Sandusky Investigation Findings

[Tim McG]

As for Goodie, this is going to be tough for him,

No it won't. He won't accept the findings.

When there is proof, yes. My first post on this thread I clearly stated I would be the first to acknowlege Paterno's guilt in the cover up. Right now, all we have is supposition. I don't recall reading anything which directly links Paterno to anything along those lines. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

Don't dial up the rhetoric, Pete.

Edited July 12, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Pete C]

Don't dial up the rhetoric, Pete.

Don't worry, I have broadband for my rhetoric.

[Dan Gould]

If it is proven Paterno was participant in the cover up, I will be the very first to acknowledge that. Until then, I think we can remain gentleman about this and respect differing views without the insults. OK?

Read the report!

It states unequivically, and with email support, that there was a plan to bring in outside authorities about Sandusky, and this plan changed after the President consulted with Paterno. Paterno said keep it in house, and it was kept in house.

And as a result, more kids were abused by Sandusky.

READ THE REPORT.

Its no longer debatable about whether Paterno was a participant in the cover up. HE INSTIGATED THE FUCKING THING, BECAUSE HE'S JOE FUCKING PATERNO AND WHAT HE SAYS GOES IN "HAPPY VALLEY".

[Pete C]

Don't think building these monuments did Jackie any good.

No, he could have been accused of listener abuse.

[Tim McG]

]

Civil suits against the university for neglectfully endangering those victims?

Why do you think in the immediate wake of Sandusky's conviction Penn State tried to get the victims to come forward for a quick settlement of claims? Personally I hope no one accepts an offer and it goes to trial, with huge awards for pain and suffering.

As for Goodie, this is going to be tough for him, as Freeh's investigation brought out clear evidence of Paterno's deep involvement in an active cover-up of Sandusky's actions, and even worse, from the text of the emails, there was an agreement that Sandusky should be confronted and things should be handled properly, until the President spoke to his employee who happens also to be the legendary coach, and the legendary coach told him it should be handled quietly and without outside involvement.

That alone makes Paterno potentially liable, and it tells us precisely why he transferred ownership of the house to his wife's name exclusively.

I read the e-mails, Dan.

Maybe I missed it, but the employee was in reference to Sandusky.

Perhaps I am wrong here and if you could pull out the e-mail [or the part in the Abuse Inquiry which clearly expresses Paterno's involement], I'd sure appreciate it.

Edited July 12, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[JETman]

this megadose of PSU truth on KDKA-FM last night : "Penn State has turned into Jonestown without the 'n'"

That's an interesting point. There certainly are some cult-like aspects associated with this. Two things are really troubling to me. First, that the Penn State student body supported Joe Pa en masse without ever considering that he might be involved in the cover up. Second, that during this whole sordid affair, alumni donations actually increased. If that's not indicative of some truly upside down thinking, I guess I don't know what is.

Having had some experience in this area, I am quite sure that Penn Staters and Pennsylvanians alike have "drunk the Kool-Aid" for years. Did you really expect that way of thinking to literally change overnight?

Yes. We're not talking about whether Penn State can beat Michigan, we're talking about raping and sodomizing children.

And your point is?

Once the institution and persona were deified, there was no going back. Not for nuthin'! Believe it or not, JoePa received a higher level of admiration from his followers than even Lombardi received in Green Bay.

So that somehow justifies this sort of ostrich like behavior? That the students and faculty were so anesthetized by the greatness of PSU football and Joe Pa that they could turn a blind eye to child molestation? Wow. In a sea of damning statements, that may the most damning of all.

Where did you get that I was justifying the behavior. Just trying to add some perspective on what we're dealing with.

[Pete C]

Freeh:

In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20th of this year, we see evidence of their proposed plan of action in February 2001 that included reporting allegations about Sandusky to the authorities. 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.

The stated reasons by Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley for not taking action to identify the victim and for not reporting Sandusky to the police or Child Welfare are:

(1) Through counsel, Messrs. Curley and Schultz have stated that the “humane” thing to do in 2001 was to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations.

(2) Mr. Paterno said that “I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”

(3) Mr. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that he was never told by anyone that the February 2001 incident in the shower involved the sexual abuse of a child but only “horsing around.” He further stated that he never asked what “horsing around” by Sandusky entailed.

Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky’s victims.

Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who

was the only one who knew the child’s identity, about what McQueary saw in the

shower on the night of February 9, 2001.

The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno’s. At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley also failed to alert the Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1201716.html

[Blue Train]

For those that don't want to actually read the entire report or the transcript of the news conference which Mr. C posted....you can watch the Freeh news conference in the link I provided above.

Keep in mind, the actual report makes the protector and enabler of a pedophile (and someone who would be facing multiple criminal charges if he were still alive....if prosecutors had had access to what Freeh did.) look much worse than the news conference....and the News Conference made it very clear he knew everything starting with 1998, was involved in the cover-up from the beginning....and even instigated the it after the 2001 incident.

Freeh even makes it very clear in the news conference that the Protector & Enabler of a pedophile was rightfully fired.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Blue Train

[PHILLYQ]

I hear the Times has invited Goodspeak to write the Op-Ed rebuttal.

Cheap shot, Pete. I mean seriously, I don't do this to you, so why is it you feel justified in blindsiding me like that? Personally, a flame like that has no place on this BBS and I believe the Moderators have sated as much. I think an apology is in order here. I really do, Pete

On Point: Ultimately, this proves Paterno knew about the 1998 case [which I had already acknowledged], but clearly the "did nothing about it" is the opine of the author. And I quote: "Local prosecutors ultimately decided not to charge Sandusky, and Paterno did nothing." Here is where it all falls apart for me. If the legal authorities decided not to prosecute what else is Paterno supoosed to do? That is not at all suggesting that there may have been further involvement by Paterno in the cover up, but this reporter's statement is not prove, it is his interpretation.

Does the Abuse Inquiry state this in its report? Because every article I have read points to Shultz and Curley as the perpetrators and power brokers behind the cover up. So do the realeased e-mails of about a week ago.

Personally, I think the press is attempting to back pedal and justify their rush to judgement.

If it is proven Paterno was participant in the cover up, I will be the very first to acknowledge that. Until then, I think we can remain gentleman about this and respect differing views without the insults. OK?

Start acknowledging, Paterno enabled Sandusky to molest for 14 additional years.

[Blue Train]

Here is the news conference link again.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbc-news/48162456#48162456

The link to the PDF of the entire report.

http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

P.S. Phil Knight protected him after he was rightfully fired...and Nike's President/CEO went to Penn St....it took Nike less than 4 hours to announce his name was being removed from their Child Development Center.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Blue Train

[jazzbo]

but when you find out were built on the backs of slave labor, the means hardly justify the ends.

Pyramid hater!

Just FYI: modern Egyptologists believe that the pyramids were not built with slave labor, but by free citizens employed in state sponsored building.

Edited July 12, 2012 by jazzbo

[Dan Gould]

Really, Goodie, you have two choices:

Slink away and stop defending Paterno

Man up and admit that you were wrong and that Paterno has clear culpability in keeping the accusations against Sandusky out of the public eye and thereby allowing him to continue to molest kids.

Since you won't do either of those things, here's a direct question I'd love for you to answer:

Did Paterno give any thought to the possibility that his friend was a sexual predator of children and that there was a risk that he would abuse others, or did he only think about how to avoid negative publicity about the football program and school??

[Pete C]

Just FYI: modern Egyptologists believe that the pyramids were not built with slave labor, but by free citizens employed in state sponsored building.

Finally, some good news!

Did Paterno give any thought to the possibility that his friend was a sexual predator of children and that there was a risk that he would abuse others, or did he only think about how to avoid negative publicity about the football program and school??

That doesn't seem like an either/or to me; under either scenario he'd be equally culpable.

NY Times headline: Abuse Inquiry Faults Paterno and Others at Penn State

"The facts are the facts," Freeh said of Paterno. "He was an integral part of the act to conceal."

There's definitely an op-ed opportunity...

It's tough to learn your hero was a piece of shit. Remember Joseph Cotton in "The Third Man"?

Edited July 12, 2012 by Pete C

[Dan Gould]

Did Paterno give any thought to the possibility that his friend was a sexual predator of children and that there was a risk that he would abuse others, or did he only think about how to avoid negative publicity about the football program and school??

That doesn't seem like an either/or to me; under either scenario he'd be equally culpable.

Well its an either/or to the extent that if Paterno had considered the risk to other children, he wouldn't have ordered the cover-up. That's the point - all he thought about was the harm to the school/program.

