of obvious obtuse thought and inability to see what is painfully obvious to the rest of the intelligent world, is that the matter is moot, there is no smoking gun of evidence to be found to take away the already handed out verdict nor to do anything to exonerate Joe Pa who has no defense as all you could possibly say is that he either knew what was going on and did little to nothing, in which case he is a lying sack of crap, or he did not know and should have known, in which case he was a proverbial idiot of the first degree, and you and all those who want to continue to debate the issue somehow thinking that the standard of proof for deciding that Mr. Paterno is guilty is the same as that for a criminal trial are full of the proverbial wit and wisdom normally attributed to those who flunk out at MSU.....
His statue is gone, his legacy tarnished, and the evidence is fairly convincing that he knew what was going on but put damage control short term over doing what was right when his own personally promoted image was otherwise. He and his family can join you and whine all the way until the Lord returneth, but it is and will be a waste of time whether you have any respect for the court of public opinion or the facts in evidence or not.
February 11th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^
If you are going to play with big words and ideas you had better understand what they mean.
You really don't mean that the case against Paterno is "moot"; I'll help you out and tell you for your own benefit that what you meant is that the case against Paterno is "settled." If the case against Paterno was "moot," it would be "subject to debate." Although that's an archaic definition of "moot" that I personally don't like. And if we were to apply that classical definition, it would mean the opposite of what you'd like to say.
The other, better and more current definition of "moot" is that it is a subject that is merely academic; a hypothetical question. (Hence "Moot Court competition." Wherein students argue a point that is either a hypothetical case or one that has already been decided and they are merely re-arguing it for the exercise.)
And the current practical definition of moot in common Americal legal practice today is that a "moot issue" is one wherein a question no longer has any practical consequence. Such as when a family is arguing over the methods of someone's end-of-life care, and the patient in question dies. Or when two parties are arguing over ownership of a sailing vessel and it sinks.
All of those definitions of "moot" mean almost the opposite of your intended meaning.
You're welcome.
As for the question of Paterno's defending himself (this is in answer to an earlier challenge to me); this is unfortunately a bit more legal arcana, but there is a legal concept known as "collateral estoppel" (and related concepts, going by different names, such as res judicata) in which a litigant can be held to an earlier legal outcome if certain conditions are met. Three basic elements are: (1) There must have been prior litigation in which identical claims were raised (or could have been raised). In general, claims are sufficiently identical if they are found to share a “common nucleus of operative fact.” (2)The parties in the second litigation must be identical in some manner to the parties in the original litigation, or be in privity with the parties in the first action. Note: A party is considered to be in privity with a party in the original litigation if: (a) The nonparty succeeded to the interest of a party; (b) The nonparty, though it did not technically participate in the first suit, controlled one party’s litigation in that suit; (c) The nonparty shares a property interest with the party; (d) The party and the nonparty have an agency relationship (agent/principal); or (e) The party otherwise adequately represented the interest of the nonparty in the previous litigation. And the third element is (3): There must have been a final judgment on the merits in the original litigation.
There is virtually never an application of "collateral estoppel" or res judicata in criminal matters; such is the seriousness with which we treat those allegations. But even in a civil context, and applying the most basic concepts to Paterno, we can easily see that Paterno may not have had his own interest adequately represented by Penn State. And since Paterno wasn't even a party to the first "case," (it wasn't even really a civil case, much less a criminal case), and since Paterno clearly did not "control" the defense of the first case, he can't possibly be legally held to the former outcome. Yes, they "invited" Paterno in to the investigation (yeah, right) to be interrogated and tell all what he really thought. Which no lawyer in his right mind would ever entertain in the legal climate of that time.
So the case against Paterno is by no means "moot," and it isn't even settled (except perhaps in your own mind) by any cognizable legal standard.
Yeoman, you sir are welcome as well.
And because you brought up the use of "obtuse," I'll say this much because the Board membership is so customarily obtuse about such matters; No, for the third time I am not playing the role of Paterno's defense lawyer. I have no freakin' idea what the guy did or didn't do. Just like most of you. Most of you, who haven't read the full Freeh Report and/or Sollers report. If somebody has read both reports, you're a better man than me, I'll be the first to admit. I don't think I could stand 238 pages of Penn State detritus.
February 10th, 2013 at 8:19 PM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^
February 10th, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^
I think when a school community and prominent parties are implicated in something, the natural response is to become overly defensive. It happened at UM with the Fab 5, and the same at USC with Bush and SMU with the player payments. People, especially those unconnected to the actual parties, inevitably become overly emotional and defensive because the implication is that by being attached to the school, they too are connected to the crime in some way. That isn't true, of course (a professor in the physics department or a fireman in Happy Valley with two kids at PSU has nothing to do with Sandusky and Paterno covering up child abuse), but the illogical response and "you aren't seeing the whole story" rationalizations naturally flow out.
But over time, the truth will remain and the noise will disappear. While the Freeh report is not perfect, it provides a fairly clear picture of the dysfunction in the AD at PSU, and in particular how prominent people involved with the football team failed to recognize Sandusky's actions. I'm sure one can spin certain emails and conversations to mitigate Paterno's direct knowledge of specific instances, but the overall narrative exists because the facts point to it. Kids were assaulted for over a decade and nobody stopped it from happening, and there were ample opportunities to stop it beforehand. But it will take time for people to accept this depressing reality, that a man who is obstensibly a good person still acted poorly, and that while you can still cheer on the Lions you also have to accept that its most prominent former leader made some mistakes. Nobody should have deified Paterno to begin with, and the fact these truths make that harder fall on the zealots to mitigate, not everyone else.