In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2369
Online now 2365 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
You want to know what critical thinking gets you when you read the documents?
"It is apparent, however, that 'the record' is lacking because
the SIC apparently failed to interview virtually all of the key witnesses from the 1998 incident
and investigation including: ... (9) Ray Gricar, former Centre County District Attorney;"
This is ridiculous. I'm not saying that the Freeh report was a masterpiece of investigation, but it's beyond idiotic to criticize Freeh for not interviewing someone who's been missing since 2005.
Well, he said that he actually sat down later and read through the Freeh report.
Please. Knight jumped on the same wagon you hitch to fueled by national media outlets. I only act like Knight is enlightened enough to actually read the reports before speaking one thing many like you have failed to do.
Meyer4Prez "This is wut happens when ur team site analyst are huge homers glad Bill K+Alex G keep it real instead of getting our hopes up."
That is where the whole "watered down version" comes into play. He did not get all the facts. Who knows how much he received. Both he and Mike McQueary have stated this. It is an accepted fact.
See, I don't think we can all agree on that. Joe Paterno made an active decision to keep this in-house. He had 10 years to see that nothing was being done about it, and he made an active decision to stay quiet and not report this to the police for a decade.
Son, I just pointed out one of the biggest problems with the report above. Have you even read it all?
Joe Pa ran Penn State like a Dictator, history shows he shouldn't be really surprised with his demise
Freeh criticized Paterno for not being able to interview him for his report in his response to the Paterno report, even though Joe was dead.
You shouldn't take that statement as saying that Freeh should have interviewed Ray, just that he had the ultimate decision on whether to charge Sandusky or not and he was unable to be interviewed.
Well, he got enough of the facts that he was "concerned" enough to report the issue to his superiors. And they got enough of the facts to contact Second Mile. So, however watered down it was, it was clearly thick enough where those involved recognized they had a legal obligation to report it.
Sticking to the "they didn't have enough facts to recognize what really happened" as an excuse for not taking further action is not going to play.
He made an active decision to relay watered-down information to his superiors to handle. That wasn't a decision to "keep it in-house". His dicision was to hand it off so he didn't have to deal with it. Saying it is anything more than that is speculation without evidence.
Actually, he didn't have a legal obligation to report it. That's the point.
I'd strongly disagree with that logical progression. Failing to tell more people does not equal "covered up." Especially since the real question comes down to what Joe knew.
The fact is that seven men "knew" about the incident with McQueary, including whatever McQueary told them and none of them went to the police. The simplest explanation for that (and the other evidence) is that McQueary did not witness or discuss a crime being committed.
It seems to me that Joe knew the least out of all those men, but yet people are saying he's the one who should have gone to the police. None of those other men went to the police based on what they knew, but Joe, knowing even less, had more than enough basis to go to the police? Makes zero sense.
You can take it however you'd like, I'm sure we'll be rehashing all these arguments when Curley goes to trial.
I'm done with this thread for now though, based on how many PSU fans jumped on me immediately, I have a feeling there won't be much (if any) productive discussion from here on out.
Father, read it 3 times over gets better and better each time proving what we've known all along and how worthless the public has become. I'm sure you had a whale of a time pointing out the biggest problems with the Freeh report, if you ever read it.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by NittanyEagles 14 months ago
How many details beyond, "Joe, I saw Jerry in the shower with a young boy" does any person with an IQ bigger than their shoe size need to connect the dots? He KNEW. He'd known for years. When Jerry retired it was Joe that suggested, for liability reasons, that Jerry be barred from bringing any Second MIle kids onto the PSU campus.
So spare me this idea that Joe was somehow in the dark and spare me the notion that Joe Paterno didn't have a LOT of stroke up there. Upon hearing that one of his graduate assistants had spotted Jerry, no stranger to some very questionable activity involving young boys, in the shower with a kid, Joe took the path of least resistance.
Whether he ran that school or not the man had more options than what he chose.
But he and the rest of them sat around for another decade and did nothing. That's despicable by any definition.
Creepy little hamlet that existed up there. Somebody finally flipped on the lights and the rats are scurrying.
Look, I have several dear friends that are huge Penn St. people. I feel for those guys and all the PSU folks that supported that man for years but I have zero tolerance for anyone that is trying to explain away Joe's role in this or act like he was somehow a powerless figure in all of this....nothing he could have done, really.
“If you remember me, then I don't care if everyone else forgets.” ― Haruki Murakami
It's pretty obvious that they did NOT receive a report about molestation or rape, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Joe hated the kids being around his program. Having them there was inherently a liability even if there was no Sandusky. He just didn't want those kids around.
I have said multiple times that I am disappointed that Joe didn't advise McQueary to go to police. But he followed the law, he followed policy and now, somehow, that has turned into him "covering up" the situation. If he wanted to cover it up, why would he tell anyone? If he ran the university and wanted this thing kept quiet, when wouldn't he just keep it to himself and tell MM to fall in line? Also, if that is his thought process then why did he not worry about the victim coming forward? Why didn't he worry about MM's father and family friend coming forward? All of these people "knew" and nothing happened. Why? There was no mention of keeping people quiet in the evidence.
Never said it wasn't. I also never claimed that everything in the documents critical of the Freeh report are flawless. And frankly, the point you've zeroed in on in the above post is immaterial at best. The criticisms of Freeh are about the very foundation of his conclusions.
Right now, I'm still talking about reading the Freeh report and the documents presented as evidence. I haven't gotten around to reading the documents presented by Clemente or Sollers yet.
What I'm saying is that anyone who approaches the evidence presented in the Freeh report without taking his "conclusions" as gospel from the outset would find a much different picture from the one Freeh painted.
If your response to me was one of the biggest problems in the report, then they must be pretty good and solid reports.
Tell that to Jay Paterno then who, repeatedly, said on M&M that "Joe did what was required of him at the time under PA law and University policy."
As I said before, if the Ray Gricar thing is a "big problem" with the report, then Freeh's response to the report in invalidated as he did the same thing when he said that he wasn't allowed to interview Paterno.
This post was edited by getmyjive11 14 months ago
I've said nothing of a coverup. I'm simply not buying this assertion that Joe was too far down on the food chain to do much more than tell his boss. He could have and should have, upon learning that an anal rape had been witnessed, done a hell of a lot more than tell the AD. Especially given that this wasn't the first time that they were made aware that Jerry had done some inappropriate things with young boys.
At the very least, as the years ticked on and Jerry was still hanging around, he might have bothered to ask "Hey, whatever became of that shower rape thing?"
But, apparently, they were all willing to just let it go. Joe's not alone in taking the heat here. A lot of folks could have and should have done more. But I'll be damned if the "He followed protocol" defense is good enough.
My opinion....Joe and everybody else knew for years what Jerry Sandusky was. They just didn't care enough to do anything about it. They didn't cover it up. They just let it ride.
That's what I said... Joe Paterno didn't have the legal obligation to report the incident to police... he had to send the information to his superiors. What are you saying??
I'm amused at the people resorting to the idea that Joe was dictator and the most powerful man in State College or some such.
Perception isn't always reality, people.
I believe it was Adam Taliaferro who gave two very explicit examples of Joe not even having ultimate power in athletics, much less other University affairs. The first was approving the Big Ten Network. Joe was against it, but his superiors voted for it and told him later that they did. The second was the placement of the baseball field, which apparently encroached on space for football parking or otherwise. Joe was furious about it, but they went ahead with it anyway.
Joe certainly had support in State College, but to pretend like he was King is ludicrous.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports