A Midsummer Dark Night's Scheme

 

The Freeher: Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I’m a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just, do things. The NCAA has plans, the Trustees have plans, the Paterno’s got plans. You know, they’re schemers. Schemers trying to control their worlds. I’m not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how, pathetic, their attempts to control things really are. So, when I say, ah, come here, when I say that you and your football team was nothing personal, you know that I’m telling the truth. 

It’s the schemers that put you where you are, Spanier. You were a schemer, you had plans, and uh, look where that got you. I just did what I do best. I took your plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did, to Penn State with a few innuendos and a couple of emails. Hm? You know what, you know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that like an ex-Florida player gets arrested for murder, or a truckload of academic fraud happened at North Carolina, nobody panics, because it’s all, part of the plan. But when I say that one, little old football coach covered up a scandal when he didn't, well then everyone loses their minds!

In case you are not aware, the tangled web of lawsuits continues . . .

Graham Spanier has filed a notice of intent to bring a defamation lawsuit against Louis Freeh.

Spanier, who has denied the allegations in the report, is suing Freeh and his firm, Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, for libel/defamation. Spanier is seeking monetary damages and is demanding a jury trial. 

Of course, you're probably already aware that the Paterno family, joined by former players, coaches, faculty members and Board of Trustee members have sued the NCAA to reverse the sanctions.

The suit, to be filed in Common Pleas Court of Centre County, Pa., alleges that the NCAA violated its own rules in meting out penalties in the wake of the child sex abuse case involving former Nittany Lions assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, penalties that were based on an investigative report by former FBI director Louis Freeh.

And recently, Coach O'Brien spoke behind closed doors to the Board of Trustees.

O’Brien addressed the trustees for more than an hour Friday morning behind closed doors during the board’s executive session at the Penn State Fayette branch campus. The presentation’s slides were visible from a hallway through several full-length glass-paned doors into the room where the session was held. 

But, one of the presentation slides had the heading “potential proposal to modify sanctions” and another had a heading concerning the impact of the scholarship reductions that are part of the sanctions. 

Another slide read “Individual lawsuits do not help us!” with the words “do not” underlined and in capital letters.

This latter slide has prompted a surge of Internet speculation drawing lines between those who support O'Brien's decision to reduce the sanctions and "move on:" versus those who still seek the truth, even if sanctions persist.

My Take:

Glass doors?  Seriously?  If that wasn't planned, for the effect that it is having, then I've never been a Penn State fan.

Look.  Bill O'Brien is stepping up to the plate for his team.  His slide about "INDIVIDUAL" lawsuits may not even be referring to the Paterno suit, since there are multiple parties involved.  He is concerned about his team--about giving his current players a level field to play on, to give his team depth so that his players aren't more susceptible to injury, and to enhance recruiting which gives more students a chance to earn a Penn State degree.

None of the players on this team have anything to do with what allegedly happened, and penalizing the program isn't helping a single victim one iota.  The NCAA over-stepped its authority.  The Freeh Report is flawed.  Not a single PSU administrator has yet been convicted of any wrong doing. 

Unlike the Governor's anti-trust suit against the NCAA, there is a better chance that the courts will allow the Paterno suit to proceed, i.e. that the plaintiff's have standing.  While that doesn't mean the NCAA will lose, it does mean that the next phase--discovery--will allow the representing attorneys the opportunity to subpoena NCAA records, which from what I've been told, could open up a significant can of worms.

It is probably true that pending lawsuits against the NCAA would probably deter the organization from reducing any sanctions currently.  But that may be part of the scheme.  The NCAA may be more likely to reduce the sanctions--if certain or all lawsuits are dropped.  Whether intentionally or not, the Paterno Suit actually gives the NCAA some ammunition to continue the sanctions despite the fact that Penn State has behaved and implemented most of the changes recommended by the Gospel According to Freeh.

So what do you think?

Has O'Brien sold out to the move-on proponents, just to make things go away without any regard to the truth?  Or is he just fighting for his team with no political agenda to further?

I lean toward the latter.

The Tragedy of Premature Conclusions

The parallels of Joe's fall (to be honest though, he was PUSHED) to the Greek tragedies that he often quoted are remarkable.  Every hero in a Greek tragedy has a fatal flaw.  I think for Paterno, it was his loyalty--not only to colleagues like Jerry Sandusky, but to Spanier, Curley and Schultz as well, not to mention his loyalty to the University.  You can blame Paterno all you want for the tragedies that befell those victims, but he was but a cross roads for the passage of information.  If McQueary had never contacted him, his legacy would be intact.  Had Schultz/Spanier/Curley handled the matter differently, his legacy would probably still be intact.  But by putting his faith in those people--believing whatever version of the story that McQueary told him and then having faith that his superiors would handle it properly,  Joe inadvertently sacrificed his legacy. 

Dr. JC posted this on the BWI McAndrew Board.  The literary references of Dr. JC (below) are stunning as well.  I thought it was worth reposting here, and with his blessing, here it is.

A NEW NARRATIVE: THE TRAGEDY
OF PREMATURE CONCLUSIONS

 

Sometimes it is painfully difficult to hold onto something that in your soul you believe is true, particularly when that very belief has faced an onslaught by those parties and individuals who control the dialogue: Maybe that is what faith is all about. Penn State students, alumni, and fans who have followed the tragic situation at their university have had to sit tight and endure the anger, incriminations, and vitriol that were the manifestation of the Louis Freeh Report, a presentment that went without challenge or vetting: The fact is, that this it was literally accepted in its entirety on face value. However, in recent months we have had the opportunity to experience new and revealing reports commissioned by the Paterno family. These presentments offered cogent, well constructed, comprehensive counterpoints and challenging findings by individuals with truly impressive credentials. Finally, we have the opportunity to experience the long overdue vetting and rebuttal to what some considered the questionable findings of the Louis Freeh Report. Yet for the most part, these new presentations have been ignored by the media or discredited for a host of what seem ill-considered reasons. It feels as if there is a dedicated unwillingness to countenance the possibility that the Freeh Report was flawed and overstated in its conclusions.
 

Let us not forget the response to the findings and pronouncements contained in the Louis Freeh Report. The popular hosts of television and radio talk shows, sports commentators, columnists, private citizens, fans, the Penn State Board of Trustees (BOT), and of course the NCAA all reacted almost instantly, ruthlessly castigating in particular the legendary coach Joe Paterno for allegedly being an accomplice in a disgraceful cabal to hide what happened at Penn State. In my opinion, Mr. Freeh presented his findings in a manner filled with hyperbole and overstatement, a theatrical, dramatic style clearly designed to "raise the ire" of the audience. Of course, the media picked up the "drum beat" and opined in a similar style, the airwaves and editorial pages filled with commentaries couched in indignation and outrage. To be incensed with Jerry Sandusky after the trial revealed his guilt is totally understandable and maybe even welcome. But regarding the "Penn State Four"  (Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno), it quickly became apparent that for far too many there was neither the time nor the desire to be patient until a more complete picture could emerge - a picture wherein other sources of factual evidence could be put on the table and considered before reaching conclusions regarding any alleged cover-up. And, regardless of the Paterno presentments, I fear that the particularly loathsome nature of sexual predation and victimization has permitted and justified in the minds of many a sweeping attack upon and sterilization of everything Penn State-related. A predator hurt young children; hysteria and the lack of due process damaged a great university and an iconic figure.
 

I believe it is incumbent upon us to at least wonder why so many individuals were willing to almost blindly accept one presentment and not at least wonder if there should not have been a public vetting of a document that was filled with such damning conclusions, particularly since theconclusions were based upon a suspect methodology of investigation. To me, that was unconscionable! It should not have been permitted to happen. Were those who based their opinions strictly on the Freeh Report not aware of his investigative record? It is both important and revealing to note the fact that Louis Freeh completed a report for FIFA, the governing body of the International Soccer Association, pertaining to corruption charges against Bin Hamman, a candidate for president. Upon review by the Court of Arbitration of Sport, many of the charges were dismissed as they found the investigative report by Freeh to be incomplete and lacking in the necessary comprehensiveness. Should that not at least be a flag that suggests proceeding with caution before taking his findings at Penn State as irrefutable, rock-solid truths? I would think so.
 

Apparently in what has been termed a "rush to injustice," there was neither tolerance nor time for another narrative to develop. Due process and in particular one of the most honored pillars of American jurisprudence – the notion of prosecution and defense, were cast to the wind. It seemed everyone knew who the guilty parties were - so let's not waste time: Might as well just throw the rope over the limb and have a good old-fashioned media lynching! It would have been helpful if someone had reminded those individuals who were so quick to convict and punish of that famous novel that so dramatically depicted the consequences of callous injustice - The Ox-Bow Incident.

Unfortunately, like many media-generated stories, the Penn State saga has a "media life" wherein other more recent narratives and information no longer pique the interest of the media and general public; the once irresistible sensationalism of Paterno and Penn State has quickly lost consumer interest. In essence, the damage has been done and the thinking of many has been set almost irretrievably in concrete.
 

As a psychoanalyst, I believe that what we are currently experiencing (as evidenced by the recent Piers Morgan and Matt Lauer interviews) is technically what we call resistance. Particularly, individuals are often rigidly resistant to facing the reality of their actions and misperceptions. Simply - they would rather not know and remain attached to their false notions, delusions, and dysfunctional behavior. When these individuals are confronted, they often become agitated and highly defensive. A perfect example of this was the manner in which Piers Morgan attacked Ziegler and tried to dismiss his information as bogus and ridiculous. Unfortunately, Ziegler's natural manner is not conducive to having a reasonable conversation with someone as defended as Morgan.

Resistance must be tactfully addressed and removed before an individual can engage in a conversation that might raise their anxiety and promote a degree of self-examination. Few have the capacity of a Bob Costas to entertain the notion that he was premature in his opinions and consequently found the capacity and strength to revise his conclusions. For most of those who publicly denounced Paterno, they must either flee from or discredit the new revelations in order to save face and to sidestep the damage to a great university, its alumni, and a legendary
iconic man, which in part they are responsible for. Sadly, it seems to be a characteristic of our still immature and often tabloid-minded society.

I am particularly confused by the actions of the NCAA regarding the draconic sanctions imposed upon Penn State. To me, they seem a little "psychotic;" that is, not in touch with the reality of what transpired at Penn State.  And, it is important to understand that what happened at Penn State has likely happened at other universities and institutions across our country. This is a national problem, not just a Penn State problem.
 

