Skip to content

Paterno family releases counter to Freeh report

Joe Paterno and his wife Sue greet supporters outside their home in State College in still image taken from video Reuters

Friday afternoon, it was reported that the Paterno family, alongside a legal team, would release a counter to the Freeh report roughly 180 pages long.

Sunday morning, the family did just that.

“We conclude that the observations as to Joe Paterno in the Freeh report are unfounded, and have done a disservice not only to Joe Paterno and to the Penn State University community, but also to the victims of Jerry Sandusky and the critical mission of educating the public on the dangers of child sexual victimization,” the report reads.

You can read the entire report HEREbut here are some highlights of the critique (which are being updated as we go through it):

  • The critique comes right out swinging: “[The]

    Freeh report is deeply flawed in its investigative processes and methodology, in its

    access to information, and in its reasoning based on the record, and that ultimately it draws

    unreliable, unfair and incorrect conclusions as to Joe Paterno.”

  • Specifically, the counter states the Freeh did not properly support its findings concerning Paterno’s knowledge the 1998 and 2001 incidents involving Sandusky. Even more specifically, it attacks the Freeh’s documentation of a 1998 email thread and the ambiguity of the word “coach”, presumably Paterno, as a microcosm for poor fact-finding and confirmation.
  • The report claims that the entire Penn State community, including Joe Paterno, was “fooled” by Jerry Sandusky and his pedophilia. It goes so far as to say that Paterno “fell victim to effective ‘grooming'” from Sandusky.
  • The cirtique brings up a fair criticism: the Freeh group did not interview athletic director Tim Curley or VP Gary Schultz. Only former president Graham Spanier.
  • Regarding the 2001 incident between Sandusky and Victim 2, the money quote has been and continues to be the email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier on Feb. 27, 2001:

    “After giving it some more thought and talking it

    over with Joe yesterday — I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.” The critique states that the Freeh report made the assumption that Paterno altered the path of what was to be done about the incident.

  • Regarding the 2000 incident where a janitor saw Sandusky molesting a victim, the critique says there is no link that the witness would have lost his job over reporting what he saw because of Paterno’s power within Penn State.
  • The portion of the review written by Dick Thornburgh actually does a persuasive job of poking holes in the Freeh group’s technique. As our good friend Kevin McGuire of the Examiner pointed out earlier today, if you were to present the Freeh report and the Paterno report in a court of law, where proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is the goal, the Paterno report would probably have an edge.
  • Thorburgh counters that Paterno put football above the safety of others. “The assertion that Mr. Paterno lacked empathy for children and/or victims of child abuse is contradicted by his long history of charitable work and dedication to the development of young men,” Thornburgh states.
  • The report throws the blame of how the 2001 incident was handled on Mike McQueary. “In my opinion, based on investigating, consulting on, and studying thousands of similar cases, it is more reasonable to conclude that these five men did not understand the true nature of Sandusky’s actions because McQueary did not convey what he thought he had conveyed to them.”
  • The critique says the Freeh report “mischaracterized” the 2001 emails sent among Curley, Schultz and Spanier where a more “humane and upfront” approach was discussed in handling the accusations against Sandusky. “Hence, there was no change in plans,” the report states. “[Paterno] was not an intervening cause in any change of plans… with regard to conditionally notifying the DPW. Therefore, there was no conspiracy or any agreement to conceal.”
  • The tone, from start to finish, was that there is no evidence to support claims that Paterno knew of Sandusky’s pedophilia, or that he made a concerted effort to cover it up if he did know. There is also a direct implication in the critique that the Freeh report deliberately chose what to include and what not to include in its report to fit its findings.
Permalink 66 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
66 Responses to “Paterno family releases counter to Freeh report”
  1. spreadthecheese says: Feb 10, 2013 10:05 AM

    Breaking news! Paterno family denies everything!

  2. gmsingh says: Feb 10, 2013 10:10 AM

    Maybe I will take 3 pounds of Ex-lax and read the report.

  3. tiger7575 says: Feb 10, 2013 10:11 AM

    Back to the same question,
    “Had it been Joe’s grandson in the shower, would Joe’s reactions been the same?” If the answer is NO, then Joe
    Is an enabling, self concerned, scumbag.

  4. jcarne9014 says: Feb 10, 2013 10:28 AM

    So, just read the first 25 pages. My initial reaction is that this document is a sad, pathetic attempt to restore the good name of a lying, delusional scumbag. Burn in hell, JoePa.

  5. dietrich43 says: Feb 10, 2013 10:34 AM

    Penn State alumni. Freeh report is flawed. 1998 incident was investigated by DA and no charges were filed. Doesnt excuse 2001 event and Paterno and PSU admin from cover up.

  6. vegasdestroyer says: Feb 10, 2013 10:39 AM

    I wondered why the NCAA relied upon the “free” report instead of conducting its own investigation. After the Miami fiasco, now we all know.

  7. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 10:40 AM

    I didn’t expect anything new; at least, nothing that hasn’t already been discussed on this site. I agree with those who assert that Joe, specifically, did not do enough. He admitted as much (more’s the pity).

