Skip to content

Louis Freeh responds to Paterno family critique

Louis  Freeh, Ken Frazier AP

Earlier this morning, the Paterno family released a lengthy critique of the Freeh report, which was released last summer documenting Penn State’s inaction in the Jerry Sandusky scandal. It’s so lengthy, we’re still working through it.

But Louis Freeh has published a response to the critique.

Here is it in its entirety (via):

I respect the right of the Paterno family to hire private lawyers and former government officials* to conduct public media campaigns in an effort to shape the legacy of Joe Paterno.

However, the self-serving report the Paterno family has issued today does not change the facts established in the Freeh Report or alter the conclusions reached in the Freeh Report. Joe Paterno’s own testimony under oath before the grand jury that investigated this horrific case is of critical importance. Mr. Paterno testified in 2011 that he knew from Michael McQueary in 2001 that McQueary had seen Sandusky “fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy” in the showers at the Lasch Building. Mr. Paterno explained, “[o]bviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset.” Years later, Mr. Paterno would explain to a reporter he chose to discuss the event with that he told McQueary, “I said you did what you had to do. It’s my job now to figure out what we want to do.”

As detailed in my report, the e-mails and contemporary documents from 2001 show that, despite Mr. Paterno’s knowledge and McQueary’s observations, four of the most powerful officials at Penn State agreed not to report Sandusky’s activity to public officials. As made clear in the attachments to our report, on February 25, 2001, Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz agreed to report Sandusky’s abuse to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. On February 27, 2001, these men agreed that reporting to DPW was not required, reasoning in the words of Graham Spanier that “[t]he only downside for us is if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.” The only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 and the agreement not to report on February 27, 2001, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley regarding what to do about Sandusky. Again, this conversation was memorialized in the contemporary email, where Mr. Curley said “[a]fter giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday — I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” Curley’s message continued:

I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?

During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno’s attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno’s attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.

Further, the Pennsylvania Attorney General specifically requested our staff not to interview Mr. McQueary so as to not interfere with the criminal prosecution of Sandusky. Nevertheless, we had access to sworn testimony by Mr. McQueary at the preliminary hearing as well as the Sandusky trial, where Mr. McQueary was thoroughly cross examined by several defense lawyers. Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz declined to speak with our staff on advice of their lawyers, despite our numerous interview requests.

Mr. Paterno was on notice for at least 13 years that Sandusky, one of his longest serving assistants, and whose office was steps away, was a probable serial pedophile. Mr. Paterno was aware of the criminal 1998 investigation into Sandusky’s suspected child sexual abuse. Indeed, the evidence shows that Mr. Paterno closely followed that case. Later, in 2001, another one of his assistants, Mr. McQueary, directly reported to Mr. Paterno that Sandusky was sexually abusing a young boy in Mr. Paterno’s Penn State football locker room. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno purposefully ignored this evidence.

I stand by our conclusion that four of the most powerful people at Penn State failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not even attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001.

In the past months, Penn State has made a dedicated effort to reform the problems that led to Sandusky’s ability to victimize children on the university campus. I trust that the changes and improvements that Penn State has put in place will help to build a constructive and protective environment where children will not again suffer abuse.

Permalink 52 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
52 Responses to “Louis Freeh responds to Paterno family critique”
  1. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 10:54 AM

    The Freeh report is indeed flawed, but in the end, it’s not wrong.

  2. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:19 AM

    tommy57 says:
    Feb 10, 2013 10:54 AM
    The Freeh report is indeed flawed, but in the end, it’s not wrong.

    It’s not? There sure looks like a lot of inconsistancies and circumstantial opinions in the Freeh report when you read Thornburgh’s analysis. Lets put it this way, the Freeh reports allegations would never have convicted Payerno in court, they would have never passed the “reasonable doubt” qualifier.

    But they fly all day long in the media and the court of public opinion. I guess the country would be in serious trouble if people today were drafting the US Constitution. We wouldn’t be the same country.

