Skip to content

Amendments made to Freeh report

Louis  Freeh, Ken Frazier AP

The Freeh report investigating Penn State’s actions into allegations made against Jerry Sandusky has been modified and updated to correct errors in the report.

Some of the errors are merely typographical, but there is one change on page iv and 76, which talks about athletic director Tim Curley meeting with Sandusky. The original report says it happens in 1998, when Sandusky was still an assistant coach for the Nittany Lions. The amendment now says that exchange occurs in 2001 after Sandusky has retired.

The most significant change comes on Pages 28 and 52 regarding an email exchange between then-VP Gary Schultz and university counsel Wendell Courtney (below is the excerpt from pg. 28; pg. 52 basically says the same thing):

Courtney emails Schultz a newspaper story about the Sandusky charges. Schultz replies: “I was never aware that ‘Penn State police investigated inappropriate touching in a shower’ in 1998.”

Corrected text: Courtney emails Schultz a newspaper story about the Sandusky charges and states: “I was never aware that ‘Penn State police investigated inappropriate touching in a shower’ in 1998.”

So it was Courtney who said “I was never aware” of a 1998 investigation of Sandusky, not Schultz, according to the amended report.

Curley and Schultz are currently facing perjury charges related to the Sandusky scandal, and even with the amendments, there’s still significant evidence against the two from the report suggesting a failure to take proper measures.

(Hat tip: Patriot-News)

Permalink 52 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
52 Responses to “Amendments made to Freeh report”
  1. daiatlas says: Jul 25, 2012 9:14 PM

    Such is the problem with these ill-conceived “investigations.” I wonder what information didn’t make it into the final report.

  2. drarb says: Jul 25, 2012 9:22 PM

    Surprise, surprise – a report written in 8 months about a crime of this magnitude, that will be used to make damning decisions by a man who gave the US Ruby Ridge, Waco,, stopping investigations. What else is missing, especially since he did not talk to the available people he accused of covering up Sandusky. What comes tomorrow and when does the ncaa admit it screwed up?

  3. mgmac says: Jul 25, 2012 9:37 PM

    the most delusional people in the USA seem to be the psu fans/bot/students. you psu people are sickos. you all think that sandusky was convicted so all is well. you’re so-called self-absorbed, arrogant, now-dead former head coach wasd a piece of scum. paterno did NOTHING to stop sandusky from molesting innocent young men. thank goodness I live far away from you sickos

  4. bill1333 says: Jul 25, 2012 9:50 PM

    When are Penn State supporters going to show some of the honor they claim to have and admit the truth that their former leadership acted dis honorably by allowing a pedophile to brutally rape innocent and defenseless children!

  5. goodfieldnohit says: Jul 25, 2012 10:08 PM

    This changes nothing.

    They all knew.

    They all covered it up.

  6. bauman007 says: Jul 25, 2012 10:24 PM

    Not a PSU apologist but the problem with this report is everyone (including the NCAA) took it as gospel and based punishments on this “independent investigation”. What happens in 3 years from now if another, more egregious error is found? Is the NCAA going to say “oops our bad” but you can’t get players back? To me, this should of been handled by the judicial system then determine all punishments appropriately.

  7. clevelandschronic2 says: Jul 25, 2012 10:30 PM

    I couldnt agree more mgmac. All the psu supporters are the problem if you as fans/students and a university put so much power n trust in jesus sry i mean poor joe pa!! lol. you and The university deserve all the this crap. This wouldnt have happened had poor joe pa had an oz of the honor he claims to hav had. 14+ years of innocent kids being raped and psu supporters feel they have it hard or think its unfair. Whats unfair is how many kids could have been protected had your sad excuse for a man/coach and university did the right thing but wheres the honor in that

  8. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 25, 2012 10:47 PM

    Cause freehand report was amended PSU people are sickos. What r u even talking about??

    And also it actually could change things for Curleys timeline on when and how are he was of sandusky investigation.
    Not too much the Freeh report assumed Curley reported everything directly to Paterno. So yea it’s kind of important

  9. mezzano1 says: Jul 25, 2012 10:50 PM

    when is he going to amend the report and mention Ray Gricar the D.A. that refused to prosecute sandusky in1998 when the crimes were reported and omitted to by sandusky. oh yeah he wont because his good buddy that hired him to do the report just so happened to be the state attorney general at the time.

