All things Joe Paterno

[Rlaub44]

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?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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."

 

[Rlaub44]

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.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

 

[Rlaub44]

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.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

Your right! They were not index as such.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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

 

[JaimeSommers]

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.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

I just got it, but it is a PDF.

 

[costalpilot]

in the anti freeh report report that i saw in my local online paper, the anti freeh report made sveeral assertions as to what joe did and did not do or have knowledge of that were simply assertions. "joe did not know..." . really? i wonder if they put in the anti freeh report what joe actually said he "did not know": "And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man," Paterno said."...does anyone think that made it into the anti freeh report? did ANYONE believe paterno when he said that?

 

[costalpilot]

"he family’s 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 family’s analysis said. ...'

nytimes...how does anyone KNOW what joe absolutely did nor did not do?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A lot of the Anti-Freeh report deals with the level of proof. It says, "In any fair courtroom or truly independent investigation the target of an inquiry
rightfully would expect all the facts, including the full scope of his life, to be considered when assessing his culpability."

Ah, no. First, the NCAA is not a courtroom; the standard of proof in a private organization is not that standard. Second, Paterno was not the defendant. Third, at best, the "full scope" would be equivalent character witnesses of dubious relevance.

A second, laughable, point is if Paterno was aware of some investigation in 1998, "Other than the subject line, there is no specific mention
of Mr. Paterno." He is mentioned as "coach." They raised the point that it could have been Sandusky inquiring, but do they expect us to believe that Sandusky was asking Curley if Sandusky was being interviewed?

Now, as stated, the e-mails do not show that Paterno knew of the details of the 1998 investigation, but he had heard of it, third or fourth hand. No body suggested that he covered it up.

The Freeh Report says "... no information indicates that University leaders interfered with the investigation...," in 1998.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Good editorial in the P-N:

http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2013/02/joe_paterno_outside_the_lines.html#incart_m-rpt-2

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Paterno family: Freeh report 'factually wrong'

Family releases new report absolving Joe Paterno in Sandusky scandal

Author: By Steve Almasy CNN

Published On: Feb 10 2013 09:47:44 AM EST Updated On: Feb 10 2013 12:10:09 PM EST

(CNN) -
The family of the late Joe Paterno released a report Sunday morning that absolved the coaching great of blame in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal and said a prior review commissioned by Penn State University was "factually wrong, speculative and fundamentally flawed. "

Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh put together the new report, the Paterno family said in a written statement...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...rong/-/1719418/18487244/-/esqd0y/-/index.html

 

[Twindad]

"he family’s 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 family’s analysis said. ...'

nytimes...how does anyone KNOW what joe absolutely did nor did not do?

http://espn.go.com/college-football...s-know-how-handle-jerry-sandusky-abuse-report

"I didn't know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was,"
"He (McQueary) told me what he saw, and I said, what? He said it, well, looked like inappropriate, or fondling, I'm not quite sure exactly how he put it. I said you did what you had to do. It's my job now to figure out what we want to do," Paterno told The Post.

"So I sat around. It was a Saturday. Waited till Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors and I said, 'Hey, we got a problem, I think. Would you guys look into it?'

So after sitting around for a day, he concluded passing the buck was university procedure. If just calling his superiors was following protocol, where did he find that out? Did it come to him thru osmosis? Did he read the Clery act? Did he call an attorney?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Separate Thornburgh Report: http://espn.go.com/pdf/2013/0210/espn_otl_FINAL THORNBURGH 2-7-2013.pdf

Separate Berlin Report: http://espn.go.com/pdf/2013/0210/espn_otl_FINAL BERLIN 2-7-2013.pdf

Separate Clemente Report: http://espn.go.com/pdf/2013/0210/espn_otl_FINAL CLEMENTE 2-7-2013.pdf

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Freeh's response: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...reeh-statement-response-paterno-family-report

Penn State's response: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/10/3497037/text-of-penn-states-statement.html

 

[JaimeSommers]

Freeh's response: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...reeh-statement-response-paterno-family-report

Penn State's response: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/10/3497037/text-of-penn-states-statement.html

I am so tired of living in the middle of all of this b*ll*****.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am so tired of living in the middle of all of this b*ll*****.

Hey, you don't write a blog touching on it.

 

[Reader]

Good editorial in the P-N:

http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2013/02/joe_paterno_outside_the_lines.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Agree, a very good editorial, and the title says it all:

Commentary: Paterno legacy little changed by family's commissioned report

That's because you can't change the truth and the truth is that Paterno condemned himself with his own GJ testimony and actions and lack of actions. As the author states:

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.

But the best thing is the author dares to say this:

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.

I'm reminded of the saying used here before by J. J. and others:

Central Pennsylvania Gothic

I'm beginning to think 'gothic' must have a hidden meaning of 'prolong the agony and shoot yourself in the foot over and over'.

As Joe Cocker sings....'Please, no more'...