  3. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 11:19 AM

    The longer this is in the spotlight, the more it hurts Penn State.

  4. thetooloftools says: Feb 10, 2013 11:33 AM

    Penn State fans are just like Joe… deny everything and keep moving.

  5. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:50 AM

    @srg608

    I understand and appreciate your thinking, and I agree Joe probably would not have been convicted in a court of law, but I do agree with Freeh’s assertion that all four of them (Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curly) exibited a ‘striking lack of empathy for the victims.”

    They were ‘managing’ the situation instead of taking the decisive action that all parents would expect.

  6. be4bama says: Feb 10, 2013 12:08 PM

    Tommy you’ve summed it up quite well.

  7. tttrojan4life says: Feb 10, 2013 12:10 PM

    The complete lack of remorse by PSU fans and the Paterno family makes it clear that the program needed the complete cessation of football, or at the very least the death penalty.

  8. kattykathy says: Feb 10, 2013 12:14 PM

    PSU fans are the exact same as that Deb guy when it comes to Bama.

  9. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 12:14 PM

    @tttrojan4life

    Complete lack of remorse by PSU fans? Really?

    Are you a fiction writer?

  10. be4bama says: Feb 10, 2013 12:17 PM

    OH NO there (s)he is again.

  11. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 12:20 PM

    @kattykathy

    Your insipid missives are becoming tiresome beyond belief.

  12. ravenseattheirownpoop says: Feb 10, 2013 12:26 PM

    Joe Paterno is a piece of sh$$. May he rot in hell for letting a pedophile do his thing right under his nose for 15 years. I have no sympathy for his dead ass

  13. kozbee says: Feb 10, 2013 12:40 PM

    Penn st needs to screen every person on the campus including all coaches.Police records on all school officals working in or around the school and campus that have anything to do with players or teenagers.Protection is needed and anyone with any past record should be dismissed.Its time to clean up the school and be what it once was a decent place for an education.

  14. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 12:41 PM

    @tommy57

    Maybe you could point out the primary examples for your assertion that Paterno exhibited a “STRIKING lack of empathy for the victims.”

    It’s easy to say, but where are the quotes, actions or facts that support such a strong opinion? I’ve read both reports too and I’m afraid you just don’t have any. That’s the problem. Most of what is taken as FACT by the public is nothing more that opinions deduced out of circumstantial and flawed “evidence”. Much of Freeh’s rebuttal discusses how a cancer stricken and dying Paterno wouldn’t speak to his investigators.

    I didn’t know Paterno, I don’t claim to be an expert on his life, (although I did meet him once and found him to be very genuine and cordial) however, it appears that this whole mess is more about misdirecting blame instead of finding the truth.

    Why? Because Sandusky committed horrific crimes against children at a level of atrocity that most of us find unfathomable. Blame, Revenge, Justice, Public Outcry and Lynch-Mob Mentality. We used to drag people out of the local jail and hang them, now we just hang their reputation and destroy families. Who cares what the facts are, at least everyone else feels better.

  15. kozbee says: Feb 10, 2013 12:50 PM

    @ Kattykathy

    Since i`ve been on this forum i recall others that lost the right to post here.I can`t understand why they are still giving you the right to post also.IMO your under another i.d that your using other then your own.I did mod work on other forums and can say if it were me you would have lost your right to post long ago.All you are doing is trolling and not sticking to the point being discussed.IMO your hate is not needed and each time i see your post i pass it up as i will do from now on.Stop being a pest or go bother your neighbour.

  16. redpillmindstate says: Feb 10, 2013 12:55 PM

    Joe Paterno…Lengendary football coach, educator an mentor of men, dutiful husband, father, a loyal friend and protector of a serial pedophile…PSU as a whole does not deserve the punishment levied against it by the NCAA (hypocrites that they are) but PSU nation needs to own the fact that he was not perfect and committed himself to course of action that’s deplorable to most Americans (NAMBLA EXCLUDED) …. it does not help the cause but gives pause to the rest of us…. And your cause should be a resurgent football team and a restoration of Penn States name as a first class university… not as a bunch of delusional sports fans who put pride in a football team over that of human decency …

  17. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 1:05 PM

    @srg608

    Please understand I’m not one of the rabid contributors who want Joe to rot in Hell, etc. but I am extremely disappointed by his inaction. To me, simply reporting what he was told with no follow-up is just not acceptable to me. He should have done more and he knew it, and admitted as much.