  10. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 25, 2012 10:54 PM

    Well, to all the angry mob, I dont think any of you have read the Freeh Report. If you had, and studied the timeline and the quotes attributed to the 2001 incident from notes and emails, you would clearly see that the only variable in this entire sad drama is the story Mike McQueary tells. In fact, it is clear that at the time both Spanier and Shultz were not convinced a crime had been commited in the Lasch building.

    Now, thats a fact. You monkeys can neg away and call me an enabler and such, I don’t care. I only care about the truth, and the conclusions reached in the Freeh Report do not even come close to representing the whole story, it only presents a very narrow interpretation of the events.

    Now, as far as the events of 1998, the police found NO evidence of a crime, and the Freeh Report said the conclusion of the police was consistent with the testimony of the young boy AT THE TIME! The DA dropped it so WTF was covered up in 1998? I mean seriously, you guys have not done your homework.

    I am very sorry for the victims, but all this retrospective laying of guilt does no one any good. All that matters is what did these guys know in 2001, and the report concludes that the 3 Amigos were “… not concerned with criminality. There was no suggestion about abuse or sexual contact.” And all this crap about how Paterno “directed” this alleged coverup is all bull$%^t supposition and nothing more based on testimony from janitors fer cryin out loud.

    My conclusion is that Mike McQueary should be the one under a microscope because the report clearly outlines the conversation with his father and Dr. Dracula (whatever his name is) and neither one of them felt that what he had told them was worth calling the cops. THEN, whatever he told Paterno the next day was not deemed to be serious enough to “interrupt their weekends.” You guys are spewing venom in the wrong direction, dont believe me, read the damn report yourselves.

  11. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 25, 2012 10:56 PM

    @cleveland how many kids could have been protected if DA,local police and attorney general did their job?? A lot??

    No repercussions for them, know why?
    Cause it’s not sensational enough.
    I do t see any comments crying victim that’s the odd part. Starting to wonder if people even read prior to commenting.

  12. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 25, 2012 11:06 PM

    Dr. Dracula. Haha.

    It is odd that the whole thing started over mcquearys accusation and the ONLY counts Sandusky was acquitted of is the McQueary victim. I can’t stop wondering about what were reasons e was acquitted on that

  13. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 25, 2012 11:10 PM

    @ danny

    The details in this report are shocking enough….shocking I mean in that they have been totally ignored by the NCAA because going back to 1998 neither the cops, the DA, Child Welfare, nor PSU administration could find any evidence of wrongdoing… oh yeah, and that includes testimony provided by the “victim” according to the Report.

    I read that thing last week and my head was spinning. It took me a while to get my head around a perspective that could put it all together, and when you do that I dont see $60M and the total dismantling of an institution. And whats really interesting, is that I dont see a single shred of evidence that connects Paterno with any “cover up.” Zero, zilch, nada, zip!

  14. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 25, 2012 11:16 PM

    That’s why there was the press conference to highlight every negative/damning thing in it some of it complete speculation on Freehs part
    He definitely assumed the worst everytime he assumed. Hes smart enough to know America’s attention span and they will watch the press conference and assume everything he says and reports must be an irrefutable fact. 8 months 6 million and a week later it’s already being changed. Notice how the release starts: it was mostly typos. They think no one will read an evaluate the rest.

  15. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 25, 2012 11:34 PM

    Well, I knew when Freeh was called in it was strictly for containment. I mean this WAS the guy who was the gatekeeper for all the murders during the Clinton administration, including Vince Foster whose investigation was handed to the friggin Park Police who Oh BTW had never investigated a murder or anyone being suicided so what can you expect.

    The Hound Report has concluded that this child abuse scandal reaches far and wide and way beyond Second Mile, and this is why Ray Gricar is no longer around to tell what he really knows

  16. ohioirishfan says: Jul 25, 2012 11:36 PM

    Are you kidding me??? No evidence? How about when a grad assistant tells you he witnessed Sandusky raping a kid in the shower. Did Joe call the police? NO!!! Didn’t want to disturb anyone on the weekend. Don’t give me that shi* that he did what he was supposed by telling his boss! You call the police! I have been in law enforcement for 10 years and I have never been so disgusted with a group of naive people in my life. The man knew what the hell was going on. You people should be worried about the victims not some man whose statue and records no longer exist.

