Updates About Penn State Scandal UPDATED 6/12: PSU has spent $45.9M on scandal

Donate To GopherHole







BleedGopher said:
Reports: Ex-Penn State president Graham Spanier to be charged in Sandusky scandal

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/11/ex-penn_state_president_graham_3.html

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

"Spanier was fired six days after Sandusky was charged with abusing several boys. Penn State officials Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were charged with lying about and never reporting abuse they knew of that 2001 incident."

Now is when this will get 'real interesting'.

What will happen in this case, and against Curley and Schultz?

Followed by; all the civil suits.........this will be a long process.
 






However many years he gets - it isn't enough. Hoping all the people involved with this have a special place in hell set aside for them. Preferably a football game is going on where they never win.
 

per ESPN:

Sue Paterno, the widow of late Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, has emailed a letter to hundreds of former Nittany Lions players informing them that a report, commissioned by the family in response to the Freeh report that followed the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case, will be released Sunday.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...terno-letter-penn-state-nittany-lions-players

Go Gophers!!
 

BleedGopher said:
per ESPN:

Sue Paterno, the widow of late Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, has emailed a letter to hundreds of former Nittany Lions players informing them that a report, commissioned by the family in response to the Freeh report that followed the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case, will be released Sunday.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...terno-letter-penn-state-nittany-lions-players

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

These kinds of "internal reports" are almost always complete BS. They do not have to adhere to any standards. They rely on info without authorization and they have an obvious agenda. Essentially, they are a PR move. You buy them and you expect a certain result. I'm not sure if he did, but it would not have shocked me if OJ had come out with a similar kind of investigative report. They can't contract to lie and make things up, but it's a wink and a nod sort of deal.
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
These kinds of "internal reports" are almost always complete BS. They do not have to adhere to any standards. They rely on info without authorization and they have an obvious agenda. Essentially, they are a PR move. You buy them and you expect a certain result. I'm not sure if he did, but it would not have shocked me if OJ had come out with a similar kind of investigative report. They can't contract to lie and make things up, but it's a wink and a nod sort of deal.
Click to expand...

I will be interested to see the report but yeah I agree that it will probably be a load of BS put together by the family in order to attempt to resotre Paterno back to the high standing he held before all this went down. I will be shocked if there is anything in the report that reflects poorly on Joe or the way he handled the situation.
 

MNVCGUY said:
I will be interested to see the report but yeah I agree that it will probably be a load of BS put together by the family in order to attempt to resotre Paterno back to the high standing he held before all this went down. I will be shocked if there is anything in the report that reflects poorly on Joe or the way he handled the situation.
Click to expand...

You think Joe was interviewed? Waste of time.
 

MNVCGUY said:
I will be interested to see the report but yeah I agree that it will probably be a load of BS put together by the family in order to attempt to resotre Paterno back to the high standing he held before all this went down. I will be shocked if there is anything in the report that reflects poorly on Joe or the way he handled the situation.
Click to expand...

They might be savvy enough to realize that they need to put some indirect blame on them, but I see these kinds of reports for various cases every few weeks and when you read them, they're baffling. There is even more info that the Freeh Report has and that the Prosecution could not bring that wasn't put forward because it wasn't perfectly authenticated, so for the people who REALLY know a lot about the situation, these things are comical.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
They might be savvy enough to realize that they need to put some indirect blame on them, but I see these kinds of reports for various cases every few weeks and when you read them, they're baffling. There is even more info that the Freeh Report has and that the Prosecution could not bring that wasn't put forward because it wasn't perfectly authenticated, so for the people who REALLY know a lot about the situation, these things are comical.
Click to expand...

I agree. Joe's family would be well served to let it go. There has been all kinda hints that there is a ton more stuff that could be told.....like why Sandusky retired at the peek of his profession when he was considered the heir apparent and was he forced out? And if so why?

Personally I would rather think of Joe as a great coach and man who made a very mad mistake. If the family and Joe's supporters keep going we might find out that Joe did far worse than keep silent to ONE accusation.
 

Joe Paterno family releases report

A report commissioned by Joe Paterno's family calls the July 2012 Freeh report that was accepted by Penn State trustees before unprecedented sanctions were levied by the NCAA against the school's football program a "total failure" that is "full of fallacies, unsupported personal opinions, false allegations and biased assertions."

