Alternate take on Freeh report

SpiderRico said:
This thing has been debated and hashed over about as much as it's going to and the camps are set and no one is going to move from one side to the other....either you think the administration knew what was going on and did their best to sweep it under the rug in order to protect the program and institution or you think they didn't. No amount of additional discussion or reports or anything is going to change that at this point.
Click to expand...

This attitude is the most frustrating thing for me (not trying to single you out, Spider). I have never understood the need to be in one camp or the other re Paterno. I'm firmly in the "I don't know" camp unless I see more evidence one way or the other.

I watched some of the Freeh Report news conference and follow up media onslaught and thought to myself, wow, there must be some emails, statements of witnesses or other evidence that prove without much doubt that Paterno was involved in a cover up. In the days after, I was leaning heavily toward the he's guilty camp (maybe I still am). But then I actually reviewed the details of the parts of the Freeh Report that Mr. Freeh used to reach his conclusion against Paterno (much like the author of the link in the OP) and I was astonished. That's it??? That's the smoking gun that leads to the removal of statues and vacating wins. Frankly, I can't believe it.

Now, I understand PSU's willingness to accept the sanctions, remove the statues, etc. PSU just wants to move on and the best way to do that is distance itself from all of the former guard, take its medicine with the lawsuits, sanctions, publicity, etc. and move forward the best it can. I get it.

As suspicious as I am about Paterno and what he knew, I just have not seen enough actual evidence to know for sure, or even know with any amount of confidence, that he deserves the condemnation that he is receiving.
 
KCRC said:
This attitude is the most frustrating thing for me (not trying to single you out, Spider). I have never understood the need to be in one camp or the other re Paterno. I'm firmly in the "I don't know" camp unless I see more evidence one way or the other.

I watched some of the Freeh Report news conference and follow up media onslaught and thought to myself, wow, there must be some emails, statements of witnesses or other evidence that prove without much doubt that Paterno was involved in a cover up. In the days after, I was leaning heavily toward the he's guilty camp (maybe I still am). But then I actually reviewed the details of the parts of the Freeh Report that Mr. Freeh used to reach his conclusion against Paterno (much like the author of the link in the OP) and I was astonished. That's it??? That's the smoking gun that leads to the removal of statues and vacating wins. Frankly, I can't believe it.

Now, I understand PSU's willingness to accept the sanctions, remove the statues, etc. PSU just wants to move on and the best way to do that is distance itself from all of the former guard, take its medicine with the lawsuits, sanctions, publicity, etc. and move forward the best it can. I get it.

As suspicious as I am about Paterno and what he knew, I just have not seen enough actual evidence to know for sure, or even know with any amount of confidence, that he deserves the condemnation that he is receiving.
Click to expand...

The problem is that most people formed an early opinion, guilty or not guilty. Then they find stuff to support their position and discount the stuff that doesn't support it. Most people have a hard time being objective, especially about something that evokes such strong emotions.

You are right there are serious flaws with the conclusions Freeh reached because the evidence isn't really there for a lot of it.
 
KCRC said:
This attitude is the most frustrating thing for me (not trying to single you out, Spider). I have never understood the need to be in one camp or the other re Paterno. I'm firmly in the "I don't know" camp unless I see more evidence one way or the other.

I watched some of the Freeh Report news conference and follow up media onslaught and thought to myself, wow, there must be some emails, statements of witnesses or other evidence that prove without much doubt that Paterno was involved in a cover up. In the days after, I was leaning heavily toward the he's guilty camp (maybe I still am). But then I actually reviewed the details of the parts of the Freeh Report that Mr. Freeh used to reach his conclusion against Paterno (much like the author of the link in the OP) and I was astonished. That's it??? That's the smoking gun that leads to the removal of statues and vacating wins. Frankly, I can't believe it.

Now, I understand PSU's willingness to accept the sanctions, remove the statues, etc. PSU just wants to move on and the best way to do that is distance itself from all of the former guard, take its medicine with the lawsuits, sanctions, publicity, etc. and move forward the best it can. I get it.

As suspicious as I am about Paterno and what he knew, I just have not seen enough actual evidence to know for sure, or even know with any amount of confidence, that he deserves the condemnation that he is receiving.
Click to expand...

Let's end it here. Paterno himself said that he didn't do enough, that's enough for me.
 
David79 said:
The problem is that most people formed an early opinion, guilty or not guilty. Then they find stuff to support their position and discount the stuff that doesn't support it. Most people have a hard time being objective, especially about something that evokes such strong emotions.

You are right there are serious flaws with the conclusions Freeh reached because the evidence isn't really there for a lot of it.
Click to expand...

True
 
I am convinced nothing less than Jopa emerging from the grave and admitting full culpability as an accessory to Sandusky's crimes would convince some people of his part in all of this.

Even then many would maintain his innocence.
 