    Corruptio optimi quae est pessima (corruption of the best is the worst)

  8. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 10:45 AM

    I think the majority (by far) of PSU supporters fully recognize the criminal behavior and the disheartening lack of action by those who should have acted.

    Nonetheless, many of us have repeatedly asserted that the NCAA had no role in these circumstances, and I agree with the Paterno response that states, in part:

    “To this day, the NCAA Committee on Infractions, the NCAA’s regular enforcement
    body, has not identified a single infraction of NCAA rules from Sandusky’s personal crimes, much less an infraction by Penn State that implicated the NCAA’s jurisdiction and core mission of ensuring competitive balance in amateur athletics.

    The NCAA completely disregarded its own “fundamental policy” that its rules apply only “to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting.”

    The NCAA’s own rules permit major sanctions, such as those imposed on Penn State, only when the rules violations lead to a “competitive advantage.” Remarkably, even the NCAA seemed to recognize the limits of its typical authority in the Consent Decree itself with Penn State: “[t]he sexual abuse of children on a university campus by a former university official — and even the active concealment of that abuse — while despicable, ordinarily would not be actionable by the NCAA.”

    This was always a criminal justice issue.

  9. spreadthecheese says: Feb 10, 2013 10:48 AM

    Credibility is going to be an issue here. If you’re an average person looking at both of these reports, which looks more credible to you:

    Report One (Freeh Report)

    Penn State hires investigators to examine whether or not they engaged in any wrongdoing. The investigators found wrongdoing, and Penn State was punished.

    OR

    Report Two (Paterno Family Report)

    Paterno family hires report to investigate whether Report One was accurate and, surprisingly, this report concludes Joe Paterno (whose family hired the investigators) is in the clear and the Freeh report was wrong.

    I think it’s pretty simple when you compare the two where the credibility resides.

  10. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:06 AM

    Credible? I think former US Attorney General and Gov. Dick Thornburgh is pretty credible. Everyone was so quick to find the Freeh report credible – because it was first? Read the Thornburgh report completely and then decide. Personally, the parts I have read bring into serious question the credibility of some of the most damning conclusions of the Freeh report. Yes, I’m a PSU Graduate. And yes I’m a Paterno supporter. But more importantly, I am a supporter of the truth and of justice. Even a dead man deserves that!

  11. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:09 AM

    jcarne9014 says:
    Feb 10, 2013 10:28 AM
    So, just read the first 25 pages. My initial reaction is that this document is a sad, pathetic attempt to restore the good name of a lying, delusional scumbag. Burn in hell, JoePa

    Delusional mental midget!

  12. vegasdestroyer says: Feb 10, 2013 11:09 AM

    Credibility, thy name isn’t Louie Freeh, who was fooled by people in his own employ like Robert Hanssen.

  13. thetooloftools says: Feb 10, 2013 11:19 AM

    Joe was “groomed” by Sandusky? – I must walk away from commenting on that.

  14. wgray981 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:33 AM

    Joe Paterno was a scumbag. I used to like the guy, but covering up child molestation for the sake of your program immediately makes you a loser in my book.
    The Paterno family is just making themselves look stupid by getting involved in this again.

  15. steelers88 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:44 AM

    Paterno is a JOKE! Again the Paterno’s care more about Joe’s legacy and the Football program over the Sandusky victims.

  16. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:51 AM

    wgray981 says:
    Feb 10, 2013 11:33 AM
    Joe Paterno was a scumbag. I used to like the guy, but covering up child molestation for the sake of your program immediately makes you a loser in my book.
    The Paterno family is just making themselves look stupid by getting involved in this again.

    People that blindly follow the opinions of other people without fully vetting the facts are morons in my book.

    Idiots on here love to look stupid.

  17. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 11:55 AM

    The longer this goes on, the more tarnished what is left of JoePa’s reputation becomes. In reading both reports thoroughly, the Freeh Report, (duly sanctioned and the results approved by PSU and the BoT) is the basis of merit on which the NCAA issued sanctions and penalties. The Paterno rebuttal is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to exonerate JoePa.

    The Paterno family has two choices, neither of them good.

    (1.) Accept the fact that JoePa escaped possible felony prosecution along with Curley, Spainer and Schultz.

    and

    (2.) If JoePa is so innocent, then demand alumni have the President of Penn State and it’s Board of Trustees renounce the findings of the Freeh Report and demand an NCAA investigation into the principle charge of ‘Lack of Institutional Control”
    that the NCAA used as the premise to accept the Freeh Report.

    Any chances on that happening? Nope, because the President and the BoT’s (including Corbett) know that a long, protracted and ongoing investigation would lead the NCAA into areas yet undiscovered. It would kill the University and it’s
    reputation. Any minute, new finding of fact would be instant news on a 24 hour basis on the sports networks and the talking heads would drag the entire situation out again to discuss in an insatiable manner.

    That does not do anything for the University, it’s administrators, faculty, sports teams, students, alumni or supporters but denigrate them on a constant basis.

    Sure, PSU supporters will point out that JoePa was not going to be charged with any criminal charges. True, but charges can be amended at any time and the upcoming felony trials of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier will not paint the University
    in a positive light. I just hope that the trials are expedited very quickly and true justice is served.