The Paterno family report, which targets nearly every conclusion and assertion the Freeh report made about Paterno in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, states that while former FBI director Louis J. Freeh has had an honorable past and good reputation, his investigation -- especially as it relates to Paterno -- relied on "rank speculation," "innuendo" and "subjective opinions" when it concluded that Paterno concealed facts about Sandusky in part to avoid bad publicity.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...s-freeh-report-sandusky-scandal-total-failure

Go Gophers!!
 

BleedGopher said:
Joe Paterno family releases report

A report commissioned by Joe Paterno's family calls the July 2012 Freeh report that was accepted by Penn State trustees before unprecedented sanctions were levied by the NCAA against the school's football program a "total failure" that is "full of fallacies, unsupported personal opinions, false allegations and biased assertions."

The Paterno family report, which targets nearly every conclusion and assertion the Freeh report made about Paterno in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, states that while former FBI director Louis J. Freeh has had an honorable past and good reputation, his investigation -- especially as it relates to Paterno -- relied on "rank speculation," "innuendo" and "subjective opinions" when it concluded that Paterno concealed facts about Sandusky in part to avoid bad publicity.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...s-freeh-report-sandusky-scandal-total-failure

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Yahoo Sports Columnist Dan Wetzel has a column on the Paterno Family rebuttal.

Joe Paterno's role in covering up the Jerry Sandusky scandal was unfairly overstated by the Freeh Report and, in fact, Joe Paterno acted in the same proper and righteous manner Joe Paterno lived the rest of Joe Paterno's life, according to Sunday's release of an investigation funded by Joe Paterno's family.
None of that is a surprise. What else was it going to say?
Much like the original July 2012 Penn State-funded Freeh Report, this "Critique of the Freeh Report" is a masterful testament to unnecessary declarative statements, the creation of straw men and everything else one gets when lawyers are hired by wealthy clients to prepare a "thorough" report.
Both reports have flaws. Both are, at times, comically overstated. Both made someone a lot of money.
Still, amidst all the back and forth, Joe Paterno's situation can mostly be boiled down to a single question, and nothing in the 238-page "Critique" changed or challenged the Freeh Report's conclusion surrounding it.
Did Paterno know that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 by police for inappropriately touching a local boy while showering in the Penn State locker room?..

The 1998 allegation only becomes critical because in 2001 then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary showed up one Saturday morning at Joe Paterno's door and told him he stumbled upon Sandusky the night before acting inappropriately with a boy in the showers in the coaches' locker room in an otherwise empty Penn State football building.
Taken with the knowledge of the 1998 allegations, the 2001 testimony by a completely separate person who was an adult witness – not a victim – would send off every warning bell known to man..

If Paterno did know about 1998, then a second allegation that Sandusky was showering with boys, let alone engaging in what McQueary, at the very least, conveyed as inappropriate conduct, should've sent a man of even weak moral convictions into a flurry of activity.
No one gets innocently accused of fondling boys twice – three years apart..

One May 13 email from Curley to the group reads: "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."
The Freeh report concluded that the "coach" in the aforementioned emails was Joe Paterno. "The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno," Freeh, the one-time director of the FBI, wrote.
The Paterno family response says that isn't fair because there is no conclusive proof that "Coach" is Coach Paterno.
It goes so far as to take a multi-pronged defense of Paterno. The authors of the "Critique" suggested on ESPN that we have no idea who the coach is because Penn State has many different coaches. But really, would all the administrators at Penn State avoid telling Paterno that his current defensive coordinator was under investigation but instead discuss it with the field hockey coach? Come on..

However, the "Critique" is mostly full of arguments and answers to questions that few are actually asking.
The "Critique's" most reasonable point isn't a new one, but bears repeating: Why not wait until the criminal trials are done to conclude what did and didn't happen? That would have been a reasonable course of action, especially for the NCAA, which decided to boldly declare jurisdiction over what is a criminal, not compliance, matter.
The Paterno family appears to be responding to a sentiment in some parts of the public that these men fully knew Sandusky was out abusing boys and they didn't care because they simply wanted to win football games. That also defies common sense. Whatever cover-up occurred was likely based on hoping for the best and closing their eyes.
That doesn't make it right, and three men rightfully face grave criminal charges. But the idea that these four sat around knowing kids were getting raped and had zero concern is also, while possible, not probable. That would require true, unequivocal evil...