[Pete C]

Well its an either/or to the extent that if Paterno had considered the risk to other children, he wouldn't have ordered the cover-up.

I don't see how that's a logical conclusion. Unless you're assuming that given the facts any human being would make the moral choice. I think there are plenty of precedents that would suggest otherwise.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Pete C

[Dan Gould]

Yes there are precedents but few involve the cold-blooded choices of "heroes".

Times headline:

Freeh’s Findings Stun Even Paterno’s Ardent Supporters

No word on whether that includes any speech teachers in the Bay area.

[Dan Gould]

Pathetic commentary from the Paterno family:

“Joe Paterno mistakenly believed that investigators, law enforcement officials, university leaders and others would properly and fully investigate any issue and proceed as the facts dictated.

“This didn’t happen and everyone shares the responsibility.”

They are still going with the "he reported to his superiors and left it up to them" story which is now proven false. He did follow up with his so-called "superiors" and then made what was essentially a command decision to keep it in-house.

The family deserves to lose any civil cases that come against his estate.

[Mike Schwartz]

Just FYI: modern Egyptologists believe that the pyramids were not built with slave labor, but by free citizens employed in state sponsored building.

Finally, some good news!

Did Paterno give any thought to the possibility that his friend was a sexual predator of children and that there was a risk that he would abuse others, or did he only think about how to avoid negative publicity about the football program and school??

That doesn't seem like an either/or to me; under either scenario he'd be equally culpable.

NY Times headline: Abuse Inquiry Faults Paterno and Others at Penn State

"The facts are the facts," Freeh said of Paterno. "He was an integral part of the act to conceal."

There's definitely an op-ed opportunity...

It's tough to learn your hero was a piece of shit. Remember Joseph Cotton in "The Third Man"?

....or Barry Bonds; roided-up home run hero (to some)

[Blue Train]

Yes there are precedents but few involve the cold-blooded choices of "heroes".

Times headline:

Freeh’s Findings Stun Even Paterno’s Ardent Supporters

No word on whether that includes any speech teachers in the Bay area.

No matter how much he goes out of of his way to make it easy....just to be fair. He is currently an English teacher and at one time, he taught Debate.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Blue Train

[Big Wheel]

Also, the San Joaquin Valley is NOT the Bay Area.

[Tim McG]

Freeh:

In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20th of this year, we see evidence of their proposed plan of action in February 2001 that included reporting allegations about Sandusky to the authorities. 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.

The stated reasons by Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley for not taking action to identify the victim and for not reporting Sandusky to the police or Child Welfare are:

(1) Through counsel, Messrs. Curley and Schultz have stated that the humane thing to do in 2001 was to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague but troubling allegations.

(2) Mr. Paterno said that I didnt know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didnt work out that way.

(3) Mr. Spanier told the Special Investigative Counsel that he was never told by anyone that the February 2001 incident in the shower involved the sexual abuse of a child but only horsing around. He further stated that he never asked what horsing around by Sandusky entailed.

Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sanduskys child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sanduskys victims.

Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who

was the only one who knew the childs identity, about what McQueary saw in the

shower on the night of February 9, 2001.

The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paternos. At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley also failed to alert the Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.

http://pennstate.scout.com/2/1201716.html

Thank you, Pete.

Had you done this to start instead of attempting to insult me, things would be just fine. Why you chose to be a jerk about it baffles me. That is all I needed to know.

I will accept this in lieu of the apology you owe me.

Edited July 12, 2012 by GoodSpeak

[Pete C]

Had you done this to start instead of attempting to insult me, things would be just fine.

Does this mean you're now one of the stunned former ardent supporters?

[JETman]

Had you done this to start instead of attempting to insult me, things would be just fine.

Does this mean you're now one of the stunned former ardent supporters?

Sports figures should never be ardently supported in the first place.

[Mike Schwartz]

Had you done this to start instead of attempting to insult me, things would be just fine.

Does this mean you're now one of the stunned former ardent supporters?

Sports figures should never be ardently supported in the first place.

That wasn't the question...

[JETman]

Had you done this to start instead of attempting to insult me, things would be just fine.

Does this mean you're now one of the stunned former ardent supporters?

Sports figures should never be ardently supported in the first place.

That wasn't the question...

Ah, but it really is!