Billso
Well-Known Member
I read every word. It's still on my PC desktop. If you did, you'd know your original statements were wrong. It is one of the most incompetent investigative documents I've ever read, failing to interview key people, and full of contradictions and executive-summary statements that aren't even supported within the report. For example that Paterno "concealed Sandusky's activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities". This was widely reported in media but the body of the report actually says the opposite wrt Paterno (though not Schulz+Curley, who can burn in hell).
There is zero basis in there for your statement "that's the way Paterno wanted it". None. Nada. The testimony of "not serious" were Schulz's words, and suspect since he deemed it serious enough to subsequently met with the witness, McQueary, to get the details. Schulz also had some motivation to lie, since he failed to followup after that meeting, and he also minimized McQueary's description of the incident as just "horseplay" - which McQueary vehemently denies.
There's also no evidence in testimony or the Freeh report that Paterno even knew of the 1998 incident. He denied it in sworn testimony as well. Freeh hung his hat on a single email reference to "Coach" which, if you actually read it in context, seems more likely to refer to Sandusky. And yet the summary of that section accuses Paterno of a coverup - of an incident that was REFERRED TO THE DA, who declined to prosecute.
As I said, it's a shockingly incompetent document, and numerous attorneys not connected to PSU have said the same. It quietly did great damage to Freeh's reputation among the legal community.