In the end, though, the "Critique" did little to nothing to suggest Paterno didn't know in 1998. The report brought to light no new facts. So, barring further evidence being uncovered during the criminal cases expected later this year, the Freeh conclusion remains the far most likely scenario.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf-...w-of-first-sandusky-allegation-184221077.html
 

How can anyone trust a report by the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania (and probably Paterno family acquaintance) countering a report by someone that has no ties to the state of Pennsylvania.

If the Paterno family wanted a study worth the paper it was printed on, they would have brought in someone that had no ties to the state.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
How can anyone trust a report by the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania (and probably Paterno family acquaintance) countering a report by someone that has no ties to the state of Pennsylvania.

If the Paterno family wanted a study worth the paper it was printed on, they would have brought in someone that had no ties to the state.
Click to expand...

The following post is from Blue & White Illustrated today:

JannyStanford85

Let me first say that I am from Central PA and have a number of family members who are either alumni or big PSU fans. I am not a grad (went to Bucknell and then to Stanford Law). I have never posted here and have hesitated doing so ever since the JS thing began. But now after at least seeing Sue's [Paterno] retort to all this, please let me offer some personal thoughts and legal points (my opinions only).

Somewhat disappointed that there was no "smoking gun" here today. Not sure it served a great purpose but at least gets another side out there for people to take another look.

From a PR standpoint (something that is actually part of my practice), I thought having Thornburgh on the panel will bring more doubt than strength. It simply looks like they went and got the guy who was the Gov. of PA when PSFB & Joe were in their heyday. Considering that Joe was known to be pals with Thornburgh, esp. in the 80's, it just doesn't look as good.

Even if the NCAA used the report as the blueprint for the sanctions, they only did so because the BOT/Erickson let them. Im my opinion, I find no fault with Freeh. He isn't a civil servant anymore, he is in private practice. He simply was asked to do a job, and did it. And they paid him 6+M to do it. That isn't his fault.

The fault lies with the BOT/Erickson and Joyner alone. They blessed the report, and then Erickson did too. My problem with all that happened is that they agreed to & signed a Consent Decree. That was a blunder of monumental proportions (and legal stupitidy).
 

Here is another post from one of the most visible posters in Blue & White Illustrated who also appears to be very well connected to some of the people involved in this pathetic affair:

Cruising Route 66

The NCAA had information contained in a public grand jury presentment, Jerry Sandusky's public trial conviction, and the indictments of several PSU's administrators to base a case. The Freeh report was just the cherry on top of the whipped cream. Unnecessary but a nice to have.

The NCAA makes value judgments all the time about the validity of information and the credibility of its sources. Hard to imagine that the information contained in a grand jury presentment, indictments handed down by a state Attorney General, and a verdict rendered by a jury wouldn't be sufficient on its own to construct a lack of institutional control case against PSU. Further, even if the university had not waived attorney client privilege, the NCAA would most likely have asked PSU for Freeh's report after it had been privately issued.

Again the NCAA didn't need the Freeh report to level sanctions and force PSU to sign the decree. IMO, there was enough credible information already available from other sources to do that. Erickson did not want to risk destroying let alone crippling what is arguably PSU's most valuable marketing asset.... PSU Athletics. It also wouldn't be fair to Rod's successor.
 

Thanks Go4Broke for bringing some useful information to this highly emotional topic. It still as not as interesting as watching The Good Wife, but damn close.
 

Still amazing to me how much some people are more concerned about clearing Joe Paterno's name than the fact that kids were molested. I think the best thing for the family to do is just stay out of the spotlight for awhile. Unfortunately, there are enough people who will do anything to defend Paterno and Penn St. football that they'll believe anything.
 

Go4Broke said:
The following post is from Blue & White Illustrated today:

JannyStanford85

Let me first say that I am from Central PA and have a number of family members who are either alumni or big PSU fans. I am not a grad (went to Bucknell and then to Stanford Law). I have never posted here and have hesitated doing so ever since the JS thing began. But now after at least seeing Sue's [Paterno] retort to all this, please let me offer some personal thoughts and legal points (my opinions only).

Somewhat disappointed that there was no "smoking gun" here today. Not sure it served a great purpose but at least gets another side out there for people to take another look.

From a PR standpoint (something that is actually part of my practice), I thought having Thornburgh on the panel will bring more doubt than strength. It simply looks like they went and got the guy who was the Gov. of PA when PSFB & Joe were in their heyday. Considering that Joe was known to be pals with Thornburgh, esp. in the 80's, it just doesn't look as good.

Even if the NCAA used the report as the blueprint for the sanctions, they only did so because the BOT/Erickson let them. Im my opinion, I find no fault with Freeh. He isn't a civil servant anymore, he is in private practice. He simply was asked to do a job, and did it. And they paid him 6+M to do it. That isn't his fault.

The fault lies with the BOT/Erickson and Joyner alone. They blessed the report, and then Erickson did too. My problem with all that happened is that they agreed to & signed a Consent Decree. That was a blunder of monumental proportions (and legal stupitidy).
Click to expand...


I think this posting is actually kind of bizarre.

I do agree with her on Thornburgh, but I think she might be a little too close to see the issue. This Paterno family report was not aimed at those that follow this situation closely. They could never release a report that would persuade anyone who is actually following this that Paterno wasn't partially at fault. All of us know about the email exchanges and we understand the absurd "what if" questions raised by the Paterno report. So it's not aimed at us and likely not aimed at the state of Pennsylvania (they follow it closely). It's aimed at the general notion of clearing JoePa's name to the casual observer. For the casual observer, they will never know or care about Thornburgh or know or care about his past with Joe Pa. I don't think they gain anything by adding him, but I don't think it really matters. To anyone following it, the report could have been penned by Sherlock Holmes, we know what's going on.

As far as the second part of her email, well, yeah. We all know that Freeh couldn't have done anything wrong personally. He was asked to write a report and he did so. If there could be ANY blame surrounding the Freeh report it would be with the people who used it conclusively. However, as others have pointed out, the NCAA is PERFECTLY within their discretion to rely on or partially rely on the Freeh report (as is the BOT). I don't get what she's getting at with the end of her email.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I think this posting is actually kind of bizarre.

I do agree with her on Thornburgh, but I think she might be a little too close to see the issue. This Paterno family report was not aimed at those that follow this situation closely. They could never release a report that would persuade anyone who is actually following this that Paterno wasn't partially at fault. All of us know about the email exchanges and we understand the absurd "what if" questions raised by the Paterno report. So it's not aimed at us and likely not aimed at the state of Pennsylvania (they follow it closely). It's aimed at the general notion of clearing JoePa's name to the casual observer. For the casual observer, they will never know or care about Thornburgh or know or care about his past with Joe Pa. I don't think they gain anything by adding him, but I don't think it really matters. To anyone following it, the report could have been penned by Sherlock Holmes, we know what's going on.

As far as the second part of her email, well, yeah. We all know that Freeh couldn't have done anything wrong personally. He was asked to write a report and he did so. If there could be ANY blame surrounding the Freeh report it would be with the people who used it conclusively. However, as others have pointed out, the NCAA is PERFECTLY within their discretion to rely on or partially rely on the Freeh report (as is the BOT). I don't get what she's getting at with the end of her email.
Click to expand...

What she's saying at the end of the post is something I've mentioned previously in the thread - that as soon as they signed the consent decree, it severely limited (if not eliminated) any option of fighting the punishment in court. Because it became a mutually agreed upon punishment. As I mentioned, unless the state can prove that illegal coercion occured or that the PSU president did not have the authority to agree to the punishment, the lawsuit filed by the state has zero chance of overturning the punishment because PSU agreed to it.
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
What she's saying at the end of the post is something I've mentioned previously in the thread - that as soon as they signed the consent decree, it severely limited (if not eliminated) any option of fighting the punishment in court. Because it became a mutually agreed upon punishment. As I mentioned, unless the state can prove that illegal coercion occured or that the PSU president did not have the authority to agree to the punishment, the lawsuit filed by the state has zero chance of overturning the punishment because PSU agreed to it.
Click to expand...

No, I got that part about the Consent decree but I also completely disagree with her.