    Yes, Joe Paterno was one of my personal heroes and it was very difficult to eventually admit that he was less of a man than I thought. Still, I personally continue to hold on to the good things that he did and his significant accomplishments. For obvious reasons, I don’t share these feelings in a forum such as this, but I do hold an honest assessment of the man, the good, the bad and now the truly ugly.

  18. digbysellers says: Feb 10, 2013 1:10 PM

    So now all you Paterno apologists will believe this ham handed report commissioned by the Paterno family as gospel I’m sure. The first report was flawed, as was the second, and I’m sure if there’s a third/fourth/fifth they would be as well. It’s right in the emails presented that they all knew and let things slide…it’s…right…there. You tell me if you’d have been comfortable with Uncle JoePa taking your kids to see Mr. Jerry at work and I’ll call you a blatant liar. How would ya like it if you found out after the fact a man took kids, maybe even your kids, to a place where a known pedo was working!? You apologists are total hypocrites.

  19. pegazeuss says: Feb 10, 2013 1:21 PM

    I could careless about Penn State. But what I do care about is the freedom this country stands for which includs your innocent un til proven guilty. Anyone in this forum that is using the Freeh report as the “guilty” evidence please move to Iran. Then you may take this right more seriously.

  20. effjohntaylornorelation says: Feb 10, 2013 1:34 PM

    Go Kathy go! Be careful or her debsciples will attack you in all their southern glory!

  21. bigd88 says: Feb 10, 2013 1:57 PM

    srg608 says:
    Feb 10, 2013 12:41 PM
    @tommy57

    Maybe you could point out the primary examples for your assertion that Paterno exhibited a “STRIKING lack of empathy for the victims.”

    It’s easy to say, but where are the quotes, actions or facts that support such a strong opinion? I’ve read both reports too and I’m afraid you just don’t have any. That’s the problem. Most of what is taken as FACT by the public is nothing more that opinions deduced out of circumstantial and flawed “evidence”. Much of Freeh’s rebuttal discusses how a cancer stricken and dying Paterno wouldn’t speak to his investigators.

    I didn’t know Paterno, I don’t claim to be an expert on his life, (although I did meet him once and found him to be very genuine and cordial) however, it appears that this whole mess is more about misdirecting blame instead of finding the truth.

    Why? Because Sandusky committed horrific crimes against children at a level of atrocity that most of us find unfathomable. Blame, Revenge, Justice, Public Outcry and Lynch-Mob Mentality. We used to drag people out of the local jail and hang them, now we just hang their reputation and destroy families. Who cares what the facts are, at least everyone else feels better.

    ———————————-
    What you and pegazeuss said.
    AMEN!

  22. bigd88 says: Feb 10, 2013 2:01 PM

    “During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno’s attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us.”

    REALLY??? Holy cow! I know 99% of America didn’t bother to read the Freeh Report, but now I wonder if Freeh himself even read it.

    Here is straight from the printed Freeh report:
    “The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed.”

    This guy is so used to lying, I doubt he can separate the truth from his usual pathological BS.

  23. mancave001 says: Feb 10, 2013 2:15 PM

    tttrojan4life: “The complete lack of remorse by PSU fans and the Paterno family makes it clear that the program needed the complete cessation of football, or at the very least the death penalty”

    —————–

    Why would the fans be remorseful? The fans did nothing wrong. Penn State’s football culture is no different from yours or any other team’s. The notion that somehow the fans, students or anyone outside the accused was responsible is absolutely disgusting.

