FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
OK...I don't disagree. They should have had an investigation. Oops, they DID! It was determined that they could not get a conviction so didn't charge anyone.
But that doesn't mean there was nothing there. Plenty for PSU to act on but not an elected DA.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
No, what @bourbon n blues and @didier is saying is that an elected DA is not going after a local legend without having an ironclad case. You would not get a conviction and would be voted out of office at the next election.
I don't care about any of that.

  • there was a complaint by a mother
  • her son wouldn't corroborate that there was a crime
  • they hired not one but two psychologists
  • they had the mom wear a wire and try to get JS to incriminate himself
  • they had the mom wear a wire and try to get JS to incriminate himself again
I think that was a pretty damn good effort and if there was a conspiracy to cover it up, they would NOT have done much of anything. If I am going to rob a bank, I don't go tell the getaway car mechanic, the bank manager, two other random people and my roommate.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
But that doesn't mean there was nothing there. Plenty for PSU to act on but not an elected DA.
OF COURSE THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE AND THAT IS WHY THERE WAS A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION!!! But only years later was their actionable evidence. Nobody could go in an redo 1998. They did what they did based on what they knew at the time after a exhaustive investigation. again, that is NOT consistent with a cover up
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
A sane secure person would not care what an anonymous stranger said about him on the internet. That you do gives evidence you are a liar.
Most sane people do not like to be called liars/racists/valor stealers in a community (online or not) in which they are well known.
Sure you can
Show me then. Use google to pull up both a UNC and a PSU transcript (with the same name) that have a specific field of study for both degrees.
Liar

Liar
Prove it.
Bought with two clicks
I'm not saying someone couldn't do that; I'm saying I didn't do that and you have zero proof that I did.
Guess you'll have to decide how much you want me to believe you then. Not my problem. I haven't asked for PII.
If you re-state the one specific thing you want (that isn't PII), I will provide it by COB today. This will end this discussion once and for all.
As I've said before and you agreed. Crazy people do crazy things.
Yes, you do.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
You definitely post here more than I do.
You don't know that.
It is very clear you have no connection to PSU.
You think I am lying about being a PSU alumnus? Based on what exactly? Ever single post I've made on this board (not just on this topic) is consistent with me being an alum. And I showed you my effing transcript, you knob.
Stand and deliver
Tell me what you want and I'll deliver. Be very specific. The fact that you are dodging this reinforces my suspicion that you know you are wrong and refuse to admit it.

I've been watching the January 6th hearings and it occurred to me that you are exactly like some of these Republicans who have said "I don't have any evidence, but I know in my heart this is the case." You have zero evidence that I am lying, but it shatters your worldview (just like Trump losing shatters some people's world views) so you cannot accept it.
You do not and have no morals. I think they would call that a personality disorder.
Wrong and wrong.
I didn't make them up myself.
I don't care if you didn't make them up. Someone did. Who made up your morals and who told you that those are the morals you have to lead your life by? It's a simple question. You seem very hesitant to answer it. Why is that? 🤣 🤣 🤣
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
I don't care about any of that.

  • there was a complaint by a mother
True AND the Psychologist
  • her son wouldn't corroborate that there was a crime
Typical for CSA cases.
  • they hired not one but two psychologists
They didn't hire Chambers but she reported to PSU that Sandusky was a pedo. Seasock was brought in to refute her.
  • they had the mom wear a wire and try to get JS to incriminate himself
Not unusal
  • they had the mom wear a wire and try to get JS to incriminate himself again
See above
I think that was a pretty damn good effort and if there was a conspiracy to cover it up, they would NOT have done much of anything. If I am going to rob a bank, I don't go tell the getaway car mechanic, the bank manager, two other random people and my roommate.
As @bourbon n blues said. The coverup was at PSU not the DA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
OF COURSE THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE AND THAT IS WHY THERE WAS A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION!!! But only years later was their actionable evidence. Nobody could go in an redo 1998. They did what they did based on what they knew at the time after a exhaustive investigation. again, that is NOT consistent with a cover up
So why didn't PSU act on it? They were not in the same boat as Gricar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
You definitely post here more than I do.
Nope.
It is very clear you have no connection to PSU.
Prove it or STFU! 🤣
You think I am lying about being a PSU alumnus? Based on what exactly? Ever single post I've made on this board (not just on this topic) is consistent with me being an alum.
Or a fan (cult member) as most big schools have more fans than alums. PSU doesn't have the type of crazy folk who are alums. Their fans however?
And I showed you my effing transcript, you knob.
It was faked by photoshop you worm
Tell me what you want and I'll deliver. Be very specific. The fact that you are dodging this reinforces my suspicion that you know you are wrong and refuse to admit it.
I have told you and won't again. You know what to deliver but refuse to as you are a liar.
I've been watching the January 6th hearings and it occurred to me that you are exactly like some of these Republicans who have said "I don't have any evidence, but I know in my heart this is the case." You have zero evidence that I am lying, but it shatters your worldview (just like Trump losing shatters some people's world views) so you cannot accept it.
I have no worldview that includes you.
Wrong and wrong.
Correct
I don't care if you didn't make them up. Someone did. Who made up your morals and who told you that those are the morals you have to lead your life by? It's a simple question. You seem very hesitant to answer it. Why is that? 🤣 🤣 🤣
I didn't make them up as you have.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
Prove it or STFU! 🤣
One example: You not knowing who Bernie McCue is strongly suggests you are not a PSU person.
Or a fan (cult member) as most big schools have more fans than alums. PSU doesn't have the type of crazy folk who are alums. Their fans however?
I agree that many big schools have more fans than alumni. That doesn't change the fact that I am an alumni. BS degree in the mid 90s. Two minors. Graduated with highest distinction (top 2% of class). Please see the transcript I sent you.
It was faked by photoshop you worm
I'm still waiting for you to show us how you googled and found two transcripts (from two different universities) with official seals with the same name and the same field of study. Please, oh Google master, show us.
I have told you and won't again.
You are dodging the question because you know you are wrong. You refusing to tell me what you want is a tacit admission by you that you are wrong.
I have no worldview that includes you.
LOL. The fact that you keep responding to me suggests otherwise.
I didn't make them up as you have.
Again: WHO MADE THEM UP AND TOLD YOU THAT'S WHAT YOUR MORALS SHOULD BE? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR MORALS?

You refused to answer this question because you know it will make you look like a rube.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,522
23,655
1
True AND the Psychologist

Typical for CSA cases.

They didn't hire Chambers but she reported to PSU that Sandusky was a pedo. Seasock was brought in to refute her.

Not unusal

See above

As @bourbon n blues said. The coverup was at PSU not the DA.
You don't play dueling expert witnesses with CSA. If there is suspicion, you report it. It's not some personal injury case or where one side said this is why the guy is hurt and the other side refutes it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole

didier

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
991
1,117
1
As I said, go to any public pool. Back in those days, coaches used to shower with kids all the time after practices. It is certainly a red flag. One that would suggest that the police do an investigation, hire a couple of psychologists and have a couple of under-cover sting operations. All of those were done.
It's not just the showering it was the intentional contact while showering. And the fact that it wasn't an isolated incident. That changes things.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
It's not just the showering it was the intentional contact while showering. And the fact that it wasn't an isolated incident. That changes things.
I am not debating the guilt or innocence of JS. What I am discussing is the singular incident in 1998, the investigation and the decision to not charge him with a crime. In 1998, it was an isolated incident. And after an extensive investigation, no charges were filed. The fact that there was an extensive investigation belies the notion that there was a cover-up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
So why didn't PSU act on it? They were not in the same boat as Gricar.
They left it up to the experts, as they should. PSU and their popgun police are no match for the DA with his unlimited resources. There was a complete and full investigation. .
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
True AND the Psychologist

Typical for CSA cases.

They didn't hire Chambers but she reported to PSU that Sandusky was a pedo. Seasock was brought in to refute her.

Not unusal

See above

As @bourbon n blues said. The coverup was at PSU not the DA.
and all of that added up to a case where getting a conviction would have been next to impossible = no coverup
 

didier

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
991
1,117
1
I am not debating the guilt or innocence of JS. What I am discussing is the singular incident in 1998, the investigation and the decision to not charge him with a crime. In 1998, it was an isolated incident. And after an extensive investigation, no charges were filed. The fact that there was an extensive investigation belies the notion that there was a cover-up.
I had responded to your initial point that grooming wasn't a crime, hence couldn't be prosecuted. There was more than grooming in 1998...there was contact. And it wasn't isolated...there were at least two victims. And the perpetrator was around hundreds of boys on a regular basis. A DA who really wanted to pursue this would have started interviewing other Second Mile participants.

I should note I'm not claiming a cover-up by PSU...we don't have all the facts about this investigation. Until those come to light it's impossible to know who was screwing this up and why.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
I had responded to your initial point that grooming wasn't a crime, hence couldn't be prosecuted. There was more than grooming in 1998...there was contact. And it wasn't isolated...there were at least two victims. And the perpetrator was around hundreds of boys on a regular basis. A DA who really wanted to pursue this would have started interviewing other Second Mile participants.

I should note I'm not claiming a cover-up by PSU...we don't have all the facts about this investigation. Until those come to light it's impossible to know who was screwing this up and why.
Prove it. That is the problem. Also grooming was not a crime in 1998.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
One example: You not knowing who Bernie McCue is strongly suggests you are not a PSU person.
That's stupid
I agree that many big schools have more fans than alumni. That doesn't change the fact that I am an alumni. BS degree in the mid 90s. Two minors. Graduated with highest distinction (top 2% of class). Please see the transcript I sent you.
Fake
I'm still waiting for you to show us how you googled and found two transcripts (from two different universities) with official seals with the same name and the same field of study. Please, oh Google master, show us.
Fake
You are dodging the question because you know you are wrong. You refusing to tell me what you want is a tacit admission by you that you are wrong.
Nope I have told you repeatedly. Will you deliver?
LOL. The fact that you keep responding to me suggests otherwise.
Watching you dance is fun. Plus I want to be the fool killer in this silo of ignorance.
Again: WHO MADE THEM UP AND TOLD YOU THAT'S WHAT YOUR MORALS SHOULD BE? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR MORALS?

You refused to answer this question because you know it will make you look like a rube.
Your answer makes you look like a hateful nasty fellow. Which you are. In mommies basement.

I also have to laugh at your "morals". You hate children, you hate people in general and wish the human race to become extinct. Further you defend a pedophile and his enablers and think Stalin is moral for shits sake! I guess that would apply to Hitler and Putin as well. I think almost everyone, save the geeks you play league of legends with would call your "belief system" ****ed up. But there you are.
 
Last edited:

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
They left it up to the experts, as they should. PSU and their popgun police are no match for the DA with his unlimited resources. There was a complete and full investigation. .
BS! They knew from the report from "the expert" that Sandusky was a likely pedo. They criminally failed and rightfully went to jail for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
He's got you Obli. It was a major fail by CSS and PSU. To jail they went!
He's got nothing. Obviously, it wasn't proven and after an exhaustive investigation "nobody did nottin". Some cover-up: get a dozen people involved, sting operations, tons of files....seems like the perfect way to cover up a crime (sarcasm alert)
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
BS! They knew from the report from "the expert" that Sandusky was a likely pedo. They criminally failed and rightfully went to jail for it.
Wrong....my wife has a PhD. her opinion is not actionable without other evidence. There was no other evidence. Mom suspected, kid said nothing happened, two sting operations. You'd be arresting a lot of people if you didn't require evidence.
 

AvgUser

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2016
2,047
3,504
1
Typical for CSA cases.
And, as is typical in CSA cases, investigators found large amounts of pornography on Sandusky's phone and computer; all victims recalled dozens of occasions when Sandusky enticed them with alcohol and drugs.




<sarcasm and irony font>
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,080
378
1
Very good question/point.. Mark Parker then CEO NIKE and Penn State Alumni made the decision to take Joe’s name off of the Child daycare ? Center building after the Freeh report was released …Paterno and I believe Lance Armstrong have been the only two figures where NIKE buildings have been renamed after recognizing them years earlier.

certainly the controversy around Paterno and having a childrens building named after him creates an awkward situation .. it just does .

Even Penn State has done zero to address the wrongdoing done to Joe…I can’t fault NIKE for taking his name off of a Childrens center …maybe another building but unfortunately not a Childrens center.


Not awkward at all.

It was a group of 11 trustees who called on the full 38-member board to release the full 200-page critique of the 267-page Freeh Report, formally renounce Freeh's findings, and try to recoup some of the $8.3 million that the university paid Freeh.

"I want to put the document in your hands so you can read it yourself, but I can't do that today," said Alice Pope, a trustee and St. John's University professor about the internal review of the source materials for the Freeh report.

But the materials that Pope and six other trustees had to sue the university to obtain are still under seal according to a 2015 court order. And the university's lawyers have recently advised the 11 minority trustees that the report they worked on for more than two years remains privileged and confidential, and out of reach of the public.

So yesterday, Pope called on the full board to release the 200-page report as early as their next meeting, on July 20th. But chances are slim and none that the board's chairman, Mark Dambly, and other majority board members will ever willingly open Pandora's box. They don't want to reveal to the public the facts that the university has spent millions of dollars in legal fees to keep buried for the past six years. Facts that will present further evidence of just how badly the trustees, Louie Freeh, and the attorney general's office thoroughly botched the Penn State investigation in a rush to judgment. Not to mention the media.

The full board of trustees, Pope noted yesterday, never voted to formally adopt the findings of the Freeh Report, which found that Penn State officials had covered up the sex crimes of Jerry Sandusky.

"Rather, the board adopted a don't act, don't look and don't tell policy" Pope said that amounted to a "tacit acceptance of the Freeh Report." A report that Pope said has resulted in "profound reputational harm to our university along with $300 million in costs so far."

In addition to the $60 million in fines, the university's board of trustees has -- while doing little or no investigating -- paid out a minimum of $118 million to 36 alleged victims of sex abuse, in addition to spending more than $80 million in legal fees, and $50 million to institute new reforms aimed at preventing future abuse.

That internal 200-page report and the materials it draws upon may still be privileged and confidential. But Big Trial has obtained a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of that internal review dated Jan. 8, 2017, plus an attached 25-page synopsis of evidence gleaned from those confidential files still under court seal.

According to the executive summary, "Louis Freeh and his team disregarded the preponderance of the evidence" in concluding there was a cover up at Penn State of Jerry Sandusky's crimes.

There's more: "Louis Freeh and his team knowingly provided a false conclusion in stating that the alleged coverup was motivated by a desire to protect the football program and a false culture that overvalued football and athletics," the executive summary states.

In the executive summary, the trustees faulted Freeh and his investigators for their "willingness . . . to be led by media narratives," as well as "an over reliance on unreliable sources," such as former Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin.

