Freeh LIES!!


Written By Jeffrey Simons, Aurabass

 

After Curley’s initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno. Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Palerno was in control of the football facilities and knew “everything that was going on.”  As Head Coach, he had the authority to establish permissible uses of his football facilities. Nothing in the record indicates that Curley or Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky’s uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky. Nothing in the record indicates that Spanier, Schultz, Paterno or Curley spoke directly with Sandusky about the allegation or monitored his activities.

  1. Freeh flat out LIES- there is NO record of any “update” by Curley to Paterno.
  2. Then he uses the prejudicial unfounded theory that Joe knew “everything that was going on”
  3. Then Freeh blames Paterno for doing nothing to restrict Sandusky’s use of facilities over an investigation he was not supposed to know about and did not know about.
  4. And states that the record shows Paterno never spoke to Sandusky about the allegations.
How can anyone take Freeh’s claims about Joe seriously after reading that?
So let’s skip forward to the 2011 Grand Jury Testimony of Joe Paterno and the allegations that he LIED to the Grand Jury.
Paterno also testified in January 2011 before the Grand Jury. Paterno was asked,

“Other than the [2001] incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?” Paterno responded, “I do not know of anything else that Ierry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention — I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don’t know. I don’t remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.” The Special Investigative Counsel requested an interview with Paterno in December 2011. Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating but died before he could be interviewed. Paterno’s family has publicly denied that Paterno had knowledge of the 1998 incident!”

These are the statements used to say Joe lied about knowing of the 1998 investigation. He is now 85 years of age trying to recall if he knew or heard anything about any other incident. He seems to struggle to recall if he had heard a rumor.
The 1998 investigation was conducted confidentially. It appears that Gary Schultz through Tom Harmon at the PSU police was somewhat aware that an investigation was in progress and Tim Curley was advised by Gary Schultz that a DPW Dept of Public Welfare person Lauro was going to interview the boy and Jerry at some point. This does not mean that Gary or Tim were given more than this access to information about the 1998 investigation. It did not seem that serious to them. To extrapolate that Joe would even be interested seems to be a stretch. Joe had a football program to run and a mother’s complaint about a shower with a coach wasn’t a big issue for this reason expressed quite well by PSU Coach Anderson at the Sandusky trial.

Dick Anderson, a longtime Penn State assistant and Sandusky friend who retired in January, testified that he and other members of the football staff were present when Sandusky brought young boys into the team’s showers. He said he never witnessed anything inappropriate.”If Jerry would bring someone in with The Second Mile, they had been working out, for whatever reason they came in, it was not uncommon … with the other coaches in the shower as well, adults and children often shower together at gyms. He noted, for example, that it’s not unusual for him to be in the showers with boys at the YMCA.

In a section of the Freeh report titled A. Sandusky’ s Criminal Activity 1995-1998on page 40

Before May 1998, several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with yormg boys in the Lasch Building (now the East Area Locker Building or “Old Lasch”). None of the individuals interviewed by the Special Investigative Cormsel notified their superiors of this behavior. Former Coach Richard Anderson testified at Sanduskys trial in Irme 2012 that he often saw Sandusky in the showers with children in the football facilities but he did not believe the practice to be improper.“

Freeh labels this to be revelations of “Criminal Activity” but that is only in the wake of the 2012 conviction of Sandusky on the grooming charges where the pattern of this grooming establishes them as critical..Rightly or wrongly the coaching staff did not consider these kids using their locker room and showers to be criminal in any way. Since that was the prevailing attitude it’s easy to see why Joe would not consider this investigation of a shower to be of any importance. Joe like these other coaches was of a time when males of varying ages used group showers all the time without it seeming anything but natural.
Freeh seems to base his entire indictment of Joe and Penn State on the premise that they knew or thought Jerry Sandusky was a criminal pedophile because he showered with boys. Freeh assumes this meant they did not care about protecting kids from sex abuse. It seems clear to me they never considered these showers to be sex abuse. As athletes and coaches they had always seen men and boys in showers and thought nothing of it.
Absent any proof of actual sexual activity these Penn State men would never suspect this 30 year coach who lived and worked with them long hours as family to be a pedophile. He was Jerry the Charity Founder, Foster Father and the man honored by George HW Bush and Senator Santorum who wrote books and was the prized Defensive Coordinator at Linebacker U. He loved kids and gave all his spare time to helping them. How could he be some evil predator and bugger of young boys.
So put yourself in Joe’s shoes in 1998 wiping any knowledge of Jerry Sandusky from your mind.
1) These emails do not show that Joe was notified of anything to do with 1998
2) Emails and notes show that Joe was in a dilemma on what to do about Jerry as a coach because
    a) he spent too much time doing admirable charity work and
    b) he was considering retirement and a position as assistant Athletic Director
3) Joe would not be alarmed by any rumor or report about Jerry showering with kids
4) If Joe knew anything why would he lie about an investigation that held NO CRIMINAL behavior?
Joe Paterno was never known to be a LIAR. Louis Freeh? well there are Lies in this report.
I am a Tennessee Grad living in Knoxville with no ties to Penn State and no particular love for Joe P.

Penn State Board of Trustees Caught in Massive Lie


By Douglas Robb, from Facebook Posting

Actually, there is evidence that the unidentified “trustee” referred to in the report in regards to the board’s knowledge BEFORE Sandusky‘s arrest, references a story in the Harrisburg Patriot-News on March 16, 2011, in which news of the PA AG’s Sandusky grand jury investigation and Spanier, Curley, Schultz’s and Paterno’s testimony is revealed. It is on the basis of that article that the unidentified “trustee” asks for more information and is rebuked or stalled by Spanier.
If Freeh‘s report reveals anything, it shows Spaniers massive malfeasance in his failure to address the issue of notification of the board of the very serious legal implications both criminal and civil that Sandusky’s indictment would eventually create for Penn State. Indeed, had Spanier acted promptly and properly in advising the board about Sandusky in the spring of 2011, the BOT would not have been caught so flat-footed by the media firestorm that ensued after Sandusky’s arrest on Nov. 5th, 2011.
Be that as it may, it is clear the BOT has been caught in a massive lie about what they knew and when they knew it as regards their previous knowledge of Sandusky. I find it inconceivable that this unnamed “trustee” just went away satisfied by Spanier’s dubious explanation thinking that he had credible information. I believe that unidentified “trustee” may have been a key member of the BOT and it’s executive committee. If anyone on the executive committee had knowledge of Sandusky’s investigation prior to Nov. 5th, 2011, then the BOT are guilty of fraud and complete dereliction of their governing duties.
I believe the BOT intent, from the very beginning, was a fait accompli to not only remove Joe Paterno, but to so damage his reputation that he would ultimately be cast as the fall guy or scapegoat in this entire affair. As soon as the board knew Sandusky was indicted, then they clearly knew Spanier had at least completely deceived them about Sandusky and the crisis nature his indictment would place upon Penn State. But if you watch the YouTube video of the press conference at which Surma outlined the firings of Paterno and Spanier, they clearly made more of Paterno’s firing and their reasons for it, and Joe’s “supposed failure of leadership,” etc.
There is hardly ANY mention of Spanier’s firing aside from the fact that Surma mentions it in passing. The fact that the board retained Spanier as a tenured faculty member is beyond the pale. Knowing full well that Spanier’s failure to notify the board of Sandusky’s pending indictment and the massive criminal and civil liabilities it would create for ALL of Penn State, as well as the attending media fires-storm and public opinion nightmare it created was clearly grounds to terminate Spanier completely for cause. The fact that they treated Spanier with kid-gloves while throwing Paterno to the wolves is proof positive of the BOT complicity and knowledge of the scandal.
The report also tries to cast Paterno as the villain because of his supposed “massive power” as in the explanation of the janitor’s incident and their reluctance to report what they witnessed about Sandusky, or the ridiculous leap-of-faith of the Curley e-mail in which the confused syntax of Curley’s reply after talking to Joe is confused at best. But which the media-and Freeh-cite as “proof positive” Paterno engineered-and insisted-on the so called “humane” strategy in dealing with Sandusky. This explanation is tantamount to grown adults using the excuse that “Joe made me do it” when they knew full well the ramifications and responsibilities of their inability to step forward and report to the proper authorities their knowledge of a crime.
What bothers me most is that Freeh’s report relies on anecdotal evidence taken by Freeh’s “investigators” during their so-called “interviews.” This is an absurd investigative practice on the face of it, and is completely missed by the media in their typical “rush-to-judgment” at wanting to “catch” Joe Paterno. Unlike a court of law, these “interviews” were taken not as legal depositions with potential perjury or other criminal implications for giving false, misleading, or inaccurate testimony. They were basically conversations with the so-called 450 “witnesses” in Freeh’s Report. A highly dubious method of fact finding at best. You can, and might, say anything if you knew that you weren’t under oath in a court of law.
Any one who has spent even 5 minutes looking over the legacy of Freeh’s controversial and questionable investigations while he was the director at the FBI can see that Freeh’s investigative history is hardly impeccable. Quite the contrary. And since the leak of the e-mails from his PSU investigation by parties Freeh claims are “completely outside his organization and unknown to him” is a compelling explanation-for him. But it hardly puts to rest the possibility that Freeh’s investigation was somehow compromised.
“The 1998 investigation of Sandusky was conducted in a professional and complete manner, devoid of any undue influence by “Old Main?” Maybe, but so what? Talk about “a leap!” PS Campus Police Investigator Ronald Schreffler personally over-heard Sandusky’s tacit confession to the allegations of child sexual molestation leveled by the mother of one of the victims in her home! When he learned that Centre Co. DA Ray Gricar had failed to indict Sandusky in 1999, his EXACT words were that he was flabbergasted! He absolutely believed, based on the evidence amassed during the investigation, that Gricar had prima facie evidence of Sandusky’s guilt and would indict Sanduksy without fail. And yet, that didn’t happen.
And a few months after Tom Corbett was elected PA AG in 2004, Ray Gricar disappeared! Without a trace! And though his body was never found, and the bizarre circumstances behind Gricar’s disappearance and the attendant evidentiary oddities accompanying that disappearance are well documented, he was subsequently declared legally dead several years ago. If anything, the background and circumstances of the 1998 Sandusky investigation is one of the more murky, troubling and questionable chain of events in the whole Sandusky debacle.
What is most troubling in this whole, sordid and sorry mess is this: After 2001, regardless of who knew what when, Curley, Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, McQueary, and several others in the PSU admin. absolutely KNEW that Sandusky was a problem. How Sandusky was able to maintain access to PSU after that well-documented incident is a very troubling question that I believe ALL parties are obligated to answer. It can be argued that Gricar’s failure to indict Sandusky in 1999 may have convinced all parties that there was no credible evidence against Sandusky. And here, clearly the janitors who witnessed that assault, failed to report their direct knowledge of a felony crime being committed.
Regardless of their perception of Joe’s “power” as a football coach, in the end, grown, responsible adults who know the difference between right and wrong cannot hide behind their “perceived fear” of someone else’s power over them in the eyes of the law. They clearly failed to act-and are responsible for and definitely put other young boys in jeopardy due to their failure to report. I believe if they had done so, Gricar would have had 2 eyewitnesses of Sandusky committing felony child sexual assault-and a slam-dunk prosecution. Ask yourself how that would have changed the paradigm of the consequences which we ALL now face?