  24. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 2:31 PM

    @Tommy57

    I’m not blind Tommy. We all make mistakes and Paterno was obviously no different. And you’re right, he admitted that he wished he had done more. In retrospect, I can’t imagine anyone in his shoes saying anything different.

    Nothing is so crystal clear as hindsight. Should he have done more? Probably. But how much more? I guess that depends on whose opinion you’ve decided to believe. Freeh or Thornburgh. Both are very well respected men. But one of them says he knows what Paterno knew (and did) and the other says it’s impossible to know based strictly on the evidence (without adding speculation and conjecture).

    Many of yesterdays facts now seem a lot more opinion based after reading Thornburgh’s report. I really don’t know how much Paterno knew about Sandusky. I don’t know if he tried to cover it up. I don’t know how much more he could have or should have done. But then again, No One Does.

    But I do know that he has touched countless lives in a positive way and the body of his work at the University and within the community mean far more to me than speculation.

    Flawed, yes. We all are. But a very good man.

  25. jackericsson says: Feb 10, 2013 2:34 PM

    State Penn University- just like the real prison, everyone says they are innocent.

  26. rickrock6661982 says: Feb 10, 2013 2:46 PM

    The Paternos are just determined to bring more embarrassment upon Penn State.

    And themselves.

  27. ralphross373 says: Feb 10, 2013 3:08 PM

    In some ways I admire Mrs. Paterno for trying to clear her husbands name. However there is enough evidence to indicate Joe Paterno should and could have taken action that would have stopped Sandusky from doing future harm. Also other Penn State officials were just as lax. On the other hand; I think punishing the current coach and players is stupid – the NCAA needs to find a better way to address violations in general.

  28. rehmer2389 says: Feb 10, 2013 3:08 PM

    Haha change the “facts”. They sound more like opinions to me but I guess that’s what you get when you let a hack run the investigation.

  29. onceuponatimeinsports says: Feb 10, 2013 3:18 PM

    Regardless of how you view the Freeh report, there are several facts that Paterno apologists have never adequately answered…

    Paterno was aware of the 1998 allegations against Sandusky, no one disputes this. The fact that Sandusky was not charged by the local authorities is irrelevant. Why did Paterno continue to allow Sandusky access to the Penn St campus and more specifically, the football facilities after this? Even if he understood that Sandusky had not been charged, why allow someone who’s had such a serious and vile accusation leveled against him to continue to hang around your student athletes? Paterno ran that team like a field marshal; he could have easily told Sandusky personally that his presence there around the team was no longer welcome.

    Yet he didn’t. He continued to allow a man he knew had been accused of molesting a child ON CAMPUS access to his players, access to his facilities and access to his sidelines and coaching booth.

    After 2001 he knew from what McQueary had explained to him that once again, his friend and ex-coach had been seen by an eye witness engaging in some sort of sexual act in the Penn State showers with an underage unidentified boy. Paterno testified that he understood that what McQueary saw was of a “sexual” nature and not mere horseplay or innocent roughhousing. He must have believed what McQueary told him because after thinking it over for more than a day, he went with this information to the AD and VP of the University. He continued to allow McQueary to work with the team and eventually, hired him as an assistant coach. He must have found him convincing or he would never have trusted him enough to actually hire him.

    Even if Paterno believed that he done the right thing by leaving it in Schultz and Curley’s hands, why did he never question them as to what they did with this information? There is no evidence in either report that Joe followed up and demanded action from either of them or threatened to go above their heads to Spanier or the outside authorities. Even if you believe that Paterno felt he it wasn’t his job to prosecute Sandusky himself, why the total apathy towards these obviously extremely serious accusations? Why the complete indifference to the victims, the young man Paterno now knew had been molested by Sandusky in his own facility?

    Paterno, and his apologists point toward his statement made when the accusations against Sandusky became public that he “In hindsight, I wish I had done more.” as if that alone exonerates or excuses his seeming complete disinterest in seeing some sort of action taken against Sandusky after 2 credible and serious charges had been leveled against him of being a child molester. One that was operating right under his very nose in the very facilities that he had utter and complete control over!!!

    Did Paterno forbid him from hanging around the team? No.

    Did Paterno ban him from using the teams’ facilities? No.

    Did Paterno take away his office that sat just a few feet from his own? No.

    Did Paterno ban his coaches from attending events with Sandusky or helping him with his charity? Again….no.

    All these actions were well within Paterno’s scope of power at Penn St. Any head football coach at any university in America would have had such power. And we all know Paterno carried an almost Svengali like sway over that entire campus let alone the football facilities and everything that came into contact with it.

    These inactions go waaaaaay beyond a simple and simplistic statement of “I wish I had done more.” To say that’s inadequate is like saying the Pacific Ocean is a large body of water.

    Paterno knew, as he clearly believed McQueary, that Sandusky was having sex with underage boys in the Penn State facilities yet took no action to prohibit it. None, Nada, Zilch. How many times in the ensuing dozen years did Joe see Jerry around the campus, around his team, around his facilities, in his locker room, in his showers, with or without little boys or had knowledge that he still access to young boys off campus and he did nothing!

    NOTHING!

    And we’re supposed to believe that it was all just out of his grasp, that he didn’t truly understand the magnitude of the accusations. That in hindsight, he’d wished he done more, and leave it at that.

    PUHLEEZE!!!

    Paterno himself made it clear before his death that he understood exactly what McQueary told him, that he clearly understood that Sandusky was molesting underage boys’ right in the Penn State showers. Yet he never lifted a finger to stop it. Never demanded as was his right as the head football coach and single most powerful and influential figure on that campus, that if Sandusky wasn’t going to be turned into outside authorities that at the very least he wanted him banned from the Penn State campus and to stay far away from his team and players.

    Paterno knew what was going on, the emails that came to light and are quoted in both reports make it clear he kept a rapt interest in the case and wanted to know what Schultz, Curley and Spanier were doing about it. And yet we’re supposed to believe that he was helpless to do anything but go along with whatever course of action these men determined was best.

    BULLSH*T!!!!

    It’s clear to anyone who isn’t in the cult of Paterno that he agreed with these men’s actions or more accurately, inactions if he didn’t instigate the cover-up himself. There’s simply no other logical conclusion you can draw from his actions or again, his inactions.

    Cultists believe what cultists believe and no amount of common sense is going to deter them from their beliefs. But please don’t try and convince the rest of us that the earth is the center of the solar system, the world is flat and the moon is made out of green cheese.

    It’s patently obvious which report has more credibility here….

  30. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 3:48 PM

    @onceuponatimeinsports

    Well, you did get one thing right in that rant of yours:

    “Cultists believe what cultists believe and no amount of common sense is going to deter them from their beliefs.”

    I don’t think you proved the exact point you had intended, afterall, we often have trouble recognizing in ourselves that which we attribute to others.

    “Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions.”

  31. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 3:54 PM

    @srg608

    Yes, we’re in agreement.

    The vast majority of Joe Paterno’s life was positive and benefitted many whith whom he came in contact.

    Still, just as other good people sometimes make mistakes that cause terrible harm to others (drunk drivers come to mind), Joe’s mistake was significant, cannot be ignored, but should not negate the other aspects of his life’s work (as the NCAA did).

  32. dkhhuey says: Feb 10, 2013 4:13 PM

    These 2 paragraphs pretty much sum it all up appropriately – rest in hell Paterno:

    During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno’s attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno’s attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.

    Mr. Paterno was on notice for at least 13 years that Sandusky, one of his longest serving assistants, and whose office was steps away, was a probable serial pedophile. Mr. Paterno was aware of the criminal 1998 investigation into Sandusky’s suspected child sexual abuse. Indeed, the evidence shows that Mr. Paterno closely followed that case. Later, in 2001, another one of his assistants, Mr. McQueary, directly reported to Mr. Paterno that Sandusky was sexually abusing a young boy in Mr. Paterno’s Penn State football locker room. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno purposefully ignored this evidence.

  33. Deb says: Feb 10, 2013 4:32 PM

    Much as I always liked Paterno, I’m afraid Freeh is right: Joe’s testimony before the grand jury speaks for itself. tommy57 called it … the Freeh report may be flawed, but its conclusions are accurate.

  34. joewilliesshnoz says: Feb 10, 2013 4:48 PM

    Joe Paterno = Scumbag

  35. cometkazie says: Feb 10, 2013 6:23 PM

    Well put, onceuponwhatever.

    A rant? Hardly. Mebbe it tired them too much to read it.

  36. sparky151 says: Feb 10, 2013 6:34 PM

    The Grand Jury had subpoena power while Freeh did not. The Grand Jury indicted Curley and Schultz and exonerated Paterno. Why people want to second guess them is beyond me.

    Sandusky was reported as an alleged child molester in 1998. There was an investigation with the DA ultimately deciding not to indict, probably because the state child welfare official who interviewed the alleged victim concluded that no abuse had taken place. I’m not sure why Paterno should be expected to have mind reading powers regarding Sandusky.

    One of the strange aspects of the case is that no victims have come forward from earlier decades. Usually pedophiles don’t start in middle age but there haven’t been any reported victims before the 90s. Since Sandusky was on staff since the late 60s, Paterno may have been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    The undisputed evidence is that Paterno took McQuery to see Schultz, the head of the university police dept. Of the PSU administrators, Schultz is the most culpable since it was his department’s role to investigate, not the athletic department’s.

  37. powercorrupts2 says: Feb 10, 2013 8:07 PM

    Louis Freeh had to resign as FBI Director after a Business Week article on “Carnivore”. He left with a history of: the Waco siege cover-up, insubordination to Attorney General Janet Reno, the Robert Hansen mole case, ordering use of FBI sharpshooters at Ruby Ridge which led to the death of Randy Weaver’s wife while she was holding their child in her arms, etc..
    The Freeh Report is: (1) an “ex parte” document (not an independent report) that was funded with millions of dollars by parties who have a conflict of interest in the case (Tom Corbett controlled the PSU Board of Trustees and was the PA DA who had jurisdiction over the original complaints against Sandusky but failed to investigate them in a timely fashion); (2) written in a prosecutorial fashion with no apparent concern for innocence; (3) criticizes the actions of people using a hindsight perspective that employs information that none of them knew; (4) does not contain a response by the accused parties (Curley, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno); (5) is written by someone who has a checkered history and may have a biased view of the case.

    Tom Corbett, the Pennsylvania Governor, used Freeh to scapegoat Paterno, et al. so that he (Corbett) would not be blamed. He controlled the Penn State Board of Trustees that arranged for the Report and accepted its incredibly biased conclusions (read the Report and you will see that the evidence cited does not support the conclusions). The only real evidence against Paterno was the testimony of McQueary. McQueary was a very unreliable witness (he changed his story many times) and his testimony was directly contradicted by the testimony of Dr. Jonathan Dranov. Dr. Dranov is a very reliable witness, graduated Phi Beta Kappa, attended a prestigious Ivy League medical school, is a Board Certified Internist and Nephrologist, has more than 30 years of experience in questioning patients to get accurate histories and is familiar with the mandatory reporting requirement for child abuse. He interviewed McQueary on the night that McQueary says he saw Sandusky and the child showering together. Dr. Dranov testified that he asked McQueary three times if he had seen anthing of a sexual nature and three times McQueary said no. It can safely be assumed that Dr. Dranov did not report this himself because from his extensive knowledge and experience he didn’t think it crossed the threshold for reporting. So this is what Paterno, a layman, and the others heard. They also had access to a report by the police in 1998 when Sandusky gave a child “a bear hug” and was investigated by a police detective, the PA Department of Public Welfare in Harrisburg, the Centre County DA’s Office, and a CCYS counselor who interviewed the child and wrote a report. The conclusion of the police report was “no sexual assault occurred” and no charges were filed. Since this is all that Paterno and the others knew, what are they guilty of?