Freeh, the executive summary states, also relied on "deeply flawed" procedures for interviewing witnesses. The interviews conducted by Freeh's investigators weren't done under oath, or subpoenas, and they weren't tape-recorded, the executive summary states. Those faulty methods led to "biased reporting of interview data" and "inaccurate summaries" of witness testimony.

At yesterday's press conference, Pope said the 11 trustees wanted to know the degree of cooperation Freeh's team had with the NCAA and the state attorney general's office during their investigations. According to statecollege.com, state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman has previously stated that the coordination between Freeh and the NCAA during the Penn State investigation was at best inappropriate, and at worst "two parties working together to get a predetermined outcome."

In the executive summary, the trustees cited "interference in Louis Freeh's investigation by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, wherein information gathered in the criminal investigations of Penn State officials was improperly (and perhaps illegally) shared with Louis Freeh and his team."

This is a subject Big Trial will explore in a subsequent blog post. But earlier this year, I wrote to Louis Freeh, and asked if he and his team was authorized to have access to grand jury secrets in Pennsylvania. He declined comment.

At yesterday's board meeting, Pope addressed this topic, saying, "additional information has emerged in the public domain indicates cooperation between the PA Office of Attorney General and Freeh. We believed it was important to understand the degree of cooperation between the Freeh investigation and the Office of Attorney General."

Yesterday, Freeh issued a statement that ripped the minority trustees. "Since 2015," he wrote, "these misguided alumni have been fighting a rear-guard action to turn the clocks back and to resist the positive changes which the PSU students and faculty have fully embraced." He concluded that despite consistent criticism of his report by the minority trustees, in the last six years, they have produced "no report, no facts, news and no credible evidence" that have damaged the credibility of his investigation.

But in the executive summary, the trustees blasted Freeh for having an alleged conflict of interest with the NCAA, and they cited some credible evidence to prove it.

"Louis Freeh's conflict of interest in pursuing future investigative assignments with the NCAA during his contracted period of working for Penn State," the executive summary states, "provided motivation for forming conclusions consistent with the NCAA's goals to enhance their own reputation by being tough on Penn State."

In a criminal manner, such as the Jerry Sandusky pedophilia investigation, the NCAA lacked legal standing. But the NCAA justified its intervention in the case by finding that a lack of institutional control on the part of Penn State enabled the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal.

In their synopsis of evidence, the trustees relied on internal Freeh Group emails that showed that while Freeh was finishing up his investigation of Penn State, he was angling for his group to become the "go to investigators" for the NCAA.

On July 7, 2012, a week before the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State, Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for Freeh, wrote to Freeh and a partner of Freeh's. "This has opened up an opportunity to have the dialogue with [NCAA President Mark] Emmert about possibly being the go to internal investigator for the NCAA," McNeill wrote. "It appears we have Emmert's attention now."

In response, Freeh wrote back, "Let's try to meet with him and make a deal -- a very good cost contract to be the NCAA's 'go to investigators' -- we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting -- if he does not ask for one first."

A spokesman for Freeh did not respond to a request for comment.

At yesterday's board meeting, Pope said the "NCAA knew that their own rules prevented them from punishing Penn State," but that the "NCAA decided to punish Penn State anyway in order to enhance its own reputation." She added that documents made public to date show that the "NCAA was closely involved with the Freeh investigation."

"We believed it was important to understand the degree of cooperation between the Freeh investigation and the NCAA."

At yesterday's press conference, Pope also raised the issue of a separate but concurrent federal investigation conducted on the Penn State campus in 2012 by Special Agent John Snedden. The federal investigation, made public last year, but completely ignored by the mainstream media, reached the opposite conclusion that Freeh and the attorney general did, that there was no official cover up at Penn State.

Pope stated she wanted to know more about the discrepancies between the parallel investigations that led to polar opposite conclusions.

Back in 2012, Snedden, a former NCIS special agent working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services [FIS], was assigned to determine whether Spanier deserved to have a high-level national security clearance renewed. During his investigation, Snedden placed Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours. Snedden also interviewed many other witnesses on the Penn State campus, including Cynthia Baldwin, who told him that Spanier was a "man of integrity."

About six months after Baldwin told Snedden this, she flipped, and appeared in a secret grand jury proceeding to not only testify against Spanier, but also against former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz.

Baldwin, who had previously represented Spanier, Curley and Schultz before the grand jury, testified last month before the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court, where she has been brought up on misconduct charges for allegedly violating the attorney-client privilege.

After his investigation, Special Agent Snedden concluded in a 110-page report that Spanier had done nothing wrong, and that there was no coverup at Penn State.

That's because, according to Snedden, Mike McQueary, the alleged whistleblower in the case, was an unreliable witness who told many different conflicting stories about an alleged incident in the Penn State showers where McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky with a naked 10-year-old boy. "Which story do you believe?" Snedden told Big Trial last year.

In his grand jury testimony, McQueary said his observations of Sandusky were based on one or two "glances" in the shower that lasted only "one or two seconds," glances relating to an incident at least eight years previous. But in the hands of the attorney general's fiction writers, those glances of "one or two seconds" became an anal rape of a child, as conclusively witnessed by McQueary.

That, my friends, is what we call prosecutorial misconduct of the intentional kind, the kind that springs convicted murderers out of a Death Row jail cell. And it's a scandal that for six years, the attorney general's office has refused to address, a scandal that the mainstream media has failed to hold the AG accountable for.

On March 1, 2002, according to the 2011 grand jury presentment, [McQueary] walked into the locker room in the Lasch Building at State College and heard “rhythmic, slapping sounds.” Glancing into a mirror, he “looked into the shower . . . [and] saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky.”

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

But the alleged victim of the shower rape has never came forward, despite an avalanche of publicity, and, according to the prosecutors, his identity was known "only to God." But McQueary knew the prosecutors weren't telling the truth. Days, after the presentment, McQueary wrote in an email to the attorney general's office that they had "slightly twisted his words" and, "I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion."

On top of that, all the witnesses that the grand jury presentment claimed that McQueary had reported to them "what he had seen," the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy [plus another witness cited by McQueary, a doctor who was a longtime family friend] have all repeatedly denied in court that McQueary ever told them that he witnessed an anal rape.
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden told Big Trial. As for the Freeh Report, Snedden described it as "an embarrassment to law enforcement."

Snedden also told Big Trial that the real cause behind the Penn State scandal was
"a political hit job" engineered by former attorney general and Gov. Tom Corbett, who had it in for Spanier, after they feuded over drastic budget cuts proposed by the governor at Penn State. Corbett has previously denied the charges.

At the same time Snedden was investigating Penn State, former FBI Director Louis Freeh was writing his report on the Penn State scandal, a report commissioned by the university, at a staggering cost of $8.3 million.

Freeh concluded that there had been a cover up. His report found a “striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the university,” which included Spanier, who had repeatedly been severely beaten by his father as a child, requiring several operations as an adult. Freeh also found that Spanier, Paterno, along with Schultz, the former Penn State vice president and Curley, the school’s ex-athletic director, “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities.”
But critics such as the minority trustees have noted that the ex-FBI director reached his sweeping conclusions without his investigators ever talking to Paterno, Schultz, Curley, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier briefly, at the end of his investigation. And confidential records viewed by the trustees show that Freeh’s own people disagreed with his conclusions.

According to those records, Freeh's own staff reviewed a May 21, 2012 draft of the Freeh Report, which was subsequently turned over to Penn State officials. The lead paragraph of the draft said, “At the time of the alleged sexual assaults by Jerry Sandusky, there was a culture and environment in the Penn State Athletic Department that led staff members to fail to identify or act on observed inappropriate conduct by Sandusky.”
The draft report talked about an environment of fear that affected even a janitor who supposedly saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the showers in 2002: “There existed an environment within the athletic department that led an employee to determine that the perceived threat of losing his job outweighed the necessity of reporting the violent crime of a child.”
Over that paragraph in the draft report, a handwritten note said, “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” Freeh, however, in his final version of his report, included that charge about the janitor who allegedly saw Sandusky assault another boy in the showers but was so fearful he didn’t report it.

But when the state police interviewed that janitor, Jim Calhoun, he stated three times that it wasn’t Sandusky he had seen sexually abusing a boy. [The state police didn’t ask Calhoun who was the alleged assailant.] At Sandusky’s trial, however, the jury convicted the ex-coach of that crime, in part because his defense lawyer never told the jury about the janitor’s interview with the state police.

In a written statement, Freeh confirmed that the person who wrote “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” was one of his guys.

"Throughout the review at the Pennsylvania State University, members of the Freeh team were encouraged to speak freely and to challenge any factual assertions that they believed are not supported," Freeh wrote on Jan. 10, 2018.

"Indeed the factual assertions of the report were tested and vetted over a period of many months and, as new evidence was uncovered, some of the factual assertions and conclusions evolved," he wrote. "Our staff debated, refined and reformed our views even in the final hours before the report's release."

In another handwritten note on the draft of the report, somebody wrote that there was "no evidence" to support Freeh's contention that a flawed football culture was to blame for the Sandusky sex scandal.

"Freeh knew the evidence did not support this," the executive summary says. But in his final report, Freeh wrote about "A culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community."
While Freeh concluded there was a coverup at Penn State, his investigators weren’t so sure, according to records cited by the trustees in their executive summary.

On March 7, 2012, in a conference call, Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI agent who was one of Freeh’s senior investigators, noted that they had found “no smoking gun to indicate [a] cover-up.”
In a written statement to this reporter, Freeh claimed that shortly after McChesney made that observation, his investigators found “the critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence” in a 2001 “email trove among Schultz, Curley and Spanier.”

In that email chain, conducted over Penn State’s own computer system, the administrators discussed confronting Sandusky about his habit of showering with children at Penn State facilities, and telling him to stop, rather than report him to officials at The Second Mile, as well as the state Department of Public Welfare.

In the email chain, Curley described the strategy as a “more humane approach” that included an offer to provide Sandusky with counseling. Spanier agreed, but wrote, “The only downside for us if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon [by Sandusky] and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

Curley subsequently told Sandusky to stop bringing children into Penn State facilities, and informed officials at The Second Mile about the 2002 shower incident witnessed by McQueary, an incident that the prosecutors subsequently decided really happened in 2001. But Penn State didn’t inform the state Department of Public Welfare about Sandusky, which Freeh claimed was the smoking gun.
By definition, however, a cover-up needs a crime to hide. And Penn State’s administrators have repeatedly testified that when McQueary told them about the 2001 or 2002 shower incident, he described it as horseplay.

Also, an earlier 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and another boy, referred to by Freeh, was also investigated by multiple authorities, who found no crime, nor any evidence of sex abuse.
Freeh, however, claimed that a trio of college administrators should have caught an alleged serial pedophile who, in that 1998 shower incident, had already been cleared by the Penn State police, the Centre County District Attorney, as well as a psychologist and an investigator from Centre County’s Department of Children and Youth Services. To buy into the conclusions of the Freeh Report, you’d also have to believe that Penn State’s top officials were dumb enough to plot a cover up on the university’s own computers.

In their executive report, the trustees refer to the allegations of a cover up as "unfounded." Freeh, however, maintained that in the six years since he issued his report, its findings have been repeatedly validated in court.

"The Freeh team's investigative interviews and fact-finding were not biased and no outcome was ever predetermined," Freeh wrote. "Their only mandate, to which they adhered, was to follow the evidenced wherever it led. The final report I issued is a reflection of this mandate."

"The accuracy and sustainability of the report is further evidenced by the criminal convictions of Spanier, Schultz, Curley," Freeh wrote. Other developments that verified the conclusions of his report, Freeh wrote, include "voluntary dismissals by the Paterno Family of their suit against the NCAA, Spanier's dismissal of his defamation suit against Freeh, the jury and court findings in the McQueary defamation and whistleblower cases, and the U.S. Department of Education's five-year investigation resulting in a record fine against Penn State."

At yesterday's board of trustees meeting, however, trustee Pope, cited public criticisms of the Freeh Report that included:

-- "On a foundation of scant evidence, the [Freeh] report adds layers of conjecture and supposition to create a portrait of fault, complicity and malfeasance that could well be at odds with the truth . . . [As] scientists and scholars, we can say with conviction that the Freeh Report fails on hits own merits as the indictment of the university that some have taken it to be. Evidence that would compel such an indictment is simply not there." -- A group of 30 past chairs of the Penn State faculty.

-- "The Freeh Report was not useful and created an 'absurd' and 'unwarranted' portrait of the University. There's no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case." -- Penn State President Eric Barron.

-- "On Nov. 9th, 2011, I and my fellow Trustees, voted to fire Joe Paterno in a hastily called meeting. We had little advance notice or opportunity to discuss and consider the complex issues we faced. After 61 years of exemplary service, Coach Paterno was given no chance to respond. That was a mistake. I will always regret that my name is attached to that rush to injustice."

"Hiring Louis Freeh and the tacit acceptance of his questionable conclusions, without review, along with his broad criticism of our Penn State culture was yet another mistake. . . Those who believe we can move on without due process for all who have been damaged by unsupported accusations are not acting in Penn State's best interest . . . We have the opportunity to move forward united inner commitment to truth. I urge all who love Penn State's name to fight on." -- Resignation speech of former 18-year trustee Alvin Clemens.

-- "Louis Freeh . . . assigned motivations to people, including Paterno, which at best were unknowable, and at worst might have been irresponsible." -- reporter Bob Costas.

-- "Clearly the more we dig into this, the more troubling it gets. There clearly is a significant amount of communication between Freeh and the NCAA that goes way beyond merely providing information. I'd call int coordination . . . Cleary, Freeh was way past his mandate. He was the enforcement person for the NCAA. That's what it looks like. I don't know how you can look at it any other way. It's almost like the NCAA hired him to do their enforcement investigation on Penn State. At a minimum, it is inappropriate. At a maximum, these were two parties working together to get an outcome that was predetermined."-- State Senate majority leader Jake Corman.

In summation, Pope said, "Some have said that the university's interests are best served by putting this unfortunate chapter behind us. We think differently. We believe that the only way to move forward is from a solid foundation based on an honest appraisal of our history. How can we create effective solutions if we might be working with a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems involved?"

"Our review, which took nearly two and a half years to complete, was a serious and thorough effort," Pope said. "We look forward with sharing the results of our analysis of the Freeh Report's source material without colleagues on the board at our meeting in July."
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,080
378
1
But that doesn't mean there was nothing there. Plenty for PSU to act on but not an elected DA.
If only -

A look at Pat Freiermuth's rookie season with the Steelers​

USATSI_17068685_168393729_lowres.jpg

March 2, 2022 5:57 am ET


Former Penn State tight end Pat Freiermuth did not take too long to become a reliable option for the Pittsburgh Steelers offense. The rookie tight end pulled in seven touchdowns for the Steelers and gave the storied franchise a reason to believe he will be a fixture in the offense moving forward despite having a new franchise quarterback beginning in 2022.
Here is look back at the rookie season of former Nittany Lion standout Pat Freiermuth with some of the best photos available from his first year as a pro tight end.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
And, as is typical in CSA cases, investigators found large amounts of pornography on Sandusky's phone and computer;
That's BS. Experts don't say that. I doubt Sandusky used the computer or a smart phone like most men his age. Like Joe.
all victims recalled dozens of occasions when Sandusky enticed them with alcohol and drugs.
Actually , one victim did claim that.
<sarcasm and irony font>
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Wrong....my wife has a PhD. her opinion is not actionable without other evidence.
Not in court but certainly in PSU's case of letting him continue to bring kids in and shower with them. PSU could have and should have stopped that.
There was no other evidence. Mom suspected, kid said nothing happened, two sting operations. You'd be arresting a lot of people if you didn't require evidence.
We've already discussed why Gricar didn't charge but that doesn't mean there was nothing there for PSU to act upon. They failed then and they knew it in 2001, hence the coverup.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
There is surely doubt given the stories of the accusers all changed dramatically. Add to the the fina and esbach corruption. Unfair trial. Do it again
It won't happen. Plus Fina's misconduct was not related to Sandusky's trial. Eshbach was not "corrupt" or she would have been charged or disbarred.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,522
23,655
1
That's BS. Experts don't say that. I doubt Sandusky used the computer or a smart phone like most men his age. Like Joe.

Actually , one victim did claim that.
The number one common denominator is the molest kids.
He's got nothing. Obviously, it wasn't proven and after an exhaustive investigation "nobody did nottin". Some cover-up: get a dozen people involved, sting operations, tons of files....seems like the perfect way to cover up a crime (sarcasm alert)
When’s the last time you investigated a sex crime like this? How many have you handled? How many coverups have you seen?
Have you seen all the GJ testimony? Do you have a copy of the AG report? Actually investigate the case?
Because you’re just another fan speculating on how you want things to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,178
56,031
1
The number one common denominator is the molest kids.

When’s the last time you investigated a sex crime like this? How many have you handled? How many coverups have you seen?
Have you seen all the GJ testimony? Do you have a copy of the AG report? Actually investigate the case?
Because you’re just another fan speculating on how you want things to be.
Here is the bottom line. And I am speaking of 1998. Nobody has seen the GJ testimony. And it is tainted because it is evidence that isn't contested. The DA can say or do anything and there is no challenge to it. If you've seen what DAs do you would see how horrifying that is. Many DAs have ZERO ethics.

Secondly, I haven't invested Sex Crimes. Gricar has. And he had a ton of investigators, two psychologists and two sting operations. That is NOT consistent with someone trying to cover up a crime. So this notion of a "conspiracy" is kaput.

Moving on to the investigation, I have faith that Gricar did exactly what he should have done. He investigated it with great energy, brought in a dozen or more people, and tried to entrap JS....he took all of that information and made a decision that is far more enlightening than yours, mine or the dude that keeps posting from Florida.

FURTHERMORE, I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT. IF THE POLICE WERE INVOLVED IN 1998 AND INEFFECTIVE WHY DO THE ANTI-PSU PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE IN 2001???
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
That's stupid
How is it stupid? Unless you are very young (which you have made clear is not the case) if you are a PSU person, and you've paid any attention to this case, you would know the name (even if you didn't 100% know who he was)
Fake

Fake
Prove it, or at least attempt to. Because I've at least tried to show you that I am telling the truth. Your only inkling that it is false is that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that an educated successful person disagrees with you. This is exactly the same as the "Stop the Steal" idiots who have no proof of any elections fraud but "know it in their heart that Trump won." You have zero proof that I have told any lies and never will (because I haven't).
Nope I have told you repeatedly. Will you deliver?
I can't deliver when I don't know what you want. Either clarify what you SPECIFICALLY want or STFU.
Watching you dance is fun. Plus I want to be the fool killer in this silo of ignorance.
Right back at you, Boots.
Your answer makes you look like a hateful nasty fellow.
How so? I want to know where your morals come from. Who tells you what to think?
Which you are. In mommies basement.
LOL. You are obsessed with moms and basements. I do have a nicely furnished man cave, complete with a lot of PSU memorabilia, a full bar and a kegerator. But I assure you my name is on the title of of the house and I paid every mortgage payment.
I also have to laugh at your "morals". You hate children, you hate people in general and wish the human race to become extinct.
Here's how dumb you are: you don't realize that people can have DIFFERENT morals and that's OK.

Examples:
Mormons think it is immoral to drink caffeine.
Most people do not think that is immoral.

Baptists think it is immoral to drink alcohol.
Most people do not think that is immoral.

Some Muslims think it is immoral for a woman to show her face in public.
Most people do not think that is immoral.

Some people think it is immoral to pollute the planet.
Other people do not care.

Your morals do not have to equal my morals. You can think I am immoral (based on your morals) but I am not amoral.