There is some serious doubt about the President. Based on my experience with U admin, I don't think there was a conspiracy, but I don't doubt one bit the current PSU administration jumped at the chance to throw dead persons, and persons under criminal indictment, who are no longer employed by PSU, under the bus to get this concluded more quickly.

Billso's post is a good one. I don't think he ever said what happened there was acceptable, but there are unanswered questions. I think that's pretty fair.
 
Pretty clear who read the linked article, and who didn't.

It isn't about PSU's mega-failure as an institution, which is indisputable (which is why PSU accepted the report and the NCAA punishment). It's about Paterno's culpability, and the fact that Freeh's summary findings (like those on page 39 linked above) aren't backed by the facts the investigation unearthed.

Read the article.
 
JHHawk said:
I was addressing the Freeh report,and commenting on this former prosecutors analysis of that report.
It was not the wins that mattered,but the implied guilt assigned to JoePa for not doing something after the 1998 incident,after law enforcement and the district attorney had done an investigation and did not pursue it.
I am just asking what exactly JoePa should have done in 1998 after law enforcement dropped the case? Should he have taken the law into his own hands? I want to know why he is held more responsible for that incident than the law enforcement and district attorneys office whose actual responsiblity it is to pursue criminal justice?
Click to expand...

I think the stigma on Paterno way back to 1998, is that he was following the case closely. He had already forced out Sandusky (the million dollar question is why) though he later allowed Sandusky to coach the 1999 season under a 90 day extension agreement. What is so troubling is that having followed the case closely, Paterno then still allowed Sandusky to bring children to PSU facilities.

To follow up on some other points - the counselor (Seasock), that said Sandusky was not displaying signs of pedophile behavior, was not even licensed at the time he did his analysis. They used his analysis to override the analysis of the doctor who said Sandusky did show signs of being a pedophile. Some wonder now if he was a ringer for the University and Second Mile.

The Chief of Police, Harmon, was keeping top PSU officials up to date on the 1998 case. He notified them he was able to keep the matter out of the logbook thus keeping the allegations from becoming public knowledge - coverup?

It standard operating procedure in 1998 was to notify the state of any allegations of pedophilia. This was also not done in this instance - coverup?
 
Either you believe joepa was a clueless old man, or you believe he controlled the program. The answer to me is pretty obvious
 
Billso said:
Pretty clear who read the linked article, and who didn't.

It isn't about PSU's mega-failure as an institution, which is indisputable (which is why PSU accepted the report and the NCAA punishment). It's about Paterno's culpability, and the fact that Freeh's summary findings (like those on page 39 linked above) aren't backed by the facts the investigation unearthed.

Read the article.
Click to expand...

I was going to just let this go....but then human nature being what it is and going against my better judgment, I gave in.

Joe Paterno ran PSU, plain and simple. There wasn't a damn thing that went on in that institution that either he didn't know about or gave his blessing on. This is the same man who threw the AD out of his house when he came to ask Joe to resign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

McQuery told Joe that Jerry raped a boy in the shower. Joe went and told the AD and President. The AD and President put a plan together to go to Child Welfare as well as Second Mile. After meeting with Joe to let him know about their plan, Joe put the kibash on it and they did nothing. As a result, at least 8 more kids were raped. Some on bowl game trips, some within the PSU facilities themselves.

Please, for the final time, stop trying to make Joe out to look like some codgy old geezer with Ahlzheimers who didn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground. You're simply embarassing yourself.
 
Billso said:
Pretty clear who read the linked article, and who didn't.

It isn't about PSU's mega-failure as an institution, which is indisputable (which is why PSU accepted the report and the NCAA punishment). It's about Paterno's culpability, and the fact that Freeh's summary findings (like those on page 39 linked above) aren't backed by the facts the investigation unearthed.

Read the article.
Click to expand...

You must have more time on your hands than I do.
 
SpiderRico said:
I was going to just let this go....but then human nature being what it is and going against my better judgment, I gave in.

Joe Paterno ran PSU, plain and simple. There wasn't a damn thing that went on in that institution that either he didn't know about or gave his blessing on. This is the same man who threw the AD out of his house when he came to ask Joe to resign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

McQuery told Joe that Jerry raped a boy in the shower. Joe went and told the AD and President. The AD and President put a plan together to go to Child Welfare as well as Second Mile. After meeting with Joe to let him know about their plan, Joe put the kibash on it and they did nothing. As a result, at least 8 more kids were raped. Some on bowl game trips, some within the PSU facilities themselves.

Please, for the final time, stop trying to make Joe out to look like some codgy old geezer with Ahlzheimers who didn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground. You're simply embarassing yourself.
Click to expand...

One detail I would add to this otherwise bullseye post: ol' joe also lied to the Grand Jury last year.
Let that sink in, paterno defenders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top