Pages

Saturday, July 14, 2012

So You Think Joe Paterno Was a Liar?

A media tsunami is reporting everywhere the Freeh Report proves Joe Paterno was very aware of the 1998 investigation and that he LIED. 
Here is definitive proof the Freeh Report proves no such thing and includes statements that are LIES. 
THE FREEH REPORT says Joe is A LIAR offering these 2 email Exhibits as proof 
Exhibit 2A - At 05:24 PM 5/5/98 -0400, Re: Joe Paterno   Tim Curley wrote:
I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.
Exhibit 2B  At 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Re: Jerry    Tim Curley wrote:
Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.



That's it? 
Above you have Exhibit 2A the email "I have touched base" under Re Joe Paterno see UPDATE below
and 2B Re: Jerry "coach is anxious to know" Why does Freeh leap to the conclusion that "Coach" is Joe Paterno? When you read the chain of email Schultz is telling Curley that DPW is going to interview Sandusky and he writes of how Sandusky is concerned about the effect of the inquiry on the boy. The entire thread after Curley says "I have touched base with the coach" is about Sandusky but we are to imply "coach is anxious to know" is about Paterno? That makes no sense. 

Freeh says these two emails show proof that Joe Paterno was updated on the 1998 investigation concerning Victim 6 in May of 1998. What Freeh fails to acknowledge here is this Exhibit 3D Joe Paterno's notes of meeting with Tim and Jerry in early 1998 
We know this isn’t easy for you and it isn’t easy for us or Penn State. Part of the reason it isn’t easy is because I allowed and at times tried to help you with your developing the 2’" Mile. If there were no 2"" Mile then I believe you belief (sp?) that you probably could be the next Penn State FB Coach. But you wanted the best of two worlds and I probably should have sat down with you 6 or 7 years ago and said "look Jerry if you want to be the Head Coach at Penn State, give up your association with the 2"‘ Mile and concentrate on nothing but your family and Penn State. Don’t worry about the 2"" Mile – you don’t have the luxury of doing both. One will always demand a decision of preference. You are too deeply involved in both.
Or exhibit 3B  concerning Jerry's options 
At 08:51 PM 2/9/98 -0500, Tim Curley wrote:Jerry is not interested in the Assistant AD position. Joe and Jerry have agreed that he can continue in the coaching capacity for the next year..Jerry will have 30 years in the system next year, which will give him some options after next season. Joe tells me he made it clear to Jerry he will not be the next head ooach. Joe did indicate that he still plans to make a change on the defensive side of the ball. He wants to talk to me at a later date about what might be available for Joe Sarra. do you two need an administrative assistant?   Tlm Curley
Exhibit 3F is too long to post here but it is Jerry Sandusky to Tim Curley considering his retirement and employment options. So we have in evidence a chain of notes and emails regarding Sanduskys options from Feb 98 through June just prior to, during and just after the 1998 investigation. These documents show that Joe has to be concerned about the decision Jerry will make because it will effect his football program

 That is all Freeh has to prove Joe knew and lied. 
So The Freeh report is rife with opinions and low on facts and evidence.

Moreover we have the results of the 1998 investigation 
98_email_no_charges_jpg_medium
Jerry Sandusky is found to be cleared. There is "NO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR"
In 1998, though, Lauro said his judgment was that the allegation fell under the category of what he termed "boundary issues," not sexual assault. "It was definitely boundary issues, and I worked with boundary issues a lot," Lauro said. "But if I believed it was more than boundary issues, I would’ve gone to the mat." ."Was he a high-profile person?" Lauro asked. "I’d have to be stupid to tell you no. Everybody knew him." At the time of his investigation, Lauro said, all the child said was that Sandusky showered with him, and it made him uncomfortable. Lauro said he didn’t feel that was enough to substantiate a sexual-abuse complaint.
So please answer me this: If Joe knew all about the 1998 investigation why would he lie?
Why would he not say "Jerry was cleared of any criminal behavior after a thorough investigation"? 

Freeh finds definitively in his KEY FINDINGS page 55 of the 1998 situation that no one at Penn State including Joe Paterno interfered in any way with that inquiry or that the investigation had anything to do with his retirement.
Jerry was told he would not be head coach prior to that investigation. He was talking about his options.


But Freeh chooses not to mention any of this when stating that Joe Paterno must have known about 1998 and LIED about it. Instead Freeh makes these very prejudicial statements about Joe Paterno page 51
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. In addition the question is phrased "any other INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONDUCT". Joe does not believe a simple shower is inappropriate or sexual. For his generation and mine group showers involving males of all ages is considered normal. 

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 1995-1998 on 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 criminal..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 rapist 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.


Want to help this effort to set the record straight 
Visit this LINK and Volunteer 

UPDATE: 

Freeh Report page 49 
As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned "Jerry" and asked, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Schultz forwarded Curley's note to Harmon, " who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley!“ The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.

From: Gary C. Schultz <gcs2@psu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 8:55 AM
To: Thomas Harmon
Subject: Re: Jerry
Good, Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve quickly.
At 04:48 PM 5/13/98 EST, Thomas Harmon wrote:
The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly.

Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 04:11:19 -0400
To: Tim Curley From: ‘Gary C. Schultz
Subject: Re: Jerry 
Tim, l understand that a DPW person was here last week; don't know for sure if they talked with Jerry. They decided to have a child psychologist talk to the boys sometime over the next week.
At 02:21 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote:
Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.
Tim Curley

Compare the Re: Jerry Email above to the Re Joe Paterno Email below

From: Gary C. Schultz  Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 2:06 PM
To: Tim Curley Cc: Spanier-Graham (GBS)
Subject: Re: Joe Paterno
Will do. Since we talked tonight I've learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the JS Thursday.
At 05:24 PM 5/5/98 -0400, Tim Curley wrote:
I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks. Tim Curley

 So ask Freeh and yourself this - if the first email is Re Joe Paterno and coach is about  Coach Paterno 
why isn't the second email Re Jerry about Coach Jerry? 

I am a Tennessee Grad living in Knoxville with no ties to Penn State and no particular love for Joe P. 
PLEASE USE THE FORUM FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Posted by at