Further you defend a pedophile and his enablers
No, I defend innocent men.
and think Stalin is moral for shits sake!
No, I said Stalin almost certain had morals, but whether he was immoral (within his own moral construct) or not depended on what his morals were and how is actions did or did not follow those morals.
I guess that would apply to Hitler and Putin as well.
See above.
I think almost everyone,
Most people are too dumb to think for themselves.
save the geeks you play league of legends with
Still no idea what that is. I'm guessing it is some sort of game, but I'm not a gamer.
would call your "belief system" ****ed up. But there you are.
I think anyone who takes their morality from someone else blindly and without thinking is ****ed up, but then again most people are stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Here is the bottom line. And I am speaking of 1998. Nobody has seen the GJ testimony. And it is tainted because it is evidence that isn't contested. The DA can say or do anything and there is no challenge to it. If you've seen what DAs do you would see how horrifying that is. Many DAs have ZERO ethics.

Secondly, I haven't invested Sex Crimes. Gricar has. And he had a ton of investigators, two psychologists and two sting operations. That is NOT consistent with someone trying to cover up a crime. So this notion of a "conspiracy" is kaput.

Moving on to the investigation, I have faith that Gricar did exactly what he should have done. He investigated it with great energy, brought in a dozen or more people, and tried to entrap JS....he took all of that information and made a decision that is far more enlightening than yours, mine or the dude that keeps posting from Florida.
Here is where you are mixed up. Nobody to my knowledge is alleging any coverup in 1998. What we are saying is that PSU knew about Jerry being a likely pedophile in 1998 on the strength of Chambers report and still did nothing to limit his access to PSU facilities. A grave error. Once again, THE COVERUP WAS IN 2001.
FURTHERMORE, I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT. IF THE POLICE WERE INVOLVED IN 1998 AND INEFFECTIVE WHY DO THE ANTI-PSU PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE IN 2001???
BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A THIRD PARTY INDEPENDENT EYEWITNESS TO THE CRIME IN 2001 THEY DIDN"T HAVE IN 1998. McQueary!
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
That doesn't mean he didn't use those drugs for his sex purposes. Not ridiculous at all. Sandusky wasn't drinking the victim was.
And yet there only one accuser with this as a component of his story. Doesn't add up.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
How is it stupid? Unless you are very young (which you have made clear is not the case) if you are a PSU person, and you've paid any attention to this case, you would know the name (even if you didn't 100% know who he was)
He is a nobody. Not knowing who he is has nothing to do with any affiliation I might have with PSU. BS.
Prove it, or at least attempt to.
That burden is on you.
Because I've at least tried to show you that I am telling the truth.
By providing "documents" I cannot independently verify and are easily faked.
Your only inkling that it is false is that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that an educated successful person disagrees with you.
Such a person you describe would not spend hours on a site like this trying to convince a stranger he is something he isn't so you are right there. But your fake description of yourself is the reason (you don't realize you are admitting this) that you made up the fake persona. So, when someone refutes your conspiracy theories you just say "Well, I'm a scientist and I am smarter than you".
This is exactly the same as the "Stop the Steal" idiots who have no proof of any elections fraud but "know it in their heart that Trump won." You have zero proof that I have told any lies and never will (because I haven't).
You are as much a scientist as the election of 2020 was stolen.
I can't deliver when I don't know what you want. Either clarify what you SPECIFICALLY want or STFU.
I have told you and I will not shut up while you lie.
Right back at you, Boots.
Keep dancing Rooster
How so? I want to know where your morals come from. Who tells you what to think?
No one "tells me how to think" but I don't make it up as I go either as you do.
LOL. You are obsessed with moms and basements. I do have a nicely furnished man cave, complete with a lot of PSU memorabilia, a full bar and a kegerator. But I assure you my name is on the title of of the house and I paid every mortgage payment.
Liar
Here's how dumb you are: you don't realize that people can have DIFFERENT morals and that's OK.

Examples:
Mormons think it is immoral to drink caffeine.
Most people do not think that is immoral.

Baptists think it is immoral to drink alcohol.
Most people do not think that is immoral.

Some Muslims think it is immoral for a woman to show her face in public.
Most people do not think that is immoral.

Some people think it is immoral to pollute the planet.
Other people do not care.

Your morals do not have to equal my morals. You can think I am immoral (based on your morals) but I am not amoral.
Most people (99%) would think that hating children and wishing the human race to be extinct while defending pedophiles and their enablers to be immoral. Exceptions would be your gamer buddies.
No, I defend innocent men.
No you don't and your cult is hurting the efforts of LE to root out CSA
No, I said Stalin almost certain had morals, but whether he was immoral (within his own moral construct) or not depended on what his morals were and how is actions did or did not follow those morals.
I see, so as long as he is consistent within his own made-up moral framework to murder people and starve them then he is moral. So, that would also apply to Hitler and Putin who were/are remarkably consistent about the evil they were going to do. I know most everyone would call you immoral objectively.
See above.
Yeah, I did. You are sick
Most people are too dumb to think for themselves.
Some people think they are smart and are really dumb. That would be you sport.
Still no idea what that is. I'm guessing it is some sort of game, but I'm not a gamer.
I found your profile. In blackface no less.
I think anyone who takes their morality from someone else blindly and without thinking is ****ed up, but then again most people are stupid.
I think you are stupid. I would say arrogant but even that requires some intellect. You sure don't have that.