Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PSU Football - The Freeh Report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Frauds exposed! This must NEVER happen again!!
    "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

    Comment


    • #17
      The more I read about this the angrier I get! Absolutely no one cared about the kids - NO ONE!!

      Page 62 of the report states: “On Friday, February 9, 2001, University graduate assistant Michael McQueary observed Sandusky involved in a sexual activity with a boy in the coach’s shower room in the University’s Lasch Building. McQueary met with and reported the incident to Paterno on Saturday, February 10, 2001. Paterno did not immediately report what McQueary told him, explaining that he did not want to interfere with anyone’s weekend.”

      The report goes on the say that Paterno did in fact report the incident to Curley and Schultz on Sunday, but he waited a full day to decide what to do. It also isn;t clear if he gave any details about what McQueary reported then (it says a meeting was held on Tuesday 2/10/2001 when he specifically told them about McQueary’s report.)

      On Sunday 2/10, the same day he learned of this Schultz called a lawyer to figure out what their legal obligations were for reporting suspected child abuse. The lawyer calls him back that same day but nothing is stated in the report about what the lawyer told him. Two days later Schultz and Curley meet with Spanier to let him know about the report. They also review the 1999 investigation of Sandusky at this meeting.


      Here’s where they REALLY went wrong:
      The report states that by 2/25 (that’s more that TWO WEEKS after the incident!!) Curley, Schultz and Spanier decided that among other things they’ll report the incident to the Pa. Department of Public Welfare (who is responsible for investigating child abuse.) The next day Curley and Schultz confirm the plan. Afterward Curley speaks with Paterno and decides that “if Sandusky is cooperative” they should NOT report the incident to the State Authorities.

      Think about this for a moment. Schultz, Curley and Spanier all knew about the 1999 investigation. A second report comes to their attention with an eye witness who (according to the Freeh Report) "observed Sandusky involved in a sexual activity with a boy in the coach’s shower room" and yet they didn't pick up the phone and call the police? Their first reaction was to call their lawyer to see what they were required to do and what their exposure would be? They eventually decide to go to the State Authorities but after speaking with Paterno decide not to? And what about Paterno himself? He waited an entire day to notify anyone so he wouldn't "interfere with anyone’s weekend." Excuse me? How about interfering with a kid’s life? Doesn't that matter a little more than your boss' Saturday Joe?

      Even if we give Paterno the benefit of the doubt and assume that he thought he was doing the right thing by waiting and then going only to the University rather than the police, over the next 10 years surely he would have seen Sandusky on campus with other young boys around. (Hell other people did and everyone claimed Joe knew everything that happened so surely he would know about Sandusky bringing kids to the facility after hours.) At that point he should be asking questions and raising hell if he was at all concerned about the kids !! Instead Joe appears to have wanted to protect his football program and his reputation more than he cared about the kids. This is disgraceful! I have lost all respect for Paterno and Penn State. I feel bad for the players who attended the school and will be caught up in whatever penalty the NCAA slaps on PSU. Paterno did more damage in the last 10 years of his career than he did good deeds in the first 50! I don't want to hear about all the young men he helped turn around when there are at least 9 kids under the age of 13 who he helped destroy. He allowed multiple kids to have their lives destroyed in order to protect his own reputation and the football program.
      Last edited by Jukin; 07-13-2012, 11:05 AM.
      Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
      Bleedin' Green since birth!

      "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

      ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

      Comment


      • #18
        I can not understand the PSU "solution" to the pedophile. To not have done everything within their ability to get the rapist off the street is worse than horrible. Saving the reputation of the school and football program? What a bunch of self serving pricks. May they all rot in hell.

        Comment


        • #19
          Let's be serious. This has been crap from the beginning. What in the hell was anyone thinking that led them to think it was okay for him to shower with boys (young boys mind, not young men). Don't tell meyou didn't kow what he was doing. At the very least he was showering with young boys in a coaches locker room. This ain't the Y and anyone who knew he was showering with kids should have known it wasn't right. The reason underlings didn't do anything was because this was coach Sandusky and coach Sandusky is coach Joe's bud.
          This report doesn't surprise me in the least since I thought it would end this way once it came to light. But I will say Paterno's actions surprised me greatly. I will never think of him and Penn State the same way.
          Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
          Hope is not a strategy
          RIP

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Rossovich View Post
            I can not understand the PSU "solution" to the pedophile. To not have done everything within their ability to get the rapist off the street is worse than horrible. Saving the reputation of the school and football program? What a bunch of self serving pricks. May they all rot in hell.

            I wonder if the prison population is able to carry out their "solution" yet. Surely the guards can look the other way?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by sfphillyfan View Post
              I wonder if the prison population is able to carry out their "solution" yet. Surely the guards can look the other way?
              We can only hope!

              Comment


              • #22
                There is plenty of blame to go around. Curley, Schulz and Spanier are the biggest villians IMO. McQueery is also a bad guy because he friggin saw the thing happen with his own two eyes and didn't intervene.

                Paterno is no saint but at his advanced age I would be willing to wager a hefty sum that McQueery brought the report to him, Paterno pushed it up the chain, and Curley, Schulz and Spanier pacified JoPa tellin him they'd handle it. JoPa absolutely should have done something once they did not but it is plausible to assume that those three kept telling JoPa they would handle it or that they did handle it and there was nothing to the allegations.

                It sounds as if McQueery was never really graphic with Paterno and JoPa thought it was horseplay. It is also plausible that a 75 year old brain and mindset couldn't wrap his brain around what actually happened.

                Yes, I don't doubt for a moment that JoPa was trying to protect the football program and his legacy. But I think he also thought this matter is larger then the football program and so I'm going to let the President et al deal with it because of the hefty legal ramifications.

                Again, I'm not excusing JoPa but to me with JoPa now being 6 feet under Curley, Spanier and Schulz can fabricate a story that implicates him, places blame on him, etc. and no one can defend JoPa.

                Please no response like I'm making an excuse for JoPa because I'm not. His biggest crime is he stayed on too long at Penn State. A younger coach would've probably been more involved but at Joe's advanced age he probably went along with what the powers that be said because he couldn't fully fathom what had happened.

                I just refuse to lay the whole thing at JoPa's feet like a lot of college football writers and fans are doing now. He was an accomplice but not anywhere near the villian that McQueery and the other three were IMO.
                You know Darren if you'd have told me 10 years ago that someday I was going to solve the world's energy problems I'd have said your crazy.... now lets drop this big ball of oil out the window.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Well have a totally different take AW. Paterno had a ton of heat on him to retire back then, and the last thing that he needed was the reason for "linebacker U" to be implicated in any sex scandel. Also, to expect a kid like McQuerry to stand up against an institution like PU is pretty unrealistic.
                  "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by andrewaters View Post
                    There is plenty of blame to go around. Curley, Schulz and Spanier are the biggest villians IMO. McQueery is also a bad guy because he friggin saw the thing happen with his own two eyes and didn't intervene.

                    Paterno is no saint but at his advanced age I would be willing to wager a hefty sum that McQueery brought the report to him, Paterno pushed it up the chain, and Curley, Schulz and Spanier pacified JoPa tellin him they'd handle it. JoPa absolutely should have done something once they did not but it is plausible to assume that those three kept telling JoPa they would handle it or that they did handle it and there was nothing to the allegations.

                    It sounds as if McQueery was never really graphic with Paterno and JoPa thought it was horseplay. It is also plausible that a 75 year old brain and mindset couldn't wrap his brain around what actually happened.

                    Yes, I don't doubt for a moment that JoPa was trying to protect the football program and his legacy. But I think he also thought this matter is larger then the football program and so I'm going to let the President et al deal with it because of the hefty legal ramifications.

                    Again, I'm not excusing JoPa but to me with JoPa now being 6 feet under Curley, Spanier and Schulz can fabricate a story that implicates him, places blame on him, etc. and no one can defend JoPa.

                    Please no response like I'm making an excuse for JoPa because I'm not. His biggest crime is he stayed on too long at Penn State. A younger coach would've probably been more involved but at Joe's advanced age he probably went along with what the powers that be said because he couldn't fully fathom what had happened.

                    I just refuse to lay the whole thing at JoPa's feet like a lot of college football writers and fans are doing now. He was an accomplice but not anywhere near the villian that McQueery and the other three were IMO.

                    Read the report, AW. Paterno deserves every last bit of blame he's getting, and he is every bit the active co-conspirator. He deserves FAR MORE blame than McQueary, that's really not even arguable. His legacy is destroyed.
                    Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd kill you and everyone you cared about!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by andrewaters View Post

                      I just refuse to lay the whole thing at JoPa's feet like a lot of college football writers and fans are doing now. He was an accomplice but not anywhere near the villian that McQueery and the other three were IMO.

                      I wouldn't 'lay the whole thing at JoPa's feet' but I would certainly argue that he is AT LEAST as culpable as the other 3 morally bankrupt turds...Spanier, Curley and Schultz. While the organizational chart might suggest otherwise, Paterno was clearly the most powerful figure at PSU.

                      The key for me is that not only did he know about the 1998 Sandusky incident, in which the local DA conveniently found insufficient evidence to proceed, he subsequently lied and denied any knowledge of that incident to explain his pathetically inadequate response in 2001 when McCleary told Paterno whatever he told him. He now knew his boy was at it again and HAD TO BE STOPPED. But Saint Joe, that self anointed bastion of principled behavior who publicly professed so much concern about shaping the lives of young men, turned his back on innocent children in order to protect his precious football program.

                      And in his farewell letter to his playersand fans, this hypocrite has the balls to claim the handling of this sorry episode was not about football.

                      It was always about PSU football.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tinopuno View Post
                        I wouldn't 'lay the whole thing at JoPa's feet' but I would certainly argue that he is AT LEAST as culpable as the other 3 morally bankrupt turds...Spanier, Curley and Schultz. While the organizational chart might suggest otherwise, Paterno was clearly the most powerful figure at PSU.

                        The key for me is that not only did he know about the 1998 Sandusky incident, in which the local DA conveniently found insufficient evidence to proceed, he subsequently lied and denied any knowledge of that incident to explain his pathetically inadequate response in 2001 when McCleary told Paterno whatever he told him. He now knew his boy was at it again and HAD TO BE STOPPED. But Saint Joe, that self anointed bastion of principled behavior who publicly professed so much concern about shaping the lives of young men, turned his back on innocent children in order to protect his precious football program.
                        And in his farewell letter to his playersand fans, this hypocrite has the balls to claim the handling of this sorry episode was not about football.

                        It was always about PSU football.
                        WTF does that even mean anyway???? If it weren't about football, why would Patero even be involved? The statement seems to say "I didn't want to destroy my friend".
                        "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The trouble with all of this is the mob like mentality making assumptions about all sorts of things now that we know what Sandusky did. I do child abuse trials every day. We deal with reports everyday, investigations, evaluations, analysis of risk, all the way up to trials, and work with law enforcement on serious allegations. Investigations break down for reasons beyond collusion or corruption. More sex abuse allegations go unsubstantiated than folks realize. I read the account of the welfare departments investigation and conclusions from the 1998 report. Nothing unusual about it, unless you juxtapose suspicions based on current knowledge. Unless the child spoke up about something in the McCreary incident, that report too may have had to be tabled as well. And as one who works with this everyday, i don't see the matter as football, which is the backdrop, not the cause of Sandusky's perversion and rampage. There were many other people besides Penn State administrators and Paterno who had contacts with Sandusky, and maybe reason to at least suspect foul play, but it never came to light. You deal with this everday, and your not surprised by that. Suppose I were up there, and i was representing the agency that was investigating abuse by Sandusky on a boy. I'd want to speak to McCreary, and wouldn't be at all interested in what the administration did. When all this broke in November, I posited that someone, Spanier, paterno, Curley, Dottie Sandusky, somebody, probably approached Sandusky to get some help. Obviously that didn't work out so well. And indeed that's what occurred. What we don't know is how folks would have reacted if they had knowledge that Sandusky was molesting and sodomizing young boys.
                          As a lawyer who gets calls like this daily, I'm actually interested in what PSU lawyers told Spanier,Curley and Paterno after McCreary's disclosure in 2001. I know I would have unequivocally told them to report it to Child Welfare authorities, opining that they had reasonable suspicion of child abuse. Because of lawyer client privilege, we don't know how Spanier was advised. But I feel fairly certain that whoever the lawyer or lawyers were either told Spanier that there wasn't enough evidence to impel a call, or they told them to call authorities and never followed up on the response, which I doubt. Whatever the advise, I have to believe Spanier got back to the lawyers and told them that they were going to advise Sandusky to get some help and that the lawyers must've thought that an ok response. Heck the lawyer could have called Child Welfare ( I would have...but when I give workshops to lawyers about child abuse reporting law, some lawyers think they can hide behind lawyer client privilege, which is actually relaxed for purposes of child abuse reporting)McCreary should have been advised to call the police as he was an eye witness, or should have just called without even first going to Paterno. Again, I have to throw in the caveat....even if it were reported at that time, there's no assurance that abuse would have been substantiated - important that we only impute what we knew then.
                          I had a case involving a minister where there had been three incidents investigated over a 4 or 5 year period that were not substantiated. Then finally after a teen age boy made a disclosure to a psychologist like 5 years later, another investigation was started and the man was found guilty ...of only misdemeanor child abuse (inappropriate boundaries), as there wasn't enough evidence to prove rape or sodomy or other sex crimes. All the actors close to the situation were shocked at what had actually transpired.
                          So suppose, just suppose the case would have been reported and unsubstantiated in
                          2001, and then years later all the bad stuff is disclosed. Would we still hold all of these folks accountable for the harm done to the victims. Some would. The point here is that paterno and the others used bad judgement. They may have had the university reputation blind them to make that bad judgment. However foolish it sounds now, their response to persuade Sandusky to get help wasn't totally unreasonable. I have a hard time thinking paterno, spanier (and his experience in family matters) and the others were stupid and morally corrupt enough to do what they did knowing the nature of Sandusky's acts. They gambled that it was some fetish where he liked to horse around in the shower with kids and that he could stop.
                          That's just the way I see this playing out, trying to impute to them only the knowledge that they had then, not the disasterous reality. Now that we know the horror, sure, they screwed up big time...and so did a lot of other people in retrospect. But hysertia and sensationalism aside, this is not a football issue and one that still presents shades of grey in a media saturated world that likes things black and white.
                          Sonny J

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The basis for the Freeh report is factual evidence (police reports, 1st hand testimony, emails). While I agree that certain culpable individuals will attempt to lay more blame on the dead accomplice, the whole mess of them were selfish, uncaring bastards. The report clearly establishes that those in charge at PSU were informed of Sandusky's alleged actions on multiple occasions. Instead of caring for the potential victims, they cared more for their football program under the guise of it being the "humanitarian" decision. BULLSHIT! If he was able to run a football program, he was able to decide wrong from right. If someone wants to assert that JoPa was senile or the like, fine, but no one else has yet and that just makes those in charge at PSU look even worse.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              sonnyj,

                              I gather you are very familiar with child abuse cases from the perspective of an attorney and that you are involved in such cases very frequently ("daily"). May I ask what role you typically play in these proceedings?

                              I read your post with interest a couple times and believe you make some valid points, including the frequency with which investigations fail to substantiate allegations of child abuse. However, failure to substantiate an allegation is clearly not the equivalent of establishing that the allegation was baseless. I'm sure you've come away from many 'unsubstantiated' cases knowing that, if the safety of innocent children were to be protected, the target of the unsubstantiated allegation bore heightened monitoring within the limits allowed by law.

                              I would argue that the combination of three issues made it absolutely incumbent on Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Shultz to insure that the 2001 incident was reported to Child Welfare, regardless of the possible vagueness of McCreary's report to Paterno:

                              - Their awareness of the 1998 allegation against Sandusky;
                              - Their awareness of McCreary's report that, at the very least, something inappropriate had occurred in the shower between a naked Sandusky and a naked child
                              - Their awareness of Sandusky's strong involvement in a program providing him regular personal contact with at risk/vulnerable youth.

                              As to the 'football' issue, of course football didn't cause Sandusky's perversion. But even more clearly, protection of the PSU football program...both it's storied tradition and the $millions in annual revenue it produces...played a key role in the decisions of these four men to essentially turn a blind eye to the Sandusky problem.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Someone stated earlier in this thread that how anyone (meaning the four principals involved) can think it's permissible for a grown man to "horse around" in the showers or shower with a kid is confounding. I concur. Even if that was the extent of what occurred, such behavior is not typical, or permissible. The perception of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself to observers. So if the coach recieved information stating that his intern saw a grown man horsing around in the showers with a kid, he should have assumed the worst and acted accordingly. Especially in light of the events in 1998.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X