In my opinion, the NCAA wandered far out of bounds from their designated role; that is, to monitor and assure the fairness of competition and safety of college athletics. And, it is important to keep in mind that the true scope of these sanctions or more to the point - punishments, intentionally or unintentionally has caused substantial distress to the entirety of the Penn State : the reputation of a great university; the alumni of Penn State; the current student body; present and past football teams (wins vacated from 1998 through 2011); and of course the residents and businesses of central Pennsylvania that are reliant upon the revenues generated by football at Beaver Stadium. Of course, it is particularly frustrating, as the justifications for these sanctions have now been challenged with some well-considered opinions that are rather convincing in their dismissal of the assumptions and poorly substantiated conclusions contained in the Freeh Report.
 

Again, I believe that the NCAA is in the same situation regarding resistance. It would be rather anxiety provoking for them to change their position, as it might suggest that they were at least extreme in their actions regarding PSU, if not downright wrong. Attacking or confronting them simply will strengthen their resistance and resolve to keep the sanctions in effect. However, an empathic non-confrontational strategy that helps reduce their resistance to considering the Paterno presentment might at least provide a stepping-stone to reducing or eliminating the sanctions.

When considering what happened at Penn State, we need to promote a rational perspective. Jim Clemente, a highly recognized expert on child sexual abuse and a former FBI profiler clearly points out in his report that the failure on the part of individuals and institutions to quickly recognize the identity of sexual predators and the scope of their actions is both well documented and unfortunately all too common. Psychologists and sociologists have long elaborated upon how incredibly masterful predators are in covering up or obscuring the reality of their behavior with children - the so-called "grooming" process: familiarity with family members, a high level of regard within the community, and a revered image all work in the service of cleverly concealing that which is actually happening and can cause hesitation within the minds of those who might entertain suspicions. In his report, Jim Clemente uses the expression "nice guy acquaintance" victimizer in referring to the pattern and style of predation that Jerry had mastered. Under an elaborately constructed disguise as a pillar of the community, legendary defensive coach,and the force behind the Second Mile program, he was able to satisfy his sexual needs with children with no suspiciousness by anyone. In essence, he was a masterful and cunning "groomer;" but it was not strictly the children who were groomed for his needs. Over a long period of time, the entire Penn State University - State College community was successfully groomed to cover up his deeds and provide for his special needs.  It is well within reason to at least consider that the situation at Penn State was one in which anyone who may have had some questions regarding Jerry Sandusky's behavior with children may unfortunately have cavalierly dismissed them as just "Jerry being Jerry." And of course, his development of and commitment to the Second Mile Program put him high in the regard of the entire State College community.
 

I believe that we need to communicate to our detractors and doubters how incredibly difficult it was to even contemplate, let alone believe, that someone who maintained such high esteem within the community - an individual who had been the source of accolades and admiration could be guilty of abusing those very children he purported to assist and protect. And, in Jim Clemente's opinion, that is what happened at Penn State and that is why in fact there was no cabal - no sinister intent to cover-up of Sandusky's actions. It is just those thoughts - those very misperceptions regarding "acquaintance victimizers" that enable masterful predators like Jerry Sandusky in particular, to go without revelation until the tragedy that has befallen the victims is finally recognized and confronted. Finally, there now is a reasonable, plausible narrative presented by an acknowledged expert in the field of child sexual abuse and victimization that makes sense out of how things went down at Penn State in the late 1990's and early 2000's. I suggest that it is relatively impossible to use 2011 eyes to see and understand actions in 1998 or 2001. And that was Freeh's critical fault and the failing of his report; that is, the inability to grasp the true nature of what was happening at Penn State circa 1998-2001.
 

In my opinion, the Penn State board of trustees should have defended, not defiled Joe Paterno's reputation until due process or at least further sworn testimony showed that he was a knowing participant in any alleged cover-up: The dedication of his life's energy as well as much of his personal wealth to Penn State should at least have warranted that consideration. You do not permit a great university, its alumni, and an iconic figure to be trashed on a singular, unchallenged, and suspect piece of so-called evidence. Had the media and the board of trustees waited until the truth came forward, hysteria would have succumbed to the quieting light of due process and honest revelation - and that is the way it should be!
 

For reasons that are rather apparent, the assault on the legacy of Joe Paterno reminded me of the infamous "Dreyfus Affair." In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a French army artillery officer, was tried and found guilty of treason by a court martial on the basis of false and misleading evidence - evidence that was contrived and corrupted in order to reach a predetermined desired outcome. It was later revealed that testimony on the treasonous actions of Dreyfus was perjured -filled with outrageous insinuations and assumptions. However, thanks in part to the relentless efforts of the fiery writer Emile Zola (J'accuse) and a few dedicated individuals, the truth was finally revealed and the conspiracy against Dreyfus was shown for what it really was - -anti-Semitism and the corruption of due process by entrenched powers. After spending years banished to the infamous Devil's Island in French Guyana, he was found innocent and his rank restored. But the similarities are disturbing: When initially found guilty, Dreyfus was paraded in front of a jeering public, stripped of his rank and insignia medals, and his sword broken in half. In his disgraced and torn uniform, he was paraded through the crowd and spat upon. Think about it! Joe's statue being removed, his placards torn down, his record from 1998 through 2011 erased, and his legacy being dragged through the media to be spat upon and his name a source of disgrace. Again, are the parallels not compelling at least and frightening at worst? All this predicated on assumptions and "must have knowns." J'accuse the American media of a mass hysteria. J'accuse the media of creating a man of mythical proportions, only then to revel in destroying him.
 

