Rlaub44
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 585
- Reaction score
- 19
There is already a problem. More information was released with the Spanier presentment.
I may have missed it - what is the information to which you are referring?
There is already a problem. More information was released with the Spanier presentment.
I may have missed it - what is the information to which you are referring?
They released e-mails from 1998, between Curley and Harmon. Curley indicated on 5/5 and 5/13 that "coach" wanted updates. That is the bad part.
The moderately good part is that Harmon was not too specific, just that there was an incident a DPW was investigating.
Now, 1998 was resolved with a finding of "no criminal behavior."
I'm sorry JJ, I just want to be sure. I re-read Spanier's presentment, and found no emails between Curley and Harmon. We do have the emails from Curley to Schultz on the dates you mentioned, but we knew about those from the Freeh Report.
If I'm missing something, and there is new information, could you point me to it? Thanks.
You are right that they are between Curly and Schultz. They were not in the Freeh Report, however. The ones in the Freeh report were from 2001. The ones in the Spanier presentment were from 1998.
Paterno did indicate that he may have heard something about Sandusky doing something in his testimony, but he wasn't sure.
The message came from Harmon to Schultz; whatever it was, Schultz's e-mails to Curley were not particularly detailed. It was literally third hand information by the time it reached Curley and fourth hand by the time it reached Paterno.
JJ, these are the same emails documented in Exhibits 2A and 2B of the Freeh report. I knew as soon as I saw them in the Spanier presentment that I had read them before.
The Paterno Report, aka, the Freeh Retort, the Anti-Freeh Report is posted:
http://espn.go.com/pdf/2013/0210/espn_otl_FINAL KING&SPAULDING2.pdf
J. J., I got a "not found" when I clicked on the link -- however, maybe it's because I'm using an iPhone and not a computer.
"he familys findings say that Mr. Paterno never asked or told anyone not to investigate an accusation against Mr. Sandusky in 2001, not to report the allegation, or not to discuss or hide information reported by a graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, about the allegation.
Paterno reported the information to his superior(s) pursuant to his understanding of university protocol and relied upon them to investigate and report as appropriate, the familys analysis said. ...'
nytimes...how does anyone KNOW what joe absolutely did nor did not do?
I am so tired of living in the middle of all of this b*ll*****.
Good editorial in the P-N:
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2013/02/joe_paterno_outside_the_lines.html#incart_m-rpt-2
Yet, he felt the proper course of action was to wait 24 hours to inform his superiors so as not to interfere with their weekends and then watch as Sandusky traipsed around Penn State unimpeded for the next decade.
The longer Paterno's legacy lingers as an issue with which Pennsylvanians appear obsessed, the worse Penn State comes off as a sheltered province of parochial zealots. The longer O'Brien stays on and implants an image of progressive demeanor and forward movement, the more Penn State's image benefits.