  17. nutpack says: Jul 25, 2012 11:48 PM

    @hound
    The fact remains that all 4 knew about 1998, eventhough there was no charges. So when 2001 comes about they should have said we have a problem and should involve the police. Also the Police investigator from 1998 thought there should have been charges.

  18. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 25, 2012 11:50 PM

    Very sorry to inform you Mr. Uninformed, but McQueary did NOT tell Paterno he witnessed a “rape.” Thats not what he told his father and Dr. Draco (?) either.

    You go on being disgusted, I’m disgusted with idiots like you that think you know what happened, but have not bothered to do the legwork on. Everything I have said in the above posts can be corroborated by simply consulting the Freeh Report but I suppose thats just too much trouble, its easier being a cog (sheep) in the lynch mob machine.

    All that matters is “what did the parties know at the time” and in 98′ the “victim” agreed with the findings of the police, DA, and Child Welfare that no crime had been committed. Likewise in 2001, the only person who knew what really happened was McQueary…. its just unfortunate he didnt tell anyone what he thought he saw. They only got the heavily diluted version. Its all in the Freeh Report, go read the thing and stop calling people naive when you and the people like you are too damn lazy to do necessary work to discover the truth. Sorry.

  19. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 25, 2012 11:58 PM

    Sorry nutpack, but you cannot judge this in retrospect and thats what you are doing. If we all had the benefit of hindsight the world would be a much nicer place now wouldn’t it.

    1998, and strictly according to the Freeh Report the State College PD, the university police, the DA, Child Welfare Services all agreed no crime was committed and that was propped up by direct testimony of the “victim.” Thats in the Freeh Report, you can read it yourself then come back here and call me a liar if you dare.

    Now, that did raise a red flag and Spanier and Shultz proceeded very cautiously in 2001, even though McQueary never told them he witnessed a “rape.” Its in the report… he didnt tell his dad, he didnt tell Dr. Dracula, he didnt tell Paterno, and he didnt tell the staff. So you tell me exactly where is the coverup? LOL

  20. watchfullhose says: Jul 26, 2012 12:12 AM

    Who cares about PSU football…kids were RAPED. RAPED! And it was covered up….in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

    So have your sanctimonious “I know exactly what happened and you don’t” comments. I think defending any of it is sick.

  21. watchfullhose says: Jul 26, 2012 12:13 AM

    Penn State needs to stfu and own this.

  22. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 12:18 AM

    @ fullhose

    Its not being sanctimonious. You go read the report, and I mean the specifics of 1998 and what McQueary actually told multiple people in February 2001, then you come back here and tell me I’m being a pontificating a$$.

    But you wont do that because it flies in the face of what you believe, and you cant go messing around with somebody’s belief system now can you? Oh yeah, and while I’m at it… there is no God! LOL

  23. nutpack says: Jul 26, 2012 12:39 AM

    @hound
    I guess you missed the part on page 44 where DPW caseworker Jerry Lauro admitted that if he new about the 1998 victim’s family psychologist report he would have kept investigating.

    Dective Schreffler testified in court he thought there should have been charges and JoPa testified he understood that what McQueary saw was a very serious sexual matter.

    also in an email Spanier admitted there could be problems by not reporting the 2001 incident. This is also in the report incase you missed that.

    So by circumventing the law and trying to handle this themselves is where the coverup was born and crimes were committed.

  24. frug says: Jul 26, 2012 12:55 AM

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you

    Signed,

    Richard Jewell

  25. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 1:06 AM

    @ nutpack

    LMAO Yes, page 44…. you mean the part where Laura (14 years later) said that the first psych evaluation “involved possible boundary issues” but then the 2nd eval by Seasock “did not find any evidence of child abuse?” Is that the one you’re referring too?

    Again, you clowns are working backwards and this scandal cannot be judged in retrospect unless you can prove that everybody knew everything AT THE TIME, which they clearly didn’t ACCORDING TO THE REPORT.

    I have read the report twice, and I just read the relevant parts corresponding to your posts AGAIN, and you are chunking out of context. Sorry. Want to try again?

  26. nutpack says: Jul 26, 2012 1:18 AM

    But they knew enough to go to the police. which is why Curley and Shultz were charged with failure to report.

    Fact. Paterno and Curley decided to not report Sandusky. Fact. Shultz and Spanier agreed. Fact Spanier warned there could be problems by not reporting. Or did I read a different report than you?

  27. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 1:35 AM

    @ nut

    No, again I’m very sorry to inform you but at the time… in February 2001 (and strictly according to the Report), Spanier and Shultz and Curley were “… not concerned with criminality. There was no suggestion about abuse or sexual contact.”

    Again, it all comes down to what McQueary told them, and he didn’t tell them enough to conclude a crime had been committed. Thats documented in the report from notes and emails constructed from the timeline, and I’m also sorry to inform you that Paterno cannot be attached to any sort of illicit cover up, if he is there’s nothing in the report to cause any rational thinking person to draw that conclusion.

    Its all about what they knew at the time. In 1998 TWO distinct psych evals concluded there was no evidence of child abuse, but 14 years later with the benefit of hindsight, one of those reports may have suggested a “possible boundary issue.”

    You’re tilting at windmills nutty, sorry.

  28. jimbo75025 says: Jul 26, 2012 3:01 AM

    This is what confuses me on the whole issue. In the 1998 case, the situation was “investigated” by the DA, child services, etc and no charges were ever filed. The only thing connecting Paterno to any “coverup” in 1998 is an email saying “coach wants to know where things stand with the investigation” or something of that nature. Exactly how is that a coverup by PSU in 1998 when the police, DA, et all decided at the time no sexual abuse took place? Yet wins were vacated from that point forward because outside authorities decided nothing explicitly sexual happened -huh?

    The NCAA imposing the “coma penalty” based entirely on what I believe will over time prove to be a report filled with holes sets a bad, bad precedent-not just for PSU but for any other institution that finds a staff member accused of something. but never charged. Not that I believe Paterno and the 3 amigos are innocent-far from it, but the NCAA should have waited unil all criminal/civil cases here are concluded because I fully believe there is going to be much, much more come out here in the trials. Maybe it will implicate PSU more, maybe less, but need to know the whole truth before handing down penalties.

  29. dannythebisforbeast says: Jul 26, 2012 6:32 AM

    @nutpack can you explain why Sandusky was acquitted on the Charges related to McQuearys accusations and testimony?

    We’re those jurors who sent Sandusky away for life also apologists? Or possibly found mike McQueary to be Not believable. It’s easy to be a lynch mob
    And see the parts that inspire anger and forget everything else

    When you take everything into account especially since NCAA based sanctions on freeh it simply isn’t worthy of what they decided. Of course they came across as saving the day child molestation is disgusting but it doesn’t mean they were right

  30. bdawk20 says: Jul 26, 2012 7:00 AM

    @ Danny

    Sandusky was acquitted on the McQueery charge because, 11 years later, they cannot find the kid. No one made an attempt to find him after the report was made either, which is still a problem.

    @ hound

    I hear what you’re saying, but Paterno testified that McQueery told him something of a sexual nature happened between Jerry and the a kid. So, I am not sure how you can defend that

  31. rubbernilly says: Jul 26, 2012 7:06 AM

    houndofthebaskervols says:

    “And all this crap about how Paterno “directed” this alleged coverup is all bull$%^t supposition and nothing more based on testimony from janitors fer cryin out loud.”

    Because we all know janitors can’t be trusted. They’re only two-fifths of a person, constitutionally speaking, right? The capacity for telling the truth just isn’t in their makeup.

    /s

    BTW, supposition isn’t supposition if it’s based on testimony. Though, like you point out, they are *only* janitors.

    smh

  32. kvanhorn87 says: Jul 26, 2012 7:11 AM

    All that matters at this point in regards to the sanctions is that PSU agreed to them. Quit your crying and accept what your leaders already did. Time to show some class

  33. bdawk20 says: Jul 26, 2012 8:57 AM

    PSU made their own bed with this. I don’t think they anticipated the NCAA using Freeh’s report against them. They agreed with Freeh’s report to appease the public (there are some damning facts and evidence in the report, but Freeh added his opinion to spin the story to the media, which has no definitive proof), and then the NCAA ran with it under the prose that Penn State agreed to the report.

    So now, even if PSU wanted to fight the NCAA, they would have to say they disagreed with the Freeh report, backtracking and creating yet another PR nightmare.

    So, unless the Freeh report is completely discredited through the perjury case or more amendments, PSU will never change the minds of the public.

  34. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 9:41 AM

    @ rubbernilly

    “Testimony” is the wrong word… sorry. That was taken from an interview with Freeh’s team, its not court testimony. Also Freeh’s report suggested that the janitors were so fearful that the athletic department would “close ranks” to protect the football program if they reported what they knew. Seriously… “close ranks?” Thats janitorspeak for “they’re gonna fire my ass!” LOL

  35. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 9:54 AM

    @ bdawk

    Thats not in the Grand Jury report. And also McQueary testified to the Grand Jury that he had not told Joe any details. You could jump to the conclusion that it was of a sexual nature but thats not what he told Joe…. and that is what is in the Freeh Report as well.

    I repeat…Mike McQueary did NOT tell his father and Dr. Draco that he saw anything of a sexual nature. Thats directly from the interviews with all three men. He also didnt tell Paterno that he witnessed any rape, or suggested anything sexual… that is also in the friggin report. And I repeat, the only variable in this entire equation is Mike McQueary’s story… but at the time Joe and John McQueary were not told he witnessed a rape.

    I’m not trying to defend Paterno or Penn State, I dont have too…its right there in black and white for any of you to confirm independently, but as I’ve already pointed out none of you will do that cause you’ve already made up your minds a year ago. Sad actually that it appears the biggest victim of this whole scenario is the truth. The NCAA certainly isnt concerned about it, why should you?

  36. rubbernilly says: Jul 26, 2012 9:59 AM

    @hound

    It doesn’t have to be court testimony for it to be testimony, at least as it would affect whether you would call conclusions drawn from it “supposition.”

    They were witnesses. They told their story. You now have a basis for your conclusions, so they’re no longer in the realm of supposition.

    “janitorspeak” sounds like you’re still discounting their account because of their occupation. It doesn’t matter what job you’re in, when you talk about your superiors “closing ranks” you’re talking about getting fired… Being a janitor has nothing to do with the veracity of their claims.

    So I don’t understand why it matters to you that they were janitors. Is their story less credible because they were janitors?

  37. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 10:12 AM

    @ nilly

    The janitors are not quoted anywhere in the report that I can find. What is reported by Freeh’s team is their interpretation of what they were told by the janitors. Now, I’m not saying those guys dont have any credibility, but why are they not quoted directly? Answer that?

    And by god an interview with the Special Investigative Counsel is NOT equivalent to court testimony. Not only that, none of this would even be admissible in court fer cryin out loud.

    The janitors are not mentioned by name, what would make you happy, want me to call them sanitation engineers? They are not identified, the Freeh Report refers to them as janitors, but you think I am implying some bias by referencing them
    exactly as they appear in the report????? Man, you people are truly sick.

  38. bdawk20 says: Jul 26, 2012 11:08 AM

    @wolf

    “Fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” doesn’tcount???

  39. bdawk20 says: Jul 26, 2012 11:11 AM

    @hound (not wolf, my bad):

    “Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

    This is directly from the Grand Jury report.

  40. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 11:23 AM

    LOL @bdawk

    Page 7? Yes I see that, and you do realize that is not testimony, its an assessment condensed from the testimony of several people. Not a direct statement from Paterno. Want to try again?

    BTW, the Freeh Report says no such meeting happened on Sunday, and thats from notes and emails collected from all the parties involved. They said the meeting with Shultz happened “within a week” of the mimimal disclosure to Paterno. Sorry.

  41. bdawk20 says: Jul 26, 2012 11:37 AM

    So you are putting the Freeh report above testimony to the grand jury?

    You are a moron- you are trying to dispute a Grand Jury’s finding of facts to suit your argument.

    Paterno made that testimony – otherwise, it would have come from Schultz or Curley, whose testimony directly contradicts that statement (so, it did not come from them).

    If you want the DIRECT QUOTE, here it is:

    “It was of sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. I didn’t push Mike … because he was obviously very upset,” according to his testimony.

  42. rubbernilly says: Jul 26, 2012 11:43 AM

    @hound

    I don’t care if you call them janitors.

    I do care if you think that them being janitors somehow diminishes their ability to tell the truth.

    You know, like this statement of yours reads:
    “And all this crap about how Paterno “directed” this alleged coverup is all bull$%^t supposition and nothing more based on testimony from janitors fer cryin out loud.”

    My god, they’re just *janitors*! Why are we even listening to them?

    /s

    And, regarding bdawk’s quote… that *is* a summary, but it’s a summary of Paterno’s testimony… especially the critical part dawk was referring to, where Paterno used the phrase “fondling [or] something of a sexual nature” in his grand jury testimony.

  43. extram5 says: Jul 26, 2012 11:50 AM

    Forget all the “he said she said” crap. The sanctions have been imposed and PSU has agreed to them. Accept it and move on.

  44. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 12:17 PM

    @ bsquack

    I think you’re the moron here. Now you’re just making up stuff and slobbering at the mouth trying to defend either the Grand Jury report or the Freeh Report. Which is it?

    We’re talking about what they knew at the time, and in 2001 McQueary testified to the Grand Jury that he didnt report a rape or anything of a sexual nature, that is corroborated by the Freeh conclusions. You seem to be upset that 10 years after the fact that Paterno concluded it must have been sexual in nature. Isnt that a rational conclusion? Well, his testimony would have been different 10 years ago, cause McQueary didnt tell anybody he had witnessed anything of a sexual nature… that is in the Freeh Report. You seem to want it both ways, which I think is hilarious.
    Sorry.

  45. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 12:20 PM

    @ rubbernilly

    I’m very sorry for not showing proper respect to your janitors. I didnt call them liars, in fact its kind of difficult to call any of their comments into question since nobody knows what they told the Freeh team.

    I tell you what, you go find the transcripts of their interview then you can whine some more about me now showing them the proper respect. LOL

  46. bdawk20 says: Jul 26, 2012 12:30 PM

    @hound

    Your comment pretty much sums up your idiocy. I gave you Joe Paterno’s direct quote from his testimony, and you tell me I am making it up.

    You then suppose that Paterno’s testimony would have been different 10 years ago, as if that is even a possible argument.

    So, time to take you to school. Here is McQueery’s testimony from the Grand Jury Presentment: http://media.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/other/Curley-Schultz-Hearing-Transcript.pdf

    On page 21, McQueery testifies that he told his Dad that something sexual happened with Sandusky and the boy

    On page 24, McQueery testifies that he told Paterno he saw Jerry Sandusky doing something extremely sexual with a young boy in the shower

    I just invalidated every point you have made. You have zero credibility and your arguments are worthless. Go ahead and try to dispute any of the facts I just gave you.

    .

  47. joeschulz says: Jul 26, 2012 12:44 PM

    Amendments are a natural part of any long and detailed document. They happen all the time in legal documents. Would those wishing to attack the document prefer that it not be amended? The idea is that the document be correct. Penn State asked for the report, chose the investigator. Do you really think it wanted anything other than the truth?
    This document is not evidence, suitable for a trial. It is a compilation of conclusions based upon lots and lots of investigation. Bash the report if you wish to, but spare us the prejudiced and ill considered logic that, because of Waco, the report is wrong.

  48. houndofthebaskervols says: Jul 26, 2012 1:44 PM

    @ bdawk

    LOL did you get here via a link on the Pennsylvania Bar Assc, or was it an NCAA football link that got you to this page?

    I’m talking about the Freeh Report and what was known in 2001, you want to talk about courtroom testimony that is irrelevant to the conclusions presented in the Freeh Report, and THAT is what the NCAA acted on.

    Sorry I missed your quote by Paterno, but I had never seen that as it is NOT contained in the Grand Jury Report, only a summary. Doesn’t matter since in Feb 2001 there is nothing in the record that indicates McQueary told either Paterno, his father, or Spanier/Shultz/Curley that he witnessed anything of a sexual nature, and certainly not a rape. Sorry.

    BTW, next time you set out to “school” somebody, try and stay on point.

    Breaking news from HLN, they have finally identified Victim #2 from the shower incident. Thats not relevant to the NCAA actions either I just thought you’d be interested in the news while you’re busy slobbering like a rabid dog. haha

  49. bdawk20 says: Jul 26, 2012 2:09 PM

    @hound

    The Freeh report did not interview Paterno, Schultz, Curley, or McQueery. In fact, the Freeh report uses the Grand Jury presentments that I just shared with you to support their claims (starts on page 66). But since you want to play this game, I will:

    If you look at Freeh’s comments about the report, he told everyone that Penn State covered up Sandusky’s child abuse to protect the football program. He included Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier in that statement. So, regardless of what you say is in the Freeh report, Penn State agreed to the outcome of the Freeh report.

    To sum that up for you, Penn State agreed that they covered up Sandusky’s abuse to protect the football program. This is why the NCAA stepped in.

    Now, look at page 67 of the Freeh report, it clearly states that McQueery told Paterno it was sexual in nature. It also provides you with PATERNO’S DIRECT QUOTE THAT I JUST FED YOU. You claimed to have read the Freeh report, but completely dismiss a direct quote I gave you from it! (Are you realizing that you can’t win this argument yet?)

    I am not sure what point you are trying to get at here, you keep hopping all over the place. But here is your quote:

    “My conclusion is that Mike McQueary should be the one under a microscope because the report clearly outlines the conversation with his father and Dr. Dracula (whatever his name is) and neither one of them felt that what he had told them was worth calling the cops.”

    The report does not say that what McQueary told them was not worth calling the cops, the report says that neither advised them to call the cops. They advised him to tell Paterno. And I already clearly laid out for you several times what he told both his dad and Paterno based on the Grand Jury testimony which is what Freeh used to build the entire section of this report.

    I am not even sure what you are arguing anymore, but again, I have disproved everything you have said.

  50. rubbernilly says: Jul 26, 2012 4:46 PM

    @hound

    You’re chasing your own tail. Yes, your head is making noise. But that doesn’t mean you’re making a point.

    I don’t care what the janitors said. Or didn’t say. My point to you is that you can’t dismiss their allegations just because they’re “janitors fer cryin’ out loud.”

    If what the janitors related to the investigators is true, then it is true despite and having nothing to do with them being janitors.

    If what the janitors related to the investigators is false, it is false for some reason other than that they are janitors.

    And if you want to talk about what the NCAA acted on… it was both the report and the grand jury proceedings. Emmert referenced both of them in his public comments as a reason why the NCAA could move so quickly on these penalties.

  51. larry1211 says: Jul 27, 2012 6:05 PM

    This has been an interesting thread. I have found it fascinating to watch the fervor that this has caused among both the faithful as well as those that want the death penalty for PSU. I think most people here are splitting hairs with respect to the situation. First, the emails indicate that something was known by everyone back in late 90′s early 2000′s. What was known from 98 to 01 is certainly a question, and one that probably will never be known. Curly and Schultz will lie to try and save their skin. Spainer will do the same, even with his email acknowledgement that this could blow up in everyone’s face. His further comment that they will deal with that down the road further supports the knowledge and at that point, the cover-up.
    Second, Sandusky started the second mile charity in 1977. From 77 to 99, Jerry was a star coach for PSU and they became a power house. Then, suddenly, Joe decides after 22 years that Jerry is spending too much time at the charity? Please. That is just bullshit. I believe someone reported, and I do not have a reference here, that Joe did not even attend Jerry’s retirement dinner. Does that speak volumes? Third, what is relevant here? Did Jerry do these horrible things? I don’t think anyone is arguing that point. Did Joe know? Joe knew everything. Ask anyone who played for him. Nothing associated with Penn State football got by Joe. Except this? That is hard to swallow. Fourth, while you can disparage the janitors all you want, what would be their motive to lie? No one here is defending anyone other than Joe. Seems to me that while it is a huge disappointment that Joe has a chink in his armor, if the shoe fits……
    As to the NCAA, I cannot argue with any of the sanctions, except vacating the victories. Joe did not win those games, his players did. Vacating the victories punishes each one of those players who had nothing to do with any of this. Hopefully Bobby Bowden will forever have an asterisk next to his name.
    My 2 cents.

  52. eaoswalt says: Jul 30, 2012 9:58 AM

    Ohioirishfan, it is obvious you did not do much reading before commenting. Of course, your handle could have told me what your comments would be – negative.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!