It is rather ironic to note that the NCAA chastised Penn State for permitting the culture of football to dominate and corrupt the affairs of the university. What? Did I hear that correctly? Are they joking? Is the NCAA suffering from delusions? For decades, Penn State has been the absolute model for the student-athlete, with the annual graduation rates for football players consistently amongst the highest in the country - and often the highest. Particularly, the graduation rate for African-American athletes surpasses almost all other institutions. Penn State is noted for producing academic all-Americans at an unprecedented rate; yet; the NCAA warns them about the culture of football – a culture largely created by the NCAA itself, as it has negotiated massive financial contracts with the media for bowl games, play-offs, etc. J'accuse the NCAA of blatant hypocrisy - of pointing an accusatory finger at Penn State when that very finger should be pointed at themselves. And, J'accuse the board of trustees for cowering to bullies by not demanding due process to provide a more reasonable and factual understanding of what really transpired and illuminating any role that JoePa and others might have had in this tragedy. J'accuse the board of trustees of derogation of the responsibility of debunking the attacks regarding the "culture of football" at Penn State and demonstrating with facts what we have accomplished in the last forty years. J'accuse the board of trustees for not properly and openly vetting the Freeh report, before accepting it as fact and justification for their actions. In fact, I now must wonder if the board of trustees had an agenda regarding Joe - maybe even the rare opportunity for a few to act-out some bizarre vendetta regarding Joe Paterno. It surely begs the question: Was the Sandusky situation an ideal time to get some payback and destroy the legacy of Joe Paterno? Maybe not to others, but to me that is the only way I can understand the impulsivity of the board in firing Joe and their refusal to stand behind a man who had done so much for Penn State. There seems to be a play within a play within a play.
 

In closing, if due process should reveal culpability on the part of Joe Paterno and other members of the administration for the tragedy that occurred at Penn State, I will accept it and slowly, painfully work through it - always remembering that children were hurt. But until that is established, although cantankerous in nature and imperfect as a man, I will continue to embrace the notion of Joe Paterno as a brilliant and dedicated coach, teacher, and philanthropist at a great university. He was steadfastly committed to an idealized notion of what college athletics should be and never veered far from that vision. Unlike the falsified, aggrandized media image that made Joe Paterno a man for all seasons - the reality is that he was but a man made for the football season.

Joseph A. Cattano, Ph.D.,
PSU 1971

Dissenting Opinion

At least two people have already spoken out negatively regarding the report that was commissioned by the Paterno family and scheduled to be released tomorrow.  And this is without either one actually READING THE REPORT.

Are they Board of Trustee members?  (Get it, they accepted the Freeh report before it was actually completed and released, but I digress.)

No they are not.  But they are members of the "media", one representing Sporting News and the other CBS.

Steven Greenberg writes:

But the Paternos have gone on a major offensive, one that may or may not help to clear Joe's name but will — without a doubt — cause angst and discomfort for many regular folks in State College and around the country. It may freshen the pain for Sandusky's victims and their families, too.

We haven't seen the report yet, but we'll go ahead and summarize it for you anyway: Joe did nothing wrong. If there was a cover-up, he played no part in it. Joe wanted nothing more than for the full, unvarnished truth to come out about everything related to Sandusky's actions. Joe was indeed the man you once thought he was, and he deserves to be remembered as such.

Look, that's not to say there won't be important details — yes, truth — in this report. There may have been a few rushes to judgment, a few bows tied prematurely, in the Freeh Report. Hopefully, the Paternos and their investigators will enlighten us.

If you can detect room for an admission of real fallibility[in Sue Paterno's Letter] — let alone an apology — anywhere in there, please tell us. Because we can't.

And if they can't believe, can't even conceive of, what some of us believe — that, at the worst possible time, JoePa's morality went unforgivably limp? Perhaps that just makes them human.

Isn't it comforting to know that a journalist associated with a media outlet like Sporting News isn't worried about details like TRUTH.  Hell, he can't even wait for the actual report to start piling on again.  And his rebuttal helps the victims in what way?  Wouldn't truth be helpful?  Don't the victims want to know what went wrong and why their pain was not forestalled or stopped?  Since when do rushes to judgment and prematurely tied assumptions and misinformation trump actual TRUTH?

The second piece of trash comes from the fingers of Dan Bernstein, associated with CBS in Chicago.
Mr. Bernstein attempts to tackle this matter with sarcasm and humor, and misses as badly as Manti Teo missed tackles in the BCS title game.

The crimes supposedly committed by Sandusky were actually committed by conspiratorial members of the mainstream media, as part of an elaborate plan to embarrass Penn State due to “jealousy.” These media members, coincidentally, were all employed by print/electronic/digital outlets outside of Pennsylvania. They maintain that reporters, columnists, anchors and personalities were motivated thusly because the football teams of their respective almae matres were not as good as the Nittany Lions.

Joe Paterno actually died in 1983, and everything since has been an uncanny series of muscle spasms.

Oh yes, the age card is always good for a laugh, even if the guy is actually dead.  Sounds like something you'd read on a Pitt message board.  We now know why this man writes columns rather than doing stand-up comedy.

• The report cites new information — undermining the conclusions of the Freeh investigation — that was provided by a recently-contacted source: a lovely, young Stanford coed of Samoan descent who has apparently had a rough go of it lately.
• Paterno’s true win total? 9,546.