  38. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 8:13 PM

    @powercorrupts2

    Nicely Written PC2!!

  39. bobzilla1001 says: Feb 10, 2013 8:47 PM

    kattykathy:
    Well said!!!
    In fact, I’m still laughing…
    He also doesn’t care much for Te’o and Notre Dame. Must be a curse, he being so wise and all knowing…

  40. tttrojan4life says: Feb 10, 2013 8:51 PM

    I would still not allow my own kids anywhere near that place. There are people on that campus that have not been brought to justice for their crimes.

  41. blackdonnelly says: Feb 10, 2013 9:28 PM

    We can safely state that BOTH reports are flawed in their own ways, but one fact remains undisputed: Coach Paterno knew.

    And that’s all.

  42. houndofthebaskervols says: Feb 10, 2013 10:04 PM

    Screw Louis Freeh, he’s a fraud and a liar. This is the man that covered up the FBI’s own complicitness in the Oklahoma City bombing and the Waco murders of 80 men, women, and children. Nothing he has to say bears any weight.

  43. crappygovernment says: Feb 10, 2013 10:16 PM

    PA taxpayers have had $100 Million stolen already for this garbage. No more money for worthless lawyers and equally worthless non-profits!

  44. Deb says: Feb 10, 2013 10:17 PM

    @bobzilla …

    ROFL … after all the years you’ve been dogging me on PFT because your fragile ego can’t handle sharing the blogs with a female Steelers fan, it must have been like a dose of Geritol to pop over here and stumble across the ramblings of my stalker. But your momentary giddiness won’t make your bizarre posts on the other side anymore cogent.

    And the Notre Dame fans here have seen me post that, in the end, Te’o turned out to be the victim of a terrible hoax. Unlike you guys, I’m not hating on anyone–just commenting on information as it’s released and trying to keep an open mind.

  45. kozbee says: Feb 10, 2013 11:10 PM

    Throw all in jail involved for 50 years then quit kicking a dead horse and let Penn st move on.

  46. oldcat157 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:31 PM

    Lol, I had almost forgotten about this and was thinking about Bill Obrien and the decent season he had. Thanks for rehashing this. I, again, hate everything Joe Paterno was.

  47. bobzilla1001 says: Feb 11, 2013 6:54 AM

    Deb:
    Please get over yourself.
    You simply aren’t that important.

  48. ermur22 says: Feb 11, 2013 7:29 AM

    Penn St needs to wake the fuck up…….he is GUILTY !! Fact- he protected a sexual predator to better his football team and put countless young men in harms way and he KNEW IT!!! He’s rotting in hell. Deal with it

  49. ermur22 says: Feb 11, 2013 7:31 AM

    Deb—–Teo is a fucking liar just like Paterno. U believe him your an idiot also!

  50. Deb says: Feb 11, 2013 1:21 PM

    bobzilla …

    Since I’m not that important, perhaps you and kattykathy can find somethng more worthwhile to do with your lives than making me your blog mission.

  51. materialman80 says: Feb 12, 2013 11:34 AM

    As much as the Paterno family wants to make this better, they can’t. Joe and all the powers that be at Pedophile State are guilty. Any of them could have and should have stopped this. They chose to look the other way. Joe is gone but the rest of the folks at Penn State who did nothing need to join Jerry the Pervert in jail, and sooner rather then later.

  52. eightysixisback says: Feb 15, 2013 2:34 PM

    Although i know it won’t make any difference to the people who continue to blame anyone and everyone who has ever gone to school at, worked for or even lived near penn state this sentence from the article above:
    “I stand by our conclusion that four of the most powerful people at Penn State failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.”
    The four most powerful people at Penn state, not everyone at Penn State. One person commited the acts and four people covered them up. Those are the people who should be criticized and punished not everyone else associated with the school. I am pretty sure that what the NCAA did is not affecting a single one of those five people in any way whatsoever. That does not make any sense.

Leave a Reply

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