Penn State, as a University, needs to move beyond this entire ordeal. In my opinion, if they continued fighting the findings they would be SOL. The NCAA always can bring the hammer, with or without the consent decree. Programs have been destroyed for MUCH less than Penn State did. There was massive public outcry (from even the non-college football world) to exact punishment for the Sandusky ordeal.

I am not sure they could have avoided much of the penalties and any of the penalty that they could have avoided they would have lost in the world of public opinion. This is a University that hid a child molester to save face (for the sake of their program), I really think that if they would have fought the Freeh report it would have been viewed as a continuation of their refusal to accept responsibility for this catastrophe. People still make jokes about Penn State, but I don't think many people view them as "evil" today and I think that is largely due to their sanctions and acceptance of responsibility. I don't think the same thing can be said for the Paterno family, why? Because they are fighting the Freeh Report.
 

What people who insist to continue fighting on Penn States behalf don't understand is that the NCAA could amend (lessen the punishment) it's ruling down the road. As long as they keep putting this sordid issue out front the NCAA will never have that option.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
What people who insist to continue fighting on Penn States behalf don't understand is that the NCAA could amend (lessen the punishment) it's ruling down the road. As long as they keep putting this sordid issue out front the NCAA will never have that option.
Click to expand...

What get's lost in all this is the fact that if the people continuing to fight this succeed in getting the Freeh Report thrown out as a basis for the sanctions the NCAA will revert to their normal process and do their own investigation that might last as long as 12 months or more and it could dig up even more incriminating evidence than they already possess. The risk of going through an NCAA investigation is exactly what the Penn State BOT was trying to avoid with the Freeh Report and agreeing to the immediate sanctions.

I am on the side that believes the NCAA didn't need the Freeh Report to justify taking action against Penn State because they had all of the information and evidence they needed from the grand jury testimony, criminal indictments, and Sandusky trial. Even if it is proven that Paterno played absolutely no role (which is the main goal of the people still fighting this matter) the NCAA still has enough sworn testimony about the involvement of Penn State's president, vice president, and athletics director to justify the sanctions.

The NCAA is the rules enforcement arm for intercollegiate athletics in America. It was established by and is responsible to its' member colleges and universities. The NCAA is not an independent or rogue organization beyond the control of the members. Unless it operates in a manner that has the support of the majority of college/university presidents the NCAA president gets fired and policies and rules get changed. I have to believe the sanctions against Penn State are supported by most of the presidents because we have not seen any significant public criticism from them. That being the case, there is little or no basis for Penn State supporters to challenge the sanctions. This is particularly true because their president and BOT approved the NCAA consent decree.
 

Go4Broke said:
What get's lost in all this is the fact that if the people continuing to fight this succeed in getting the Freeh Report thrown out as a basis for the sanctions the NCAA will revert to their normal process and do their own investigation that could dig up even more incriminating evidence and might last as long as 12 months or more. The risk of going through an NCAA investigation is exactly what the Penn State BOT was trying to avoid with the Freeh Report and by agreeing to the immediate sanctions.

I am on the side that believes the NCAA didn't need the Freeh Report to justify taking action against Penn State because they had all the information and evidence they needed from the grand jury testimony, criminal indictments, and Sandusky trial. Even if it is proven that Paterno played absolutely no role (which is the main goal of the people still fighting this matter) the NCAA still has enough sworn testimony about the involvement of Penn State's president, vice president, and athletics director to justify the sanctions.

The NCAA is the rules enforcement arm for intercollegiate athletics. It was established by and is responsible to all of its' member colleges and universities. The NCAA is not an independent and rogue organization beyond the control of its members. Unless it operates in a manner that has the support of the majority of college/university presidents the NCAA president gets fired and policies and rules get changed. I have to believe the sanctions against Penn State are supported by most of the presidents because we have not seen any significant public criticism from them. That being the case, there is little or no basis for Penn State supporters to challenge the sanctions. This is particularly true because their president and BOT approved the NCAA consent decree.
Click to expand...

Great post.

You articulated much better what I was trying to put forth.

The NCAA is the all powerful Lord Vishnu, Penn State had 2 options, both of which involved incredibly heavy sanctions. Signing off on the Freeh Report is a much better PR move, in fact, it was their ONLY PR move.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom