HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Paterno family: Freeh rep...

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:51 PM

Paterno family: Freeh report 'factually wrong'

Source: CNN

The family of the late Joe Paterno released a report Sunday morning that absolved the coaching great of blame in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal and said a prior review commissioned by Penn State University was "factually wrong, speculative and fundamentally flawed. "

Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh put together the new report, the Paterno family said in a written statement.

"The experts determined that the conclusions of the (university) report are based on raw speculation and unsupported opinion -- not facts and evidence," Thornburgh said, according to the statement.

Louis Freeh, who authored the university report released in July, said the family review was "self-serving."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/10/us/paterno-family-report/index.html

50 replies, 4500 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply Paterno family: Freeh report 'factually wrong' (Original post)
alp227 Feb 2013 OP
Archae Feb 2013 #1
SoapBox Feb 2013 #9
Tom Ripley Feb 2013 #2
blm Feb 2013 #14
Tom Ripley Feb 2013 #47
strongermessage Feb 2013 #3
frylock Feb 2013 #4
awoke_in_2003 Feb 2013 #7
Mutatis Mutandis Feb 2013 #17
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #5
HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #6
rickford66 Feb 2013 #11
ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2013 #13
rickford66 Feb 2013 #22
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #24
rickford66 Feb 2013 #26
ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2013 #28
rickford66 Feb 2013 #30
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #29
rickford66 Feb 2013 #31
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #39
rickford66 Feb 2013 #34
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #42
rickford66 Feb 2013 #43
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #45
Cosmocat Feb 2013 #41
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #8
starroute Feb 2013 #10
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #12
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #15
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #23
Dawson Leery Feb 2013 #16
we can do it Feb 2013 #18
RobinA Feb 2013 #19
msanthrope Feb 2013 #20
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #25
happyslug Feb 2013 #32
msanthrope Feb 2013 #35
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #40
msanthrope Feb 2013 #44
RobinA Feb 2013 #49
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #50
tammywammy Feb 2013 #21
happyslug Feb 2013 #33
msanthrope Feb 2013 #37
tammywammy Feb 2013 #38
Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #48
happyslug Feb 2013 #27
msanthrope Feb 2013 #36
arely staircase Feb 2013 #46

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:04 PM

1. Just more of the "Joe can do no wrong" cult...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:02 AM

9. Super ditto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:08 PM

2. Not surprising coming from a real sleazebag like Thornburgh (just ask the Dwyer family)...




Real horror in Pennsylvania; A Review of "Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer"

Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer
March 15, 2011
By: Scott Ruth

As the Philadelphia Horror Examiner, I realize that horror is not always the thing of fiction. Horror doesn't always have to come from the mind of a writer who dreamt of a story that involved a masked serial killer set out to avenge the lost love of his life. Sometimes horror is a very real part of our lives.

One such tale of real life horror took place here in Pennsylvania in the late 1980s. It involved a politician who had been accused of a crime and these accusations caused this man to make a drastic decision that would have a major impact on himself, his family, the state of Pennsylvania and human beings all acrosss the globe. There was horror in the claims made against a man known for being above reproach, and there was horror in the actions that this man was driven to take.
Back in the early 1980s, a reporter brought pertinent information regarding then Governor of Pennsylvania Dick Thornburgh's misappropriation of state funds to the attention of Pennsylvania state Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer.

Dwyer was informed that Thornburgh was billing the state for luxurious chauffer-driven transportation services rendered to his (Thornburgh's) wife and children. Dwyer, a man known for always doing the right thing, refused to allow the state to be made to pay for services that were not related to the governor's duty.

The treasurer's act of forcing the Thornburgh's to pay their own bills, rather then to allow the taxpayers of the state of Pennsylvania to be forced to foot the bill, would be the first domino to fall, which would start a proverbial Rube Goldberg of events that would culminate in the very public suicide of Robert "Budd" Dwyer

more at:
http://www.examiner.com/review/real-horror-pennsylvania-a-review-of-honest-man-the-life-of-r-budd-dwyer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Ripley (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:14 AM

14. Thornburgh feared nothing because he was a Bush family MADE MAN by then.

He's as corrupt as they come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:06 PM

47. Yes and yes

He is a piece of bad work

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:26 PM

3. Paterno - Republican/Thornburgh-Republican

Nothing else to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:53 PM

4. seems legit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:30 AM

7. Like an eight dollar bill. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:15 AM

17. as legit as Thornburgh on the Ali G Show

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:10 AM

5. Uh huh. Sure.

And unicorns exist and fairies live in the garden under toadstools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:17 AM

6. What a load of horse dung.

The family hires an investigator who "clears" him? Color me surprised...

The simple facts:
An assistant coach witnessed a criminal act and reported it to Paterno. Paterno did not report it to police, but discussed the matter with University officials. The University officials did not report it to police, but decided to sweep it under the rug. They removed Sandusky from his duties, but permitted him continued access to athletic facilities. There is certainly plenty of blame to be shared here, and I fail to see how Paterno can be absolved of his share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:37 AM

11. get your facts straight

The campus police ARE police. Paterno reported what he was told (legal hearsay I believe). He had no first hand knowledge. Sandusky had retired long before this happened. He was molesting boys at the Second Mile charity for years with no punishment from them. We have been foster parents. When it comes to child molestation, you report it and can't discuss it with anyone. When Gov Corbet was AG he declined to prosecute Sandusky. I would think he is more to blame than Paterno. Why was the NCAA involved in any of this? If an English professor was caught molesting some boys at PSU, would they still penalize innocent football players? I think the new AG will be unearthing some interesting dirt, as long as she stays out of small planes. One prosecutor "disappeared" already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:34 AM

13. Disgusting post.

He turned his back on those kids, end of story. He could have done more, any decent person would have done more.

At the very least he looked the other way, at worst he helped cover it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:36 PM

22. I addressed the facts

Paterno is portrayed as the one who enabled all this. There's wealthy individuals and elected officials who knew more than him and were very much involved well before he was alerted. The present Governor is more guilty than anyone at Penn State. He decided not to prosecute Sandusky when presented with evidence years before the incident at Penn State. My post wasn't to absolve Paterno, but to set the facts straight. The post I addressed was not factual. As time goes on, the whole truth will hopefully become public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:01 PM

24. Bullshit and you know it

Go back and see when the earliest accusations were, and how long Sandusky had been "retired" until that point...

Sandusky was Paterno's closest assistant and the two had been friends for 35+ years...Paterno should have been the first person to confront Sandusky directly instead of closing his eyes and keeping the situation at arm's length...

The NCAA got involved because lest you forget, little boys got raped at on-campus PSU football facilities repeatedly...Habitually...What does it fucking say about your program that someone can do this over a number of years with no fear of consequence? Also, the coverup was set in motion for no other reason to protect the reputation of the football program, i.e., the very definition of "lack of institutional control"... Nevermind the fact that Sandusky used a lot of the program's clout and prestige to get donations and get a steady stream of potential victims to pull from...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:32 PM

26. oh?

Sandusky retired when he was informed that he wouldn't be the next head coach. It was well known that Paterno and Sandusky didn't hang out together away from the football program. They didn't get along. No NCAA rules were broken. How does penalizing innocent athletes help the victims? Paterno is dead, so you can blame him for everything. I'm saying that there are a number others, politicians and wealthy pedophiles who traded young kids at the Second Mile. There's more than enough blame to go around. If there was a cover up to protect the schools reputation, all aspects of the school should be affected. Why just football? A variety of sports programs used the facilities. I'll repeat what I've said before. Sandusky was accused of this years before the Penn State incident. Nothing was done then. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:44 PM

28. ::YAWN::

Do you make a habit out of defending pedophile enablers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:05 PM

30. no

I believe facts over opinion. Paterno "could" have done more. He "should" have done more. Did he have first hand knowledge of the abuse? No. Did he pass on what he was told to the police? Yes. Could he have conducted his own investigation? I suppose. McQuery reported all this to Paterno. Why didn't he follow up on what he "actually" saw? His story has changed a few times. What story did he tell Paterno? McQuery told his father the same story. Are his father's actions equal to Paterno's? I'm not defending anyone. My wife and I have been foster parents. We reported some abuse to the proper authorities. In turn I was accused of abuse. You can't just make accusation without all the facts. Katharine Kane, the new AG, put this investigation at the top of her list. And how is asking for facts considered "defending pedophile enablers" ? I can accuse you of anything I want. In fact I saw you molest a young child. Prove you didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:02 PM

29. Paterno was the head coach, so he SHOULD get the blame for fucking everything

it's his program! The buck stops with him, as it does for any other major college sports program...

And WHY didn't Paterno and Sandusky supposedly "get along" after working together for three and a half decades? You're only helping to prove the point that Paterno and/or the athletic department knew something wasn't right, and decided to build a virtual 'buffer zone' instead of actually doing something about him....

For the love of god, please STOP with that "no NCAA rules were broken" meme, which is the same logically bankrupt Teabaggerese screeching about how there's nothing about gay rights or clean air quality in the constitution...The players aren't 'punished' since there is still a team to play for, and they are free to transfer to wherever they want (FWIW, PSU got off light when they got to keep their TV appearances)...It's clear you know jack shit about NCAA compliance (nor history, since programs have been outright eliminated for a lot less than this) so just file it under "LOIC" and drop it...

No matter how you try to shift it, the football program is still to blame...Without it, Sandusky doesn't have a successful charity and a means to abuse so many boys on and off campus (you know he regularly took victims to PSU road games and bowl games, right?), and the head coach/AD/VP/president aren't all shitting on their hands, hoping the problem would quietly go away with no one finding out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:18 PM

31. OK

You are correct. I'm not an expert on NCAA rules. What specific rules were broken? What programs were eliminated for a lot less? Who knows why they didn't get along. Maybe Sandusky had bad breath. So the football program is guilty of everything Sandusky ever did or will do because he worked there. Interesting logic. When there are criminal trials about the cover up, heresay and opinions will be outweighed by facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:30 PM

39. First off, just stop acting like PSU football got the death penalty or something

1. $60 million fine (virtual chump change)
2. 4-year bowl ban
3. Loss of 20 scholarships per year for four years
4. 5 years probation
5. Paterno's wins vacated from 1998-2011

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2012/July/21207232

#5 is what this song-and-dance is really about, since the football program will be fine as long as they keep their noses clean...Is the football program directly responsible? No...Did it go a LONG way towards enabling Sandusky? yes...And lest you forget, the trial into the cover-up is starting soon, so we'll see under oath exactly who knew what, and when...




Here is the chapter and verse of bylaws violated:

2.1 Scope of Responsibility.

The institution's responsibility for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes responsibility for the actions of its staff members and for the actions of any other individual or organization engaged in activities promoting the athletics interests of the institution.

2.4 The Principle of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.

For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program. It is the responsibility of each institution to:

(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational mission and goals of the institution; and

(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the policies in this article.

6.01.1 Institutional Control.

The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control.

6.4 Responsibilities for Actions of Outside Entities.

6.4.1 Independent Agencies or Organizations.

An institution's "responsibility" for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of an independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration, or an athletics department staff member, has knowledge that such agency, corporate entity or other organization is promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program.

6.4.2 Representatives of Athletics Interests.

An institution's "responsibility" for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of individuals, a corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration or an athletics department staff member has knowledge or should have knowledge that such an individual, corporate entity or other organization:

(a) Has participated in or is a member of an agency or organization as described in Constitution 6.4.1;

(b) Has made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;

(c) Has been requested by the athletics department staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or is assisting in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;

(d) Has assisted or is assisting in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes; or

(e) Is otherwise involved in promoting the institution's athletics program.

6.4.2.1 Agreement to Provide Benefit or Privilege.

Any agreement between an institution (or any organization that promotes, assists or augments in any way the athletics interests of the member institution, including those identified per Constitution 6.4.1) and an individual who, for any consideration, is or may be entitled under the terms of the agreement to any benefit or privilege relating to the institution's athletics program, shall contain a specific clause providing that any such benefit or privilege may be withheld if the individual has engaged in conduct that is determined to be a violation of NCAA legislation. The clause shall provide for the withholding of the benefit or privilege from a party to the agreement and any other person who may be entitled to a benefit or privilege under the terms of the agreement.

6.4.2.2 Retention of Identity as "Representative."

Any individual participating in the activities set forth in Constitution 6.4.2 shall be considered a "representative of the institution's athletics interests," and once so identified as a representative, it is presumed the person retains that identity.
Division I Bylaw References

10.01.1 Honesty and sportsmanship.

Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.

10.1 Unethical Conduct.

Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual's institution;

(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete;

(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;

(d) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the individual's institution false or misleading information concerning an individual's involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation;

(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner");

(f) Knowing involvement in providing a banned substance or impermissible supplement to student-athletes, or knowingly providing medications to student-athletes contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care in sports medicine practice, or state and federal law. This provision shall not apply to banned substances for which the student-athlete has received a medical exception per Bylaw 31.2.3.5; however, the substance must be provided in accordance with medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care and state or federal law;

(g) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or an institution's admissions office regarding an individual's academic record (e.g., schools attended, completion of coursework, grades and test scores);

(h) Fraudulence or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement examinations;

(i) Engaging in any athletics competition under an assumed name or with intent to otherwise deceive; or

(j) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or the institution's athletics department regarding an individual's amateur status.

11.1.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship.

Individuals employed by or associated with a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports. (See Bylaw 10 for more specific ethical-conduct standards.)

11.1.2.1 Responsibility of Head Coach.

It shall be the responsibility of an institution's head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.

19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct.

Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2012/July/21207235

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:49 PM

34. I'm going to let you in on a little secret

Pedophiles are very clever. You probably know at least one and you're doing nothing about it. Why not? My wife was molested as a child and it has affected her since. No one suspected the guy. A respected, well known, popular educator. Unless you witness first hand the abuse, can you accuse someone? My wife and I don't take this lightly. Understand that I would never cover up such actions. The victims are on the most part old enough to relate what happened and to be believed. If nothing comes of the investigation and trials, then the buck stopped at Paterno because he was the head coach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:08 PM

42. By that token, we probably both casually know a secret axe-murderer

and aren't doing anything about it...That's how sociopaths operate...

And yes, as I grew up I was shocked to see the mugshot of my very popular elementary school art teacher in the paper (turns out he was a multiple offender and convicted); and years later my old HS principal (catholic priest, charges were dropped)...Never for a moment suspected either of them, and they had the widespread admiration of all the kids...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:36 PM

43. yes

All I'm saying is There's plenty of blame to go around. For each of Sandusky's victims, there's a thousand kids who would vouch for him because he didn't molest them. So, eagle-eye Paterno (thick glasses and all) was the sole person responsible who should have seen through the deception and uncovered the whole thing and convince the authorities to prosecute. Wow. A regular Columbo. In reference to the post with all the NCAA rules, which one/ones were Penn State accused of breaking? I've never seen that published. One of the victims related an incident on TV, where he and several other victims were questioned by police and they weren't believed. The police he said told them that Sandusky and the other "gentlemen" would never do such a thing. A lot of corruption should be uncovered in PA, not just the Sandusky scandal, but with the gas industry and some of the prison abuses etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:55 PM

45. RE: NCAA rules

All of them...Please go to the NCAA site I linked to and read up on specifics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:59 PM

41. Horsehockey

just because there are other people who did nothing does not make it ok that Paterno did nothing.

He knew about the 98 investigation and had McQuery tell him about the 02 incident, then stood by and did nothing while Sandusky continued to have access (including his own office) to the football facilities with young children for well over half a decade after the 02 incident. Sandusky violated countless children in those facilities after the 02 incident.

He was the most influencial person in the university/town/county. He very well had the capacity to deny him access to the football facilities.

The family should just let this drop.

No good comes from this, and any backlash that results is THEIR fault.

People would be satisified to let well enough alone with this, but the family is on a jihad to try to make people who know otherwise think he was some combination of saint/unwitting dupe.

He did a lot of great things, but he is equally as guilty as Spanier, Curley and Shultz in enabling Sandusky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:51 AM

8. Didn't they say the same thing 6 months ago?

This amounts to a 'Nuh-Uh!' response to the original findings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:07 AM

10. You mean Dick "Iran-Contra Coverup" Thornburgh?

Sounds about right.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-23/news/mn-278_1_national-security

Citing national security concerns, Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh on Wednesday filed an unprecedented affidavit to withhold sensitive government documents from the trial of a former ranking CIA officer in the Iran-Contra scandal.

The move--which could lead to dismissal of all charges against Joseph F. Fernandez, former CIA station chief in Costa Rica--marked the first use of a power granted to the attorney general under the 1980 Classified Information Procedures Act.

Fernandez helped set up an airstrip to assist former White House aide Oliver L. North in arming the Contras at a time when Congress had banned all military assistance to them. Fernandez is charged on four counts of false statements and obstruction of government inquiries into the Iran-Contra scandal.


http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/20/us/thornburgh-urged-to-limit-iran-contra-role.html

The independent prosecutor in the Iran-contra cases said today that the Attorney General should stay out of those cases unless he believes that national security considerations are sufficient to cancel a trial entirely.

That comment to reporters by the prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, came after his closed two-hour appearance before a House Intelligence subcommittee that is considering whether to change the 1980 law that addresses how to handle cases in which the defense tries to introduce sensitive Government information as evidence.

The law, the Classified Information Procedures Act, gives the Attorney General the right to bar such evidence by certifying that its disclosure might jeopardize national security. But it does not say specifically whether he must act broadly and end the prosecution, as Mr. Walsh asserted today that he should, or whether he may act in piecemeal fashion, as Attorney General Dick Thornburgh has done in two recent cases by appealing the trial judges' secrecy orders. One Trial Postponed

One such appeal forced Mr. Walsh to drop three important conspiracy and fraud counts against Oliver L. North, the first of the defendants to stand trial. But Mr. North was eventually convicted on three other counts, including destroying Government documents, and was fined, given a suspended prison term and ordered to perform public service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:37 AM

12. Nice try for the Paterno family. Instead of accepting that wrong had been done...

and going forward and not sinning further, and being ashamed of the behavior, they try to whitewash it. How embarrassing for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:19 AM

15. Outside The Lines covered this yesterday

Sadly the entire panel consisted of the writers of the "new" report. their claims were, bluntly, preposterous. "Joe followed the rules". "Joe had no first hand knowledge so he couldn't really file a report". 20 minutes of manure spreading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:50 PM

23. Yeah, it's a shameful whitewashing PR offensive

Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Too many people still refuse to believe Paterno or the football program have any blame whatsoever in this scandal, and that it's been some sort of "witch hunt"...

And to the writers of the "new" report, I just want to know what evidence, interviews or information they uncovered that contradicts any of the major findings of the Freeh report...

..Edit...I just got home and espn is more shameless than I thought...They are in full blown 'rehab paterno mode', and everyone has a national stage to shovel bullshit on the freeh report without fear of challenge or rebuttal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:53 AM

16. Joe let his players slide on behavioral problems as well.

He is a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:21 AM

18. Fuck the child raping pigs and their supporters. Holy Joe should have done the right thing.

also, anyone who thinks football is more important than a child safe environment can go to hell with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:56 AM

19. Regardless

of anyone's opinion of Paterno, Penn State, or any other party to the god-forsaken mess, no one should be comfortable with decisions being made or opinions being formed based on the extremely speculative and poorly reasoned Freeh report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:38 PM

20. Kindly tell us what is speculative and poorly reasoned in Freeh's report, with cites. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:10 PM

25. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer...

It's clear that the self-styled defenders of Paterno's legacy all got the memo to always attach "highly speculative and poorly reasoned" with the Freeh report, because I've only seen the phrase a thousand times this past weekend....

Of course, don't expect them to elaborate or have new facts themselves...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:22 PM

32. You should read the Actual report, it addresses your objections

The most significant failures of the Freeh Report are as follows:

 The Freeh Report claims that Mr. Paterno knew about the 1998 incident involving
Mr. Sandusky at or about the time that it occurred. However, there is no credible
support provided in the Freeh Report for what, if anything, Mr. Paterno was aware
of concerning the 1998 incident prior to 2011. Indeed, the Freeh Report ignored
contrary evidence that Mr. Paterno did not have such knowledge. Instead, the
Report relies upon a vague 1998 e-mail chain that does not directly reference Mr.
Paterno. The Report also claims that, since unnamed “itnesses consistently told the that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew ‘everything that was going on,’” he must have known about the 1998 incident. Mr. Paterno testified to the grand jury that he did not recall the incident. In press interviews, he also stated that he did not recall learning about the allegation. I am aware of no witness who has challenged the veracity of Mr. Paterno’s statements.

 The Freeh Report concludes that Mr. Paterno must have conspired with Messrs.
Curley and Schultz and Dr. Spanier to conceal the 2001 incident because: (1) Mr.
Paterno wielded “excessive influence” at the University; (2) two documents, neither of which was sent or received by Mr. Paterno, refer to a meeting between Mr. Curley and Mr. Paterno concerning the incident; and (3) Mr. Curley, whom “several” unidentified people interviewed during the SIC’s investigation described as Mr. Paterno’s “errand boy,” decided not to report the incident to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. This does not provide proper or sufficient evidence for such a bold claim.

 Numerous sworn witness statements and other accounts, some of which were
referenced in the Freeh Report, describe the extent to which persons beyond
Messrs. Curley, Schultz and Paterno and Dr. Spanier were aware of the 1998 and
2001 incidents. This is strong evidence that there was no cover-up.

 Mr. Freeh’s mischaracterization of an e-mail critical to his Report at his July 12,
2012 press conference announcing his findings is emblematic of the SIC’s
unjustified inferences and the flaws in the Report. Mr. Freeh stated that an e-mail
showed that it was Mr. Paterno who decided not to report to authorities the 2001
shower incident involving Mr. Sandusky and a young boy. However, this is not what the e-mail states. The e-mail suggests that it was Mr. Curley’s decision not to report the 2001 incident to authorities and does not state that Mr. Paterno was involved in such a decision or that he was even aware of it. Mr. Freeh did not supply any other evidence at the press conference to support the proposition that Mr. Paterno was involved in or aware of the decision. Indeed, the Report acknowledges that it was Mr. Curley’s decision and not Mr. Paterno’s in its “key findings” about the 2001 incident.

 The Freeh Report claims that it conducted a “complete” investigation. This is not accurate because, despite the fact that it supposedly conducted 430 interviews, the SIC did not speak to virtually any of the persons who had the most important and relevant information. Three of the most crucial individuals—Messrs. Paterno, Schultz and Curley—were never interviewed. Michael McQueary, the sole witness to the 2001 incident, was also not interviewed. Another important individual, Dr. Spanier, was interviewed, but just days before the Freeh Report was issued. The usefulness of the Report is also restricted because many of the interviewees cited are not identified, limiting the reader’s ability to weigh the witnesses’ credibility and reliability.

 The failure to conduct key interviews is all the more consequential because of the
lack of relevant documents. Although the SIC purported to review over 3.5 million documents, the Freeh Report references and relies upon only approximately 30 documents, including 17 e-mails. Significantly, the Freeh Report cites only four documents that purportedly reference Mr. Paterno, none of which were sent to him, and only three documents containing notes authored by him. Although not mentioned in the Report, Penn State reportedly did not retain most e-mails dated prior to 2004 because of a technology changeover, making it impossible to search and review the vast majority of e-mails that must have existed during the critical time periods of 1998 and 2001. Indeed, the only emails apparently available to the SIC prior to 2004 were those that were saved personally by Mr. Schultz. Particularly in matters in which the relevant events took place more than ten years ago, contemporaneous e-mails are important sources of information. Mr. Freeh should have disclosed this serious shortcoming in his analysis.


http://paterno.com/Resources/Docs/THORNBURGH_FINAL_REPORT_2-7-2013.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:57 PM

35. I'm sorry, this is not what I asked for. I asked for specific cites from the Freeh report that

indicated the poster's conclusion. As for the Paterno family whitewash, I cannot believe you think this proves anything other than that the Paterno family thinks Penn state fans are idiots. For example, if you cannot imagine why 2 criminal defendants and a state's witness declined to be interviewed by Freeh, then you truly are not applying logic. I'm betting none of those witnesses spoke to the Paterno whitewash, either, did they?

I get that Dickie Thornburgh is eager to keep Corbett in the governorship, but those of us watching the 2014 race aren't fooled for a second. Papa Joe and Jerry ran the Second Mile Foundation as a way to funnel money to conservative candidates in PA, and that's why Paterno looked the other way when it came to pedophilia.

Joe Paterno hung himself with his grand jury testimony, sinking his son's political aspirations in PA, and endangering the family's parasitic businesses. No amount of whitewash changes that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:45 PM

40. Michael McQueary probably couldn't be interviewed on the advice of legal counsel

Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)

since he had to testify at the trial...Of course the Paterno family neglects that little tidbit, and just lets that statement hang so people assume whatever...I mean, seriously...Is that the best they've got?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/12/12183531-ex-coach-mcqueary-testifies-no-doubt-he-saw-sandusky-having-sex-with-young-boy?lite

I guess the Paterno family is free to interview him now, if they want...But *nothing* changes as far as Paterno and his legacy is concerned -- He's either complicit in actively ignoring/covering it up, or he was criminally negligent in his lack of oversight (there is no possible path of inquiry that would not arrive at one conclusion or the other)...And don't pretend for a second that he wouldn't be on trial along with Spanier and the rest were he still living...

