Louis  Freeh, Ken Frazier

Louis Freeh responds to Paterno family critique


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.

Diagnosed with bovine leukemia, Bevo XIV retires immediately

Associated Press

Turns out Steve Spurrier isn’t the only iconic college football figure to retire this week.

Texas announced Tuesday evening Bevo XIV has been diagnosed with bovine leukemia and has been retired to his pasture, effective immediately.

Bevo XIV missed Saturday’s stunning upset of then-No. 10 Oklahoma with what the school called a “life threatening” illness, and rumors circulated around the internet this week he had passed away.

Bevo XIV officially hangs up his horns with a 106-41 record with two national championship appearances.

There is no word at press time on a possible debut of Bevo XV.

Dabo Swinney won’t stop talking about “Clemsoning”

Dabo Swinney
Associated Press

Urban Dictionary defines “Clemsoning” as “the act of an inexplicably disappointing performance, usually within the context of a college football season.”

Clemson head coach Dabo Swinney was asked about the phenomenon following the Tigers’ destruction of Georgia Tech Saturday and promptly went off. The question, asked by ESPN’s David Hale, was in reference to Swinney’s program shaking the label – Saturday marked Clemson’s 34th straight win over an unranked opponent – but Swinney didn’t see it that way.

Armed with some new facts (Clemson SID Tim Bourret noted 50 teams have fallen as ranked opponents to unranked foes since the Tigers last did so on Nov. 19, 2011), Swinney again targeted the “Clemsoning” label.

“I think it’s an agenda. It’s just bias,” Swinney told the Charleston (S.C.) Post & Courier Tuesday. “People are uneducated. They’re just ignorant and lazy because they’re not looking at the facts. If they did, they’d be focused on other schools and not Clemson. They’d be dialed in on what Clemson has done. There aren’t three other schools in the country as consistent as Clemson, in all aspects.”

I hate to break it to you, Dabo: you are absolutely correct, but the term, as they say, has been coined.

Just go beat Florida State, beat South Carolina, win the ACC and win a national title and maybe Urban Dictionary will delete that pesky page out of a sign of respect.

Also, No. 5 Clemson hosts unranked Boston College on Saturday. This would be a very, very unfortunate time for the Tigers to suffer an upset.