Real funny stuff right there.  Ties in that whole Manti Teo thing.  And it's Mr. Bowden who is counting high school wins, junior college wins and anything remotely connected to football as a win in his career total--not Joe Paterno.  And Sue Paterno even went out of her way to say that this fight isn't about the wins, but hey, if you can get a cheap laugh out of that, I guess it's worth a shot.  Much better than these efforts:

• Paterno, a devout Catholic, was simply emulating the behaviors of respected clergymen like Bernard Francis Law of Boston, Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, and longtime Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger.
• The Paternos’ independent report also claims that victims 2 , 4, 7 and 10 were really, really cute, you have to admit. C’mon. Especially 4.

Mr Bernstein?  How would you feel if victim #4 read that?  Or any of them for that matter?  For someone who is willing to throw due process under the bus in the name of protecting innocent children, you seem to have a blatant disregard for the emotional condition of those you supposedly champion.  Just so you can get a laugh?  Oh, you were trying to make a point?  I totally missed that, but perhaps it's because your sarcasm isn't as sharp as you think it is.

I wonder how this writer would feel if his own father or a good friend was accused of playing a role in some heinous crime, for which he was actually innocent.  Would he still have written this drivel?

His righteous indignation has been on display since this whole thing exploded.  He was aghast at the Rally for the current Penn State team.  In that same article he claimed Lubrano won his spot on the BOT by promising to post-humously rehire Joe Paterno.  In another gem, he claims that Franco Harris's support of Paterno can be "chalked up to football-related deterioration, and his brain will be in a Boston University bell-jar sooner rather than later." 

I guess when you consider the source . . .

We'll see who has the last laugh.

Is a Storm Coming?

I'm not talking about snow in Boston.

Rumors started early in the week about an interview of Sue Paterno by Katie Couric to air on February 11th.  Then there were tweets about an upcoming segment of OTL on ESPN to be aired on Sunday.

And today, a letter by Sue to former Letterman was posted.

The crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky are heartbreaking. As a mother of 5 and grandmother of 17, it is incomprehensible to me that anyone could intentionally harm a child. I think of the victims daily and I pray that God will heal their wounds and comfort their souls.

When the Freeh report was released last July, I was as shocked as anyone by the findings and by Mr. Freeh's extraordinary attack on Joe's character and integrity. I did not recognize the man Mr. Freeh described. I am here to tell you as definitively and forcefully as I know how that Mr. Freeh could not have been more wrong in his assessment of Joe. I knew Joe Paterno as well as one human being can know another. Joe was exactly the moral, disciplined and demanding man you knew him to be. Over the years I watched as he struggled with countless personal and professional challenges. Never - not once - did I see him compromise his principles or twist the truth to avoid bad publicity or protect his reputation. Joe was tough, sometimes difficult, always opinionated and extremely demanding. He was also scrupulously honest, rigidly moral and absolutely unafraid of the consequences of doing the right thing.

After the Freeh report was released I knew immediately that the situation demanded further review. Unfortunately, the Board's response was to panic again. They embraced the report without reviewing it. They never met with Mr. Freeh or his investigators. They asked no questions and challenged no assertions. Although they never officially voted to accept the report, they endorsed its findings and allowed the NCAA to impose unprecedented sanctions. To claim that this ill-considered and rash process served the victims and the university is a grave error. Only the truth serves the victims. Only the truth can help prevent this sort of crime from occurring again.

Although it was not something I ever imagined doing, I directed my lawyer, Wick Sollers, of the King and Spalding firm in Washington DC, to undertake a review of the Freeh report and Joe's actions. I told him to engage the best, most respected experts, to take whatever time he needed and to go wherever the facts led. Sunday morning at 9am we are releasing the full Report by Wick and his team of experts. The report and additional information will be available at Paterno.com.  

Second, there has been endless speculation about what my family and I ultimately want to achieve. Is it the return of the statue? The restoration of Joe's wins? His name on the football stadium? On this point I also want to be clear. Joe Paterno's legacy wasn't a statue, a winning record or public adulation. He was grateful for the many accolades he received but he never believed they defined his life. His legacy is his family and you his players. How you live your life speaks louder than any report. The great fathers, husbands and citizens you have become fulfill the dreams Joe had. All that we want - and what I believe we owe the victims, Joe Paterno and everyone who cares about Penn State - is the full record of what happened. On this point, I know the advice Joe would give. Don't give up. Don't be afraid. Do the right thing. And make sure your actions serve the greater good. This is the path I will continue to follow.

AMEN!  You go Sue!  I wonder how Wick's report compares cost-wise to the Freeh Fiasco.

I have said all along that the man we all knew--Joe Paterno--and the man portrayed by Freeh and the media were not congruous.  Of course, the same could be said for Jerry Sandusky--but at least Jerry had his day in court and was given due process.  Joe Paterno never had that luxury.

Governor Corbett has also filed a suit, which the NCAA has already filed a motion to dismiss.  Let's face it.  The NCAA cannot allow this go to court.  Penn State broke no NCAA rules.  The NCAA did not follow their regular procedure for investigation.  And while a Consent Decree was signed, this is not a usual or customary practice that the NCAA uses, and it may have been signed under duress--i.e. a threat of greater penalties.  NCAA lawyers will be hard pressed to explain all these irregularities in procedure.

And while it may take months to years to complete, it will be really interesting to see what happens if Schultz, Curley and Spanier are acquitted.  Think about that.  What if they did follow Pennsylvania law in reporting Sandusky to The Second Mile?  If they are acquitted, how in the hell can the NCAA justify any penalty whatsoever?  So you penalize a school that broke no laws and no rules?

And to top off all of this, Congressman Dent of Lehigh Valley is promising Congressional Hearings into the NCAA's decision regarding Penn State.

Dent, in a telephone interview Friday, said he had read summaries of the review commissioned by the late head football coach's family. The review is set to be published Sunday morning.

"To blame the culture of Penn State for Sandusky's crimes is a horrible mistake," Dent said Friday, characterizing the findings of one of the experts commissioned by the Paterno family. "To blame the culture of Penn State or even the football program … is not supported by the facts."

Dent said the review cements his conclusion that Penn State has been "horribly mistreated" by the NCAA. After the college sports governing body hit Penn State with a $60 million fine and stripped the one-time Big10 powerhouse of football scholarships last summer, Dent called on NCAA president Mark Emmert to keep the money in Pennsylvania and restore opportunities for student athletes.

"The entire Penn State culture was punished based on this report," Dent said, adding that he will call for congressional hearings on the NCAA's decision.

Dent said the Paterno family's review comprises reports by four experts, including a former U.S. attorney general whom Dent would not identify. "The former attorney general says the Freeh report is seriously flawed, very flawed," Dent said.

Some have speculated that the unidentified US AG is former Governor Dick Thornburg.

And I thought the off season was going to be boring!

The Framing of Joe Paterno

It's a little long, but well worth the time if you can spare it.

Monday Cartoon

I saw a comic strip last Saturday that made me think of the "leadership" we have currently at PSU.  As I have been prone to do in the past, I changed the words a little to make it more Penn State-y.  But given the delicate nature of the situation, I decided to ask permission from Scott Adams to use his Dillbert cartoon in this manner on my blog.

Unfortunately, he responded:

Hi Todd,
Thanks for asking. I don't approve mash ups of Dilbert but I'm glad you enjoyed the original.

I'm hurt.  I've never been turned down (by a cartoonist) before.  What's even more interesting, you can do "mash ups" of Dilbert cartoons on their site . . ."if you think you are funnier than Scott Adams."   So with that inspiration, I made my own comic strip.  My artistic abilities are exceeded only by my singing talent.  Thankfully, this is my blog and not America's Got Talent.  

Before you say it, I will:  Scott Adams doesn't have to worry about me taking his day job!

UK Sports Editor Blasts Freeh

Neil Monnery describes himself as a ‘Former Sports Editor now SEO & Search Marketing Guy. Hospital Radio DJ, Sports Fan, Sleep Lover, Liberal, Freelance Writer & Broadcaster.’  I don't think he's found himself yet, have you? 

But he has found some things to say about the Gospel According to Freeh.

Reading the Freeh Report and somehow not throwing up all over my desk and surrounding carpet is I think an achievement in itself.

The Freeh Report is full of holes and did not speak to many of the important people involved due to various reasons. Basically if I was using another American scandal I’d say it was the Mitchell Report which was ready to bury people based on just one source – Brian McNamee.


This time round Louis Freeh is ready to bury people on the strength of 14 and 11 year-old e-mails that may or may not be out of context. We all know that if this was a prosecution case in a criminal trial then no-one would be found guilty but the court of public opinion is a very different one to that of a court of law.

Now I am still what you call old school. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and deserve to be treated as such. You are not innocent until a report into your conduct which only looks at a small portion of the evidence deems you as such. That isn’t how we do it in the democratic world – well it isn’t how it should be done anyway.   There is surely plenty of blame to go around. We just don’t know where the blame should be laid yet. We all have opinions but opinions and knowledge are two very different kettles of fish.   When people like Mike McQueary, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz etc… start speaking publicly and/or under oath then we might start getting the full picture. Until then we have seen half the story and to form an opinion based on half a story is not much further elvolved [sic] than what happened at the Salem witch trials.

 Monnery also takes a good jab at Rick Reilly, who was particularly outspoken against Paterno recently.

But Rick--and others--would call us Paterno apologists.

I am an apologist . . . I'm very sorry that due process has been ignored and our society feels this crushing desire to harm innocent people without said due process.

Poll Results

John Ziegler has released a poll of 1,000 adults presumably from around the nation.  I must say, I am not surprised by the results.

The first question asked which school fired the coach of a major men's sport for sexually abusing boys.  A staggering 68% (that's 680 out of the thousand polled for you math whizzes out there) thought the correct response was JOE PATERNO.  Less than 1% answered correctly--Syracuse.

52% thought the media handled the coverage well.  Of course, knowing that 68% of the respondents are already clueless, this conclusion is pretty much worthless.

28% thought that Joe Paterno had molested children.  Of the 55% that answered correctly that he did not, I wonder how many of those were in the 68% who thought he was fired for abusing children.  It's not mathematically possible to get those results without some people answering with conflicting responses.  But hey, they are as consistent as the NCAA is!

Only 9% answered correctly about whether Victim 2 (the shower victim witnessed by McQueary) came forward and testified at Sandusky's trial.

This must be a happy country, because they say ignorance is bliss!

Truth or Resignations!

Is the truth painful, or funny.  You decide!

No Vote

Although the BOT met and discussed the matter, no official vote took place due to procedural issues.

Per Rachel George of the USA Today:

The board met via conference call initially with a plan to vote to ratify the binding document signed by President Rodney Erickson in July. But the university's charter requires a 10-day notification before a public meeting in person for the board to vote.

Instead, it heard explanations from Erickson as well as Gene Marsh, an attorney with experience dealing with NCAA sanctions who advised Penn State during the process. It almost unanimously voiced support for Erickson.

Surprise!  Surprise!  Surprise.

Hail Erickson!  Hail the NCAA!  . . . HELL NO!

But apparently, the Board's action (or inaction) depending on how you look at this, will not affect the appeal and possible lawsuit initiated by new Board member McCombie.

Paul Kelly of Jackson Lewis LLP, McCombie's attorney, also represents a group of eight players and one coach who are appealing only the NCAA's decision to strip Penn State of its 112 wins in that 14-year span. Kelly did not expect anything the board did Sunday to affect that appeal.

Saturday, McCombie agreed to suspend his appeal if the board would follow the suggestions of fellow trustee Joel Myers. On Friday, Myers emailed the board to recommend a three-step process for proceeding: Review the legal advice Penn State received before Erickson signed the consent decree with approval from the board's executive committee, but not the full board; review the Freeh Report; and review the sanctions.



The Gospel According to Freeh

 "While Trustee McCombie fully supports President Erickson and his commitment to protecting the current and future interests of Penn State University, he still intends to challenge the unfair, unwarranted and unlawful actions of the NCAA and the excessive sanctions imposed," Kelly said in a statement.

As for the Freeh Report (ptooie, I spit on that report), here is a detailed analysis by Eileen Morgan you might find worth reading, unless you've already accepted it as Gospel handed down by Moses.

CONCLUSION


 The 1998 shower incident was handled and investigated by local law enforcement and no charges were filed by the District Attorney office against Sandusky.

 The 2001 shower incident was reported to Paterno who reported to his superiors, including head of University Park Police. Paterno’s superiors inform Sandusky’s foundation Second Mile (who also are responsible for the boys) and they do nothing.

 There is no evidence, besides Freeh’s baseless speculations and opinions, that the top four men at PSU covered up and knowingly allowed Sandusky to molest children for 14 years.

 Did the PSU officials make a grave mistake? Yes and they will probably never forgive themselves for it. Was it out of total disregard for the safety of children just to avoid publicity? No.  The ‘publicity’ they speak of in the email is regarding Sandusky’s known behavior to shower with boys. It was NOT the publicity of Sandusky molesting boys, because they never knew that until 2011.

 If there was a cover up, it seems to be coming from someone much higher on the food chain. However, the entire Freeh Report, from the time of the leaked email to the day he released the report, has been maliciously geared to blaming Joe.

Or, you can just baa, baa, baa and believe the Gospel of Freeh like all the other sheep.  The choice is really up to you.

If It Cost $6.5 Million, Is It Really Freeh?

Joe clearly voted for Al Gore!

By now, you have probably read and/or heard about the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State regarding the Sandusky scandal.  Chances are pretty good you heard some misinformation.

I'm a little late in getting this all posted as I was on vacation when the report was leaked released.  That evening, I sat at a table in a restaurant near Virginia Beach with a television above my head that paraded a variety of images as it attempted to "inform" the viewers.  I saw the Penn State logo.  Joe Paterno.  The football team.  I don't recall ever seeing Sandusky.  Wasn't he the guy actually found guilty of a crime???  But I digress.

You can read the Freeh report here.  Interestingly, I couldn't get the download to work on the actual website:  http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/.  Good luck with that.

There are those, such as fellow blogger The Nittany Turkey, who say that I should just get on with my grief and the Kübler-Ross stages thereof and accept the report, rather than trying to criticize it.  Well, that's not bloody likely gonna happen on this blog.

The problem is not that I have a blind, overwhelming devotion to Joe Paterno.  Although I respected and admired him immensely, I am more a devotee of truth.  And while the general public may accept the Freeh Report as unshakable, undeniable proof . . . I, for one, do not.

First of all, how do you spend $6.5 million on a report?  Seriously.  In an age where the Federal Deficit is measured in trillions, most of us pass over that little piece of information as though it is negligible.  It is expected.  It wouldn't be a good report if it wasn't over priced.

If you hired a thousand workers to process the information (and I doubt they hired that many) that amounts to $6,500 per person.  Another way to look at it:  the report is 267 pages long.  That amounts to $24,344.57 per page, and the actual report didn't start until seven pages of contents.  They supposedly interviewed 430 people--that's $15,116.28 per interview.)

BUT they did not interview Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Jerry Sandusky, Schultz, outside legal counsel Wendell Courtney, PSU Director of Public Safety Tom Harmon, NCIS star Mark Harmon, and Mike McQueary, among others.

Chief Investigator Freeh

Isn't that like doing a report on the New Testament, but not including anything from Jesus or his disciples?

We interview everyone EXCEPT the actual participants . . . and call it FACT?  Are we as a society really that stupid or gullible???

Do you know that Karen Peetz, Chairman of the Board of Trustees is/was a member of the special investigations task force?  Her name is buried in small print at the bottom of page 8 in footnote a.  Doesn't that present a bias?  Conflict of interest?  If you were investigating Enron (Exxon--name any major corporation that did something wrong) and you put the Chairman of the Board on the investigating committee, wouldn't there be public outcry?

I could go on and on, but Marc Rubin has a fairly good analysis of the faults of the report on Tom In Paine.

Here are a few excerpts:

The great irony of the Freeh Report is that one of its most quoted statements was that there were "red flags all over the place" that should have alerted people to Sandusky and were ignored.

But that applies even more so to the Freeh Report itself except the evidence of the report being incompetetent, dishonest and the product of polititcal hackery is more obvious than any red flags Freeh claims wee apparent with Sandusky. And as expected these red flags are being ignored by the news media who have their own ground to defend, their own myths to perpetuate and then there are those who will swallow almost anything they are told by the media.

As for ?Freeh himself, the Board of Trustees who has botched every possible decison from the beginning couldnt have made a worse decision in choosing Freeh to do the investigation. As pointed out here the other day, Freeh had the reputation in Washington DC of being a political hack. He was excoriated by former Republican governor Tom Kane as Chairman of the 911 Commission who tore Freeh to shreds for his incompetence as FBI director in his handling of terrorist related intelligence prior to 911. And as recently as April of 2012, appearing before a congressional committee, Freeh was battered by the committee investigating the bankruptcy of MF Global for which Freeh and his group were overseeing, for Freeh's refusal to turn over relevant documents to federal regulators.


All indications were that the Freeh Report was going to be the product of a political hack. And the report did not disappoint.

Freeh forgets one important fact: within days of the story breaking back in November, Paterno called a press conference where he was going to tell everything he knew, everything he heard and everything he did regarding the Sandusky incident and was going to take questions from reporters. It was Penn State university officials and the Board of Trustees who forced him to cancel it. So right from the beginning who does the evidence show was trying to shield Penn State from bad publicity? Joe Paterno or the Board of Trustees who paid Freeh $ 6 million for his report?

Freeh claims a 1998 email from Curley to Schultz proves that Paterno knew all about Sandusky . . . To an ethical investigator that email would be a lead NOT proof. Why does Curley refer to Paterno as "Joe" in other emails and "Coach" in this one? How do we know this relates to the Sandusky investigation involving child abuse? Where are the corroborating emails that make this clear when on would think there would be many? Where are Harmon's emails confirming this? And most importantly why does the Freeh report say " the reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno".
 
One other crucial point: the 1998 investigation which included a psychologist interviewing both Sandusky and the children he showered with and said their accounts were the same found that NO ABUSE had taken place. If one wants to argue that Paterno knew of the investigation then one has to accept he knew about the results of the investigation and those results exonerated Sandusky of any wrong doing. In that case there would be nothing for Paterno to do.

And there is much more in the original article.  Later, in another blog post, he writes:

On July 7, Don Vanatta, a writer for ESPN Magazine, writing on the leaked emails wrote:
'A source who has reveiwed all the early 2001 emails said that the few that have been leaked 'are definitely out of context' "

Vanatta went on to say that his source who has seen all the emails suggested that the one email used by CNN to make insinuations about Paterno was selectively leaked to put everyone in the worst possible light.

John Ziegler echoes many of these problems with the evidence of this report.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand how people can look at the whole picture here and not have serious issues.

Why were the emails leaked?  For what purpose?  The Freeh Report states that it evaluated 3.5 million pieces of electronic information but we are going to bludgeon Paterno in his grave over one or two?

Personally, when it was first released, I inferred from the email that Curley--on his own--decided to change the game plan and not report.  Curley was the one uncomfortable.  There was no "we" in that email.  Curley's a bright man.  He may not have been able to schedule a decent football opponent, but he ran a big business at Penn State and if he thought Paterno was trying to coerce things against the others, then he would have said so.  I don't think Joe used email.  Joe would not know what he said in those emails.

Now all this is not to say that there aren't some redeeming things to come of this report.

First of all, child molestation is a horrible, despicable crime.  It is important for Penn State to implement some policies and procedures so that people know what to do when/if something like this occurs.  I personally think that a big part of this whole mess was that no one was adequately prepared to evaluate the situation and make a decision to report or not report.

I continue to maintain that it is far too easy for us in 2012, with the benefit of hindsight, i.e. knowing all the different victim scenarios, to condemn those involved in 2001.  We will never know what Joe actually said to Curley.  We won't ever know what McQueary told them, although we might know what he thinks he recalls telling them and there is an important difference there.  Hopefully, the upcoming trials of Curley and Schultz will clear some of this up, but probably not.

Secondly, if the BOT wants to throw their weight around, then they better get a better handle on things.  There are people that automatically assume that Joe HAD to know everything.  I feel as though there had to be some BOT members, perhaps with Second Mile ties, that HAD to know something was going on.  But it's not clear to me whether their emails were included in all that "evidence."

Mistakes WERE made.  By people.  Perish the thought.  Unfortunately, innocent children suffered at the hands of Sandusky.  I honestly don't think Sandusky would have been stopped in 2001, anymore than he was stopped in 1998.  The only way I see a guaranteed different outcome is if McQueary had brought police into the shower that night.  Without a victim and with only his wishy-washy what-exactly-did-I-tell-Joe/my Dad/Dr. Dranov/Curley testimony, I'm not sure what anyone could have reasonably concluded at that time.  But extrapolating those mistakes to prove a cover-up to protect Penn State is like trying to decipher the intent of the voter from an ambiguous ballot.

Finally, let's pray that something like this never happens again.