Fine, Thornburgh's people can question the veracity of this or that witness, and poke random holes in a thousand-page report; but until I see something reversing major findings of the Freeh report, until Thornburgh conducts his own independent investigation from square one, it's all talk....all bullshit...

Facts will win out in the end...Go talk to Sandusky in prison right now, or his wife, and they'll still weave a tapestry on how this whole thing was a witchhunt based on a simple misunderstanding from the start...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:52 PM

44. Well, McQueary is still a state's witness--there are outstanding criminal trials, and his testimony

in the Grand Jury and the trial of Sandusky are public record.....

So if Freeh did not interview him, he actually had more reliable evidence to go with--sworn testimony provided in court.

This is a whitewash, and I hope Mrs. Paterno feels better for it. But no one else is fooled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:51 PM

49. Thanks, But No

The report is there for anyone to read. I'm not going to give a lesson on recognizing speculation and poor reasoning. If you are really interested in what's wrong with the Freeh report, for starters you might want to look up "confirmation error."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #49)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 07:11 PM

50. So you've got nothing...Thanks for being upfront about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:18 PM

21. Please expand on what you believe was "extremely speculative and poorly reasoned". n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:24 PM

33. Read the report, it addresses your concerns,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:04 PM

37. No--it was the Freeh report that was referenced by the poster. Not this report.

Show us where, specifically, you draw your conclusions from in the Freeh report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:19 PM

38. The poster referred to the Freeh report, not the new one by the Paterno family

I was asking for what that poster found speculative in the Freeh report, not what the new Paterno family report states. But thanks anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:27 PM

48. I've read the whitewash and it addresses none of my main questions

Your turn...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:38 PM

27. The Actual Report, if you want to read it, rather then read opinions on it.

Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

http://paterno.com/Resources/Docs/THORNBURGH_FINAL_REPORT_2-7-2013.pdf

Conclusion
When the evidence relied upon in the Freeh Report is considered in an objective manner, it is clear that findings in the Report are not accurate, supportable or fair. There is no direct evidence that Mr. Paterno was aware of the 1998 incident or the investigation that followed. Furthermore, there are no credible facts in the Freeh Report to support its principal finding against Mr. Paterno that he conspired with others to cover up the 2001 incident. A review of a chronology of relevant events shows this lack of support:

 Mr. McQueary witnessed a young boy and Mr. Sandusky in the shower in the locker room of the Lasch Building on the night of February 9, 2001. The SIC never interviewed Mr. McQueary.

 Mr. McQueary then described what he witnessed that night to his father, John McQueary, and McQueary family friend, Dr. Dranov. Neither was interviewed by the SIC. Both men testified that Mr. McQueary never told them that what he saw and heard in the locker room was sexual in nature. Both men also testified that they told Mr. McQueary to report the incident to Mr. Paterno.

 Pursuant to the elder McQueary and Dr. Dranov’s suggestion, Mr. McQueary informed Mr. Paterno about the incident the next day. The SIC never interviewed Mr. Paterno.

 Mr. Paterno reported the matter to Messrs. Curley and/or Schultz, who both then spoke to Mr. McQueary. The SIC never interviewed either Mr. Curley or Mr. Schultz.

 Mr. Schultz then spoke to Mr. Courtney, an outside lawyer for the University, about the 2001 incident. The SIC did not interview Mr. Courtney.

 Mr. Schultz also spoke to Dr. Raykovitz at the Second Mile, who reportedly spoke to at least two other people affiliated with the charity. The SIC did not interview Dr. Raykovitz and there is no indication that the SIC interviewed the other two people he informed.

The fact that there is also no evidence that Mr. Paterno or anyone else ever instructed these individuals or others not to discuss the incident further undermines the finding that Mr. Paterno conspired with others to cover up the 2001 incident. This lack of evidence supporting the Report’s most scathing findings and the serious flaws with respect to the process of the SIC’s investigation cause me to conclude that the Report’s findings concerning Mr. Paterno are unjust and wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:59 PM

36. Again...this isn't what was asked for. Cite the Freeh report and tell us what was wrong

with it, with direct citations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:05 PM

46. paterno's estate absolves self of wrongdoing

is more like it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread