clean as the preacher's sheets. Finally, justice in America. All Hail JoePa.

Aggie football related because Sumlin is going to break the record for most wins in CFB.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8930657/joe-paterno-family-report-calls-freeh-report-sandusky-scandal-total-failure

quote:

---

• No evidence exists that Paterno concealed critical information about Sandusky.

• Paterno, "based on a review of all available evidence, including discussions with attorneys representing Curley, Schultz and Spanier made no attempt to hide any information, hinder or impede any investigation or limit the number of people who were informed of" one the key incidents in the Sandusky scandal. In that 2001 incident, then-assistant coach Mike McQueary witnessed the assault of a boy in the shower by Sandusky and told Paterno about it the next day.

• No evidence exists that a desire to avoid bad publicity ever motivated Paterno.

• That the Freeh report "ignored decades of expert research and analysis of the appropriate way to understand and investigate a child sexual victimization case. Consequently, the Freeh report missed a tremendous opportunity to educate the public regarding the behavior of 'nice-guy' acquaintance child molesters."

• Freeh's investigators "produced a report that fit their expectations despite contrary evidence or a more reasonable interpretation."

• The report was "oversold to the public, and Penn State officials, the NCAA and other bodies detrimentally relied upon it. The limitations of the investigation, which were numerous and defining, were not adequately explained or understood."

• "Sandusky was an exceptionally effective manipulator and deceiver & One of the most respected child sexual victimization experts in the world has concluded that Joe Paterno, like many others, did not recognize Jerry Sandusky as a child molester after the 2001 incident."

• Freeh investigators' access to vital documents and critical witnesses was severely limited. "These limitations, which were understated or ignored in the report, call into question the legitimacy of the entire report."

• The Freeh report is "uniformly biased" against Paterno and its authors "ascribe motives to people they never met or interviewed and interpret ambiguous documents with a clarity and decisiveness that is impossible to justify."

• 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."

---

[This message has been edited by 89Ag4Ever (edited 2/10/2013 8:34a).]

You expected differently? This is the USA

I believe it.

Whatever- Paterno still knew and Sandusky was still all up in PennSt for decades ...

A report made by and for the Paterno family deems him to be squeaky clean? Total shocker. I am surprised that ESPN bothered to even report this.

That report sounds like someone from BR wroted it.

quote:

---

A report commissioned by Joe Paterno's family calls the July 2012 Freeh report that was accepted by Penn State trustees before unprecedented sanctions were levied by the NCAA against the school's football program a "total failure" that is "full of fallacies, unsupported personal opinions, false allegations and biased assertions."

---

^

American justice

^
Try living in England for awhile.

So an independent report commissioned by PSU & conducted by Louis Freeh is poorly done & biased, but a report commissioned by Paterno's family that finds that St. Joe was pure as the wind-driven snow is gospel?

Absolutely. I have no problem believing that former dirwctor of the FBI & highly respected Freeh, who had no stake in the outcome, is a hack, but the Paterno family, with a vested interested in trying to protect St. Joe's legacy & their ability to profit from it, just wants the truth.

Sure. Absolutely.

Here is the Freeh response:

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/10/louis-freeh-responds-to-paterno-family-critique/

Clearly not at all a biased report.

these "independent" reviews that produce glowing results for the people that paid for them are hilarious.

same with Baylor's special "economic" report on A&M's leaving the conference and Notre Dame's "independent" investigation of Te'o.

nobody falls for this routine anymore (or at least I hope)

You get what you pay for. Aka the whitewash report. Like a tu recruiting investigation prepared by ketch ketchup and chipper brown!

Say what you want, but you can hardly call either report fair or unbiased. The truth likely lies somewhere in between the two stories.

quote:

---

• "Sandusky was an exceptionally effective manipulator and deceiver & One of the most respected child sexual victimization experts in the world has concluded that Joe Paterno, like many others, did not recognize Jerry Sandusky as a child molester after the 2001 incident."

---

What BS! Sandusky ran a foundation for disadvantaged kids for decades. Once he crossed the line with one kid, and Paterno was informed about it, Sandusky lost all credibility with Paterno, or should have. This also conveniently ignores why Sandusky retired so early.

quote:

---

• Freeh investigators' access to vital documents and critical witnesses was severely limited. "These limitations, which were understated or ignored in the report, call into question the legitimacy of the entire report."

---

There was a friggin' criminal trial for gosh sakes! Beyond a reasonable doubt is enough for multiple convictions, but not enough for the Paterno family?

quote:

---

• The Freeh report is "uniformly biased" against Paterno and its authors "ascribe motives to people they never met or interviewed and interpret ambiguous documents with a clarity and decisiveness that is impossible to justify."

---

Ahhh yes, the old "but it could have happened this way." What a reasonable person would believe given a certain set of facts doesn't apply to Paterno, as illustrated below.

quote:

---

• 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."

---

Because his long life of "moral conduct and altruism" is irrelevant for anything other than credibility of Paterno as a witness. And although he testified at the grand jury, with no cross examination, Paterno didn't testify at Sandusky's trial.

Besides, that's equivalent to saying Sandusky's contributions to disadvantaged youths precludes his sexually abusing many of them. It's not mutually exclusive. (See Catholic Church-Priest Scandal.)

[This message has been edited by aggiehawg (edited 2/10/2013 10:45a).]

Assistant drops by Joe's house on a Sunday afternoon (something he never does) to tell Joe what he saw Sandusky doing in the shower with a small boy. Paterno reports to his superiors, but NEVER follows up on the report.

Yeah, Joe's clean.

And Paterno continues to allow his players to attend functions organized by Sandusky for the kids. And allows Sandusky and kids to accompany the team to away games and bowl games, and be on the sidelines for home games.

As with most things the truth probably lies somewhere in between. JoePa should have done more in 2001, but McQuery probably did not give all the gory details he now says he gave. Keep in mind the only, the only, count Sandusky was not convicted on was the one that relied on mcqueery's testimony. The jury didn't believe him, so it seems like its fair to question his story of what he told paterno.

Old Balls knew about the pederass and did nothing about it. Disgusting.

Havent read but assume this is similar in nature to that joke of a economic study those idiots down in Waco released about the impact of our potential move to the SEC

quote:

---

So an independent report commissioned by PSU & conducted by Louis Freeh is poorly done & biased, but a report commissioned by Paterno's family that finds that St. Joe was pure as the wind-driven snow is gospel?

Absolutely. I have no problem believing that former dirwctor of the FBI & highly respected Freeh, who had no stake in the outcome, is a hack, but the Paterno family, with a vested interested in trying to protect St. Joe's legacy & their ability to profit from it, just wants the truth.

Sure. Absolutely.

---

I still want to know what Sandy had/has on Pat.

So the next time you report someone to your boss for doing something wrong at your work place then fail to follow up, you should be fired and held up forever as a bad example. Let he without sin cast the first stone. Joe Paterno will always be a great man and coach in my book. Flame away all you judges out there.

If I reported a co-worker for raping children you mean?? Yep, I think I would follow up once or twice if no action was taken.

Paterno testified in front of the grand jury that:

1) McCreary told him that Sandusky was fondling a kid in the shower;
2) Paterno understood that to mean that McCreary was sexually abusing a child;
3) While Paterno reported this to his superior (if anyone on that campus could have been in a position to really hold Paterno accountable for ANYTHING) he did nothing else to follow up on the situation; and
4) Paterno knew Sandusky to be around the PSU program for the next decade.

One would think that maybe, just maybe JoePa would have looked up at some point and said, "Hey, what ever happened to ..." No matter what anyone else wants to "report," that alone destroyed the man's legacy, and with good reason.

Bryan - The allegation is rape of a young boy! Thanks for the NAMBLA opinion.

Freeh report blames it on the dead guy. Dead guy's family commissions a report saying dead guy did nothing wrong. Who'd have guessed?

quote:

---

If I reported a co-worker for raping children you mean?? Yep, I think I would follow up once or twice if no action was taken.

---

Again, you are taking as gospel that McQueery told Paterno the whole truth about what he saw, which is far from certain. The jury heard from various witnesses that McQueery has told at least three different versions of what he saw that night in differing levels of detail and consistency. The jury rejected McQueery's testimony and exonerated Sandusky on the one count that relied on it. Yet, you are sitting in judgment on the word on an impeached witness that has been proven to be unreliable and inconsistent.

quote:

---

Again, you are taking as gospel that McQueery told Paterno the whole truth about what he saw, which is far from certain. The jury heard from various witnesses that McQueery has told at least three different versions of what he saw that night in differing levels of detail and consistency. The jury rejected McQueery's testimony and exonerated Sandusky on the one count that relied on it. Yet, you are sitting in judgment on the word on an impeached witness that has been proven to be unreliable and inconsistent.

---

He was complicit in covering up child abuse for the university. Is that more acceptable for you?

Look. I may have used extreme language in my post, but Paterno was no dummy. He knew and/or strongly suspected what was going on. Period.

1aggie 02 fails to explain why any of they exonerates Paterno

He was told Sandisky was naked doing something with naked boys in the shower. Paterno let Sandusky keep hanging around.

That can't be disputed.

When you wonder why such evil exists in the world, remember this story. Those with power to stop it turned a blind eye, then people tried to justify it.

I wonder if they'll make a different version of the Al Pacino movies that's going to come out too. im sure they're not going to be too happy about that.

This rebuttal claims it was error by Freeh to say Paterno was one of the most powerful people at Penn State. I wonder if they expect anyone to believe that the man that said "no" and stayed on a few more years when PSU
tried to fire him had no power.

This sums it up:

@Andy_Staples: Under oath, man said
he was told of sexual contact between man and boy. Sat on it so he didn't mess up anyone's weekend. End of report.

I am not saying it exonerates Paterno. I agree that he should have done more with the information he had. What I am saying is that its easy to crucify the guy when you make assumptions about what he knew with the gift of hindsight. People are bestowing on him omniscient knowledge of all this child rape going on when in reality all he had was whatever it was McQueery told him he saw. And we know that McQueery is not credible and has told people different versions of what he said to Paterno (at least one of which was extremely vague). I am just saying it is at least possible that McQueery did not convey the full gravity of what he saw to Paterno and/or Paterno did not fully believe McQueery (which seems fair in hindsight because the jury didn't believe him either).

We know what he told Paterno. And yes, we can crucify him for doing nothing based on what Paterno said he was told. There are no assumptions to make. I'm going based solely on what Paterno said he was told

McQueery telling multiple versions of the story is irrelevant. Paterno only heard one version.

[This message has been edited by BMX Bandit (edited 2/10/2013 4:05p).]