  18. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:59 AM

    steelers88 says:
    Feb 10, 2013 11:44 AM
    Paterno is a JOKE! Again the Paterno’s care more about Joe’s legacy and the Football program over the Sandusky victims.

    Wow. The IQ level on here is great this morning. Depending on whether you prefer single digit numbers……

  19. spreadthecheese says: Feb 10, 2013 12:01 PM

    I’m loving all these Penn State supporters saying that people who don’t “vet their facts are morons.” Right. Because the only facts are the ones that say Penn State did nothing wrong and that NCAA is being a big ‘ol bully, right?

    Enjoy your 41st ranked recruiting class. It’s only going to get worse. The MAC is calling…

  20. thraiderskin says: Feb 10, 2013 12:02 PM

    I don’t care what any report says, Paterno was the general, if he didn’t know, then it shows gross negligence because he should have known. Terrible facts occured, all this blame investigating does little to fix those facts. I have never looked at Joepa as a monster, but I find him partially at fault for what went down.

  21. bronxsanman says: Feb 10, 2013 12:03 PM

    All you alumniists of pedofile state universities all sound the same. If this was your child I’d love to see how you would react,you can all go to hell with joe pa
    Al

  22. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 12:09 PM

    @cheesespreader

    Please remember, it’s not all about football.

    However, since you mention it, 41st given the current circumstances is acceptable.

    And what’s wrong with the MAC?

  23. malkinrulez says: Feb 10, 2013 12:20 PM

    Burn in hell Joe Pa

  24. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 12:24 PM

    To PSU supporters,

    You do know that JoePa may end up as a whipping boy for the criminal defense of Curley, Spanier, and Schultz by laying all the blame at the feet of JoePa since he can’t defend himself?

    What happens in court if all three state that they told JoePa not to have any association with Second Mile and that he use the power of his position as a bully pulpit against Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile, and JoePa did nothing?.

    What happens if they testify that they told JoePa not to send any of his football players to the summer camps and JoePa didn’t do it?

    What happens when the defense uses JoePa’s own words against him (“in hindsight,I wish I had done more.”) as evidence that they had informed JoePa of the dangers of Jerry Sandusky and JoePa did nothing?

    What happens should the defense present JoePa as this all powerful, behind the scenes ‘Godfather” and that the defendants were mere capos to serve the legend of Penn State football?

    Are you mentally prepared for JoePa to be trashed in open court in order to save their @sses from jail time?

  25. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 12:37 PM

    I agree with Coach Stagg – trashing Paterno would be the best defence strategy for those about to stand trial. And yes, those who continue to support Joe will find this tactic difficult to endure; still, all four of them in my opinion are morally guilty, regardless of what the courts and jury decide. They have stained all of us.

    I also agree with those who believe the longer this issue continues in the media, the more damage overall to PSU as a whole. But, if this benefits the victims in any way, if it helps them to see all of PSU struggle thourgh it, I’m happy to do my part.

    PSU is much more than those four guys.

  26. clemsonstillsucks says: Feb 10, 2013 12:38 PM

    @ Amos

    Both posts nailed it.

    Straight out of “Basic Law – 101″….blame the dead guy.

  27. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 1:09 PM

    One final thought on overturning the results of Freeh Report which the Paterno family wants so bad as to exonerate JoePa and his precious reputation.

    Does Penn State REALLY want the Freeh Report to be repudiated by the Penn State President and the BoT and have the NCAA start an investigation into Penn State?

    Fine.

    If I’m the NCAA, I’ll wait until after the trials of Mssrs Curley, Spanier, and Schulz and comb the testimony for nuggets of info to form a basis for foundation of investigation. Regardless of the verdicts, so many “Invitations to Testify” will be issued for employees of any department involved, that the time absent from their jobs will be staggering. So many people will be called and re-called, that State College would have a new cottage industry to rival the University.

    The investigation won’t be limited to Happy Valley, you think Governor
    Corbett just might be squirming a bit? What about prior and sitting BoT
    members? Any scope of investigation would be far reaching and tedious.
    It would drag on and on and on.

    Don’t think rival B1G schools (or any Div I athletic program) would NOT hesitate to use the mere thought of an NCAA investigation or federal trials would be used to recruit AGAINST Penn State.

    Forget Federal funding on research grants. ‘I’m sorry, we won’t be funding your grant until the federal court case is resolved.”

    Private funding? ” Until the question of Penn State’s involvement in the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal with University Administrators is resolved,
    we cannot in good conscience fulfill your funding request.”

    You think that won’t happen? Ask the Boy Scouts of America how their
    funding has dropped even with a USSC ruling in their favor.

    By keeping Sandusky in the headlines, every day it’s in the news it’s another day that hurts Penn State.

  28. mancave001 says: Feb 10, 2013 1:10 PM

    As with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of these two reports. I’ve examined the major points of both of them.

    –Regardless of the details he knew or didn’t know, Paterno should have done more after the 2001 incident. If his superiors were unwilling, he should have taken it upon himself to report the situation to the authorities.

    –The Freeh report is, in fact, seriously flawed and biased. Prior to this rebuttal, I found that it ascribed motives to individuals with no evidence whatsoever, took statements out of context, and made moral judgements.

    –The rebuttal makes some very good points. However, the notion that the e-mails sent by Curley and Spanier were not referring to Paterno when the term “coach” was used is one I don’t think passes the smell test.

    My overall opinion is this: Paterno was a a man of integrity who didn’t understand the full nature of Sandusky’s alleged (now proven) crimes. He failed to do anything more than was legally required of him, for which he should be blamed. I do not believe he covered anything up, nor intentionally placed the welfare of children behind the football program and Penn State itself.

  29. tommy57 says: Feb 10, 2013 1:30 PM

    Coach Stagg is right again – a very smart individual.

    But I don’t believe any PSU supporters are looking for an NCAA investigation. Most of us believe the NCAA are an inept organization that overstepped their authority. Most of us beliefe the NCAA have ZERO role in these circumstances.

    The Paterno family is (understandably to me) trying to correct the record that will restore Joe’s reputation, at least a little. They probably won’t succeed, but it might be even worse if they didn’t even try.

    If we look at the football program and last season’s results – I’m encouraged. Many in this forum were predicting terrible things that never materialized.

    PSU will accept the sanctions and have already begun to move on. Honestly, when I last visited the campus, everything was normal – students going to classes, a fairly long list of distinguished visiting lecturers and the most recent, annual THON was a huge success (two-day dance marathon to raise money for pediatric cancer).

    I accept that on this site (CFT) it really is ‘all about college football’ but that’s not the case on the PSU campus.

  30. bigd88 says: Feb 10, 2013 1:42 PM

    Stagg, dear lord I hope you never practice law in your life.
    “I didn’t report Jerry Sandusky because Joe Paterno told me not to,” is not a valid defense for these charges.
    You wrote a whole bunch of words, and it all could’ve been summed up in a simple “I have no idea what I’m talking about but I saw a mafia movie once and they always ‘blame the dead guy.'”

  31. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 2:03 PM

    bigd88

    Seriously, I’ve never played an attorney on TV, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Select.

    The job of a criminal defense attorney is to obfuscate and cloud the felony charges against their client in order to create reasonable doubt. If you don’t think that the criminal defense of Curley, Schultz and Spainer will not try to use JoePa as an excuse to protect themselves from prison time, then you are truly naive.

    How can JoePa defend himself? He can’t.

    Even if they try to have Jeff Dunham standing next to the corpse of JoePa ala “Weekend at Bernie’s” answering questions, JoePa will be set up as a whipping boy to pay for the Curley, Spanier and Schultz mistakes.

    JoePa has already been tried,convicted and in a certain sense, executed in the court
    of public opinion, which is sad.

  32. bigd88 says: Feb 10, 2013 2:19 PM

    Yet again, you used a bunch of big words, and really just said nothing. “Whipping boy?” This isn’t a movie or afternoon soap opera.

    The President of a University, it’s Vice President (who also had frequent meetings with the University Park Police Commissioner about campus crimes), and its Athletic Director are all superiors to the football coach in the hierarchy/chain of command (regardless of how “famous” the coach may be).

    It doesn’t matter if Bear Bryant himself rose from the dead, came down from heaven and demanded that they never report Sandusky in the name of football. A subordinate – or anybody on the planet Earth for that matter – demanding you to not report something is not a defense for failure to report; nor does it create a “reasonable doubt” in the minds of a jury. All that does is actually confirm guilt.
    So again, your entire little scenario that you’ve concocted in your mind and illustrated with fancy wording and dramatic undertones is nothing short of ridiculous. Leave it to those with a legal background.

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

    What would Joe Pa say today, if he were alive? “Hey, somebody let me out of here!”

  34. rickrock6661982 says: Feb 10, 2013 2:41 PM

    I believe it.

    – Manti Te’o

  35. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 2:42 PM

    Bigd88,

    Ah, the old “I vas just following orders” ala the Nuremberg Defense. It didn’t work then , it won’t work now. Sorry if an educated mind offends your sensibilities, I’ll use crayolas and “small” words for your small mind.

    “Listen to Mike, Listen to Mike tell of a man sexually assaulting a kid. Tell Mike you did what you had to do. Now let me figure out what WE are
    going to do next.”

    “See Joe report it to his bosses, See Joe do nothing else. See Joe not even follow up. See Joe say that he thought his bosses handled the situation.”

    “See Joe not tell the appropriate LEGAL authorities. See Joe not do anything for over a decade AND still act as if nothing happened.”

    When caught,Hear Joe say “in hindsight, I wish had done more!”

    Answer ONE simple question. If JoePa had heard that Sandusky had molested one of his grandsons, you think he would just report it up the chain of command or go to legal authorities?

    Crickets.

    Why is his grandson more important than another youngster?

    It’s known as character. It’s known as doing the right thing when no one is
    looking. It is a trait that ALL four individuals involved, Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spainer, failed to exhibit when they knew they had a monster in there midst.

    I sincerely hope your simple mind can comprehend this.

  36. rockwallfields says: Feb 10, 2013 2:47 PM

    It’s as if the gallows are ready and the town has come out to cheer the blood.
    I have no connection to Penn State or anyone involved in this story, and I am no Penn State sports fan. I am also not a Joe Paterno fan, though I do respect the man for his long history of contributions Penn State. Clearly I am not a Paterno hater, either. There is ample evidence that he was a good man, and to see things like his statue taken down, just seems so bitter that it clearly suggests a story where emotion has trumped fact.
    From the beginning there has been a one-sided rush to justice, because the public demanded swift action in such a sensational case. The real story, with thorough investigation, was yet to be told: maybe the Freeh report was accurate, maybe not. But this story has never smelled quite right to me from the beginning. It is an easy story to believe because, as presented, the facts seemed clear and consistent, and in an injustice like this, everyone wants someone to burn. It’s good theater. It’s also a lot easier than digging to find the root cause, how it could persist for so long; then working towards solutions and future prevention. Most people don’t want that anyway (if you don’t believe me, then read most of the above comments): they just want an answer that is quick and easy to understand. It’s much more entertaining and satisfying to find someone to blame rather than trying to find solutions. Too many people want to see athletes fail; race cars crash; politicians get caught cheating. We should want answers that help make the world a better place, rather than just seeing someone punished so the case can be closed.
    This recent report has a lot of factual information that is difficult to refute – I think anyone that reads it would agree. There is no clear and irrefutable evidence that Joe Paterno had knowledge that would lead a reasonable person in his position to act other than he did. In hindsight, off-the-cuff criticism is easy, but it isn’t always accurate. There is no publicly available credible proof that he attempted to cover it up – quite to the contrary, in fact.
    We ALL want society protected from those who harm others, and especially from those who harm children. But before condemning Joe Paterno, why don’t we first see what the facts actually are? A large amount of what we heard in the Freeh report was unsubsantiated supposition that would never have made the light of day in any court of law, because unchallenged, Mr. Freeh was allowed to say whatever he wanted when the cameras went on. Turn out the lights and cameras then put a judge before him, and the story would be a much different one. Until Joe Paterno gets a fair day in court, we will never know all the facts. To treat him as he has been portrayed in the press this past year is unjustified and shameful. Some of the above vulgar opinions are even more so, especially for a man who is now deceased, with only his wife and children to defend his honor. The need to show support for child protection does not equal the need to condemn Joe Paterno.

  37. jcarne9014 says: Feb 10, 2013 2:48 PM

    srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 11:09 AM

    jcarne9014 says:
    Feb 10, 2013 10:28 AM
    So, just read the first 25 pages. My initial reaction is that this document is a sad, pathetic attempt to restore the good name of a lying, delusional scumbag. Burn in hell, JoePa

    Delusional mental midget!

    So, srg608…anyone with an opinion that differs from your own is a “mental midget” and has a single digit IQ? Yeah, that’s brilliant! I guess my two advanced degrees…both from Penn State, by the way…account for nothing?

  38. bigd88 says: Feb 10, 2013 2:59 PM

    You have never been inside of a courtroom, defended a client, or been part of a prosecution.
    You are literally wrong on just about everything you say yet try to pass it as fact.
    You stated that Spanier, Schultz, and Curley would throw Joe under the bus to protect themselves. Except for the fact that that is the dumbest course of action they could ever take. You can’t admit to a crime and say “so and so pressured me to do it.” That is an admission of guilt and your client will be sent to jail.
    You try to play lawyer behind a keyboard and you failed miserably. So just stop. The much more likely (and realistic defense) will be that
    1. The statute of limitations had expired before they were charged.
    2. They did not come into contact with the child in question during the scope of their employment; therefore, they are/WERE not mandatory reporters.
    3. McQueary did not convey sexual assault, contrary to what is stated in the Grand Jury Presentment – McQueary himself testified to have never used to the words “rape,” “sex,” etc.
    Those are a couple of example of what a real lawyer in a real courtroom will do in this situation.
    ————–

    Now, facts you got wrong:
    1. Joe did in fact follow up with McQueary. Once Spanier banned Sandusky from bringing kids on campus, Joe approached McQueary asking him if he was ok with the outcome or if he wanted the matter pursued further. McQueary told Joe that he was fine with it.
    2. State law and University Policy required Joe to report the matter to administrators (i.e Curley and Schultz). He stated to Joe Posnanski that after meeting with McQueary, he looked up the policy and procedures to find out what he was required to do – this is why the AG’s office commended Joe Paterno for properly reporting the matter the day after the Grand Jury Presentment was released.
    3. Joe was never “caught” with anything. After he was fired, he stated that with the benefit of hindsight, he wished he had done more. No freaking kidding. Exactly what that is? Who knows. But I’m sure knowing now that Sandusky was a serial child rapist that continued his crimes, he would’ve circumvented policy and taken further action. However, no matter how many times you say it, Joe did not “KNOW” Sandusky was a child rapist, pedophile, etc. McQueary himself stated that he was purposefully vague with Joe and never used explicit terms when they met.

    4. “If it was his grandson…” If it was Joe’s grandson and he was told that he was being molested (which is not what he was told about the young boy in question, according to McQueary himself), he probably would have hired someone to kill Sandusky. Is that what you want? A society predicated on emotion…. that lynches anyone ACCUSED of a crime? Or one of due process and the court of law?

    Again, you failed. You have gotten fundamental facts wrong, and have absolutely no idea what the legal procedures are like in this instance. Stop portraying yourself as someone who knows more than you actually do – it just makes you less intelligent. Do not comment or speculate on potential upcoming legal proceedings when you have no experience in such a setting.

  39. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 3:07 PM

    Bgd88,

    All sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Never said I was an attorney.

    Simple question, “Did JoePa ever report the incident to the appropriate legal authorities?”

    C’mon it is a very simple question for your very simple mind.

    “Did JoePa ever report the incident to the appropriate legal authorities?”

    The quiet is deafening.

    Nice try, now go ask mommy for some more Ovaltine and cookies.

  40. bigd88 says: Feb 10, 2013 3:15 PM

    Can’t admit you got the facts wrong I see.
    Anyways, the answer is yes. That is why the Attorney General’s Office PRAISED Joe for properly reporting the incident when the indictments were handed down.
    You keep ignoring that fact because in your uninformed mind you think that the right answer to that would have been for Joe to call 911 that morning. When in fact, policy and state law say that was not the case. Since Joe was not the witness to any potential crime, he could not call the police upon finding out about the potential crime unless the victim was still in imminent danger – which was not the case given that it was the morning after (among many other reasons).
    This is why reporting what is now, as far as Paterno was concerned since he was not a witness, a workplace incident to administrators was the proper course of action. Again, this is why people with much more knowledge about the case than yourself in the Attorney General’s Office praised Paterno for how he handled and reported what McQueary told him.
    So yes, the answer is yes; and you fail again.

  41. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 3:15 PM

    Bgd88

    c’mon. keep trying.

    Did JoePa even pick up a phone and call the State Police and file a complaint any time in the decade after the 2001 incident?

    Bueller? Bueller?

    Nope, JoePa never put Sandusky on the radar as a questionable person.

    Did Spanier? Did Curley? Did Schultz? Or where they all just following orders?

  42. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 3:25 PM

    bgd88,

    Closing the barn door AFTER the cows got out.

    All Paterno had to do is what any private citizen would have done, call an outside source.

    Notifying your superiors that all the trains were running on schedule to the camps is not a defense.

    JoePa could have filed an individual complaint as a a private citizen and not a public figure with the State Police and he would have been protected. All four failed miserably to themselves and the University.

    How else can you explain that the three surviving Administrators are now facing
    felony trials? Being good men of high moral character?

    Nope, JoePa, Curley, Spanier all followed the lead of Schultz and “I see nothing!”.

    Face it, you keep trying to put lipstick on a pig to make it more attractive. it isn’t going to happen.

    But, keep on trying.

    Did mommy bring you your ovaltine yet? you write as if you are cranky. Do you need
    a snack and a little nap time in defending the indefensible?

  43. bigd88 says: Feb 10, 2013 3:26 PM

    Ok. Here is the Letter of the Law according to the State of Pennsylvania regarding this situation.

    § 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.

    “(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).”
    It is arguable whether or not Joe even fell under this category since he did not come into contact with the child during the normal course of his employment. However, the law clearly states (and I believe this is even a more updated and strict version of the law than was in effect in 2001) that he must notify the person in charge of the institution and/or facility of any suspected incident. Curley, as AD, was in charge of the athletic facility in question and he also got VP Schultz involved and had them speak to McQueary.
    So yes, Paterno, to the letter of the LAW, reported to the proper authorities.

    Time and time again I have proven you wrong with facts, testimony, and now the actual letter of the law pertaining to the case. All you have is a clever movie reference. Congratulations, you just may have made your 10th grader friends giggle. Too bad you were/are completely misinformed and absolutely wrong on nearly every point you have attempted to make.

  44. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 10, 2013 3:32 PM

    dgd88 wrote,

    4. “If it was his grandson…” If it was Joe’s grandson and he was told that he was being molested (which is not what he was told about the young boy in question, according to McQueary himself), he probably would have hired someone to kill Sandusky. Is that what you want? A society predicated on emotion…. that lynches anyone ACCUSED of a crime? Or one of due process and the court of law?

    Interesting, are you saying that JoePa was a “Godfather” type that had the power to have people killed? Is that what you are inferring that happened to the State College DA? What do you know and when did you know it?

  45. bigd88 says: Feb 10, 2013 3:35 PM

    Are you saying that if your child was molested, you would stop at anything less than the death of the man who did this to him?
    If so, then you’re a terrible father. Just using your logic here.

    But carry on, you have been owned and made to look like an absolute fool by the letter of the law your wannabe-attorney self tried to hide behind.

  46. dirtyharry1971 says: Feb 10, 2013 3:36 PM

    All i know is this, PSU got away with a hand slap!! The university should have been closed or at the very least the football program should have been dismantled. And i love the clowns on here who say “PSU Grad here”. Hello? Thats nothing to be proud of MORON!!! You should be ashamed to even say that!!

  47. dkhhuey says: Feb 10, 2013 4:04 PM

    Joe Paterno knew, he covered it up, he turned his back on the issue and enabled many more kids to get anally raped. He deserves everything he gets!

  48. mancave001 says: Feb 10, 2013 4:09 PM

    Wow, Dirty Harry….you are the very definition of a hater.

  49. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 4:33 PM

    “If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.”

  50. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 5:11 PM

    @dkhhuey

    “Joe Paterno knew” – Come on, you have no idea what he knew.

    “he covered it up” – Really? I guess proof isn’t really that important.

    “he turned his back on the issue and enabled many more kids to get anally raped” – He neither turned his back nor enabled anything. He reported it to his boss and the head of the campus police. As far as we truly know, he only knew about the one incident at the time. Should he have done more, probably, but only Paterno and God know for sure.

    “He deserves everything he gets” I don’t mean to insult your obvious high intelligence, but you know he’s dead, right? He’s not getting anything anymore. Be that as it may, I don’t think he or his legacy are getting anything close to what he deserves.

    Theres no doubt that anyone looking back now can point to things that could have or should have been done differently. In real time those things are less easy to recognise. Paterno could have done more, but that extends to a lot of people in a lot of official positions surrounding this case. The DA in 1998 the DA in 2001 and beyond both failed to press charges. The police involved in those investigations. The media that failed to report anything until 2011. The politicians that were sure to have wind of it. The management of the Second Mile Charity? All the people who knew about the allegations against Sandusky long before the public.

    It wasn’t four men or one man that failed to save those victims. It was dozens, if not hundreds of people who shared in that failing. Paterno was just one of them.

  51. cometkazie says: Feb 10, 2013 5:57 PM

    Amos and Tommy: Well said.

    BTW, I graduated prep school in 1957 and used Tommy57 as an email address at one time.

  52. dkhhuey says: Feb 10, 2013 7:17 PM

    srg – The only thing more pathetic than the Paterno family dragging this out is knowing that you PSU apologist are going to come back out of the woodwork and start your stupidty all over again.

    And yes genius, I know Joe is dead and sucking on satan’s balls at this point in time!

  53. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 8:05 PM

    @dkhhuey

    The only thing pathetic here is your intelligence, or really the lack thereof. Of course, strong consideration has to go to the classy way you express your misguided opinions.

    I’d go on, but frankly you’re just not worth the effort. As Ron White would say:

    “You can’t cure stupid.”

  54. bobzilla1001 says: Feb 10, 2013 8:41 PM

    I never thought I’d see the day when winning 400 football games, educating several generations of young adults, contributing financially to a major university and accepting less pay than his counterparts while running a clean football program would cause such hatred and such a lynch-mob mentality.
    Wow!!!
    Crazy!!!

  55. dkhhuey says: Feb 10, 2013 8:46 PM

    srg – yes, we know – when we don’t agree that Paterno is innocent, we just are too ignorant to understand! Paterno knew, he chose to enable a pedophile to anally rape boys in the showers at PSU and in their hotel, he was justly fired, and then he died knowing his legacy was trashed! He got what he deserved!

  56. bw1980 says: Feb 10, 2013 9:27 PM

    So I read some of the report and here’s my take:

    The Paterno family is alleging that the Freeh Report was derived from poor investigation and pure bias and was completely devoid of facts.

    To counter the Freeh Report, the Paterno Family Report is derived from poor investigation and pure bias and completely devoid of any evidence that contradicts the lack of evidence that was included in the Freeh Report.

    Hmmm…think I’m going to go ahead and take the Freeh Report at it’s word. At least the Freeh Report side was employed strictly to put together a report with the goal of stating the facts and nothing else. The Paterno family obviously paid for the work put into this report with the explicit demand that the report exonerate Joe Paterno.

    One report is simply a report, the other is a PR document.

  57. srg608 says: Feb 10, 2013 10:06 PM

    @dkhhuey

    Like I said before.

    “You can’t cure stupid.”

    But thanks for constantly reminding us of that fact.

  58. dolphins4 says: Feb 10, 2013 10:15 PM

    Wait pretty soon flat head Gonzolez from Philadelphia will report something false .

  59. thetooloftools says: Feb 10, 2013 11:51 PM

    Wow.
    Joe took the truth to his grave.
    After he promised the truth would come out. Joe Paterno. The stand up guy. Defender of all that was right with college football. The guy who ran the tight ship and never broke an NCAA rule. The guy who danced all night at fundraisers. The guy who gave millions to a library. The guy who built a university.
    Yup. He took the truth to his grave.
    Forever SHAMING THE NAME of The Pennsylvania State University because even as he was dying, he refused to talk to those who were searching for the truth.
    What a coward.
    Nothing but a coward.

  60. bgmcc907 says: Feb 11, 2013 12:00 AM

    I’ve got no more of a tie to Penn State than any other garden variety college football fan. It’s been obvious to me since Day 1 that Joe Paterno was being made a scategoat by ‘everybody’ for no reason other than he was the most visible public face of the university and that he was periphally exposed to second hand accusations. For that, he was vilified as if he was the perpetrator caught red handed in the act. The single most extreme miscarriage of justice I’ve ever heard of. The whole thing has played out like a Greek tragedy. I am totally on board with the people who are outraged by the sexual abuse that the legal system has now confirmed actually took place. But to focus the rightful anger on arguably the most peripheral character in the entire story is wrong, wrong, wrong, and always will be.

    All that having been said, what in the Wide World of Sports is the Paterno family doing conducting a critique of the Freeh report? It has no credibility for the very reason that they are behind it. They would have been better off, and they would have been more successful in defending Joe’s legacy, by letting it speak for itself and just getting on with the lives they were living while he was with them.

  61. omniusprime says: Feb 11, 2013 8:54 AM

    This pathetic Paterno report is nothing but old lame excuses that do nothing to refute the Freeh report. Jerky Joe Paterno was a pedophile protector, just like the current pope who has to resign because of his pedophile protection program.

    Sorry but Pedophile State and the Paternos deserve to be properly punished for the sake of all the poor kids raped by Sandusky while Jerky Joe and Pedophile State officials, along with Tom Corbett, stood by and did nothing to help the children. Jerky Joe and Pedophile State deserve all the hatred they are properly receiving.

  62. dkhhuey says: Feb 11, 2013 9:12 AM

    srg – coming from a guy who rambles on about how innocent Joe Paterno is… black pot, meet black kettle

  63. dkhhuey says: Feb 11, 2013 10:28 AM

    I think this sums it up better than anything else:

    “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.”

  64. westlaw1 says: Feb 11, 2013 12:33 PM

    @ bigd88 – based on what you provided, § 42.42 – Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements – “staff members of a…public… school…who in the course of their employment… come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the…school…when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.”

    You are probably correct; this statute may not apply to Joe Paterno, as he is probably not one of those individual “who in the course of their employment… come into contact with children…” Furthermore, you’re probably correct that even if this statute applied to him, he possibly acted appropriately when he informed his superiors of the facts as he knew them. If Joe Paterno attempted to rely on this statute then he would have to admit that he knew that there was a “victim of child abuse.” This would directly contradict the arguments of those who are claiming that Joe Paterno did know, didn’t understand, or couldn’t comprehend the facts. Without the mental understanding there is no reporting requirement.

  65. bamafan36 says: Feb 11, 2013 1:37 PM

    @bigd88:

    I would just like to state, that in researching ANYTHING, you should read every aspect of what you are quoting;

    § 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.

     (a)  General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. §  6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

     (b)  Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).

     (c)  Reporting procedure. Reports of suspected child abuse shall be made by telephone and by written report.

       (1)  Oral reports. Oral reports of suspected child abuse shall be made immediately by telephone to ChildLine, (800) 932-0313.

       (2)  Written reports. Written reports shall be made within 48 hours after the oral report is made by telephone. Written reports shall be made on forms available from a county children and youth social service agency.

     (d)  Written reports. Written reports shall be made in the manner and on forms prescribed by the Department of Public Welfare. The following information shall be included in the written reports, if available:

       (1)  The names and addresses of the child and the parents or other person responsible for the care of the child, if known.

       (2)  Where the suspected abuse occurred.

       (3)  The age and sex of the subjects of the report.

       (4)  The nature and extent of the suspected child abuse including any evidence of prior abuse to the child or siblings of the child.

       (5)  The name and relationship of the persons responsible for causing the suspected abuse, if known, and any evidence of prior abuse by those persons.

       (6)  Family composition.

       (7)  The source of the report.

       (8)  The person making the report and where that person can be reached.

       (9)  The actions taken by the reporting source, including the taking of photographs and X-rays, removal or keeping of the child or notifying the medical examiner or coroner.

       (10)  Other information which the Department of Public Welfare may require by regulation.
    Authority
       The provisions of this §  42.42 issued under the Child Protective Services Law, 23 Pa.C.S. §  6383(b)(2); and section 5 of the Occupational Therapists Practice Act (63 P. S. §  1505); amended under sections 5(b) and 6(a)(2) of the Occupational Therapy Practice Act (63 P. S. § §  1505(b) and 1506(a)(2)).
    Source
       The provisions of this §  42.42 adopted November 8, 1996, effective November 9, 1996, 26 Pa.B. 5425; amended December 7, 2001, effective December 8, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 6663. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (223111) to (223113).
    Cross References
       This section cited in 49 Pa. Code §  42.41 (relating to definitions relating to child abuse reporting requirements); 49 Pa. Code §  42.46 (relating to confidentiality—waived); and 49 Pa. Code §  42.47 (relating to noncompliance).

  66. bamafan36 says: Feb 11, 2013 2:02 PM

    Joe Paterno and Penn State would fall under section (a) listed as ‘General Rule’. In addition, sections (b), as it is listed, refers to (according to the definitions in 16.101) Board certified licensee or staff members (Board-regulated practitioner—A medical doctor, physician assistant, nurse midwife, certified registered nurse practitioner, respiratory care practitioner, drugless therapist, acupuncturist, practitioner of Oriental medicine or auxiliary personnel performing radiologic procedures on the premises of a medical doctor.) as you can see, according to the definition, he must comply with section (a). He failed to do so.

    However, you tirade began when amosalanzostagg theorized that the other named defendants in this case, will use JoePa as their scape-goat. I tend to agree with him. Th only person that is unable to defend the assertions made against him, are on fact, JoePa. He (nor I) is saying that this is right, or just. However, I will be shocked if this is not the ploy they use to preserve their freedom.

Leave a Reply

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