Just The Facts About Joe Paterno

[GTACSA]

WTF are you talking about. Here, let me google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=louis+freeh+altered+emails

Asshole!

I pray you didn't go to college after a post like that.

Lets review the sequence once more.

wensilver said: "You are choosing to believe what Louis Freeh placed in that report - and Freeh has had a history of altering emails." Notice how wensilver referenced the Freeh report and said he had a history of altering emails. In plain English that means he had a history of altering emails BEFORE the Penn State report.

Note also that when I asked the poster for an example they referenced the Christine Reitano case and didn't reference the Penn State report because it was obvious that their reference to a history of emails was in the context of pre Freeh Penn State report. I would think the poster knew what they meant.

Perhaps after this gaffe of yours you should look in the mirror when you feel compelled to direct profanity at someone.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

You said you googled "louis freeh altered e-mails" and got no results, zero, nada, zilch. You didn't say you googled louis freeh altered e-mails other than Penn State, or before Penn State.

BTW, I googled "investigations f***ed by Louis Freeh" (using the real letters of course) and got >11,000 results.

 

[GTACSA]

No, you don't get to modify your or interpret your argument now. Go back and read your email you dick head. Follow on emails had something to do Reitano but the original one that I, and you, replied did not. YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT! Now, follow the link I gave you and explain how the emails in the report were altered. I'm sure you can recognize an altered email because no doubt you've tried to alter them yourself. You should also read this piece you asshole.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/24/why-louis-freeh-should-be-investigated-for-911/

I really feel sorry for you. One of these days you'll perhaps wake up from...........

 

[GTACSA]

You said you googled "louis freeh altered e-mails" and got no results, zero, nada, zilch. You didn't say you googled louis freeh altered e-mails other than Penn State, or before Penn State.

BTW, I googled "investigations f***ed by Louis Freeh" (using the real letters of course) and got >11,000 results.

Context Grasshopper, context.

The post I replied to stated: You are choosing to believe what Louis Freeh placed in that report - and Freeh has had a history of altering emails.

Now follow this very carefully if you are able; my response was in the context of the issue being discussed, ie. that Freeh had a history of altering emails.(past tense) I see that when "sleepy" posted his link he had no results either relating to a history of altered emails.

You see history or a track record requires more than one event. If the Cubs win the World Series this year nobody will say they have a history of winning the Series in the past 100 years.

I really thought this was pretty elementary; but I guess not for everybody.

 

[artsandletters]

Guess that is why she is always posting about how nobody listens to her or takes any action based on her input.

Just exactly what does she win?

You sound like Homer Simpson. "Kids, you've tried and you've failed. The lesson is to never try again."

Wasn't there a movie called 'Ungrateful Bastards'?

 

[psuro]

Guess that is why she is always posting about how nobody listens to her or takes any action based on her input.

Just exactly what does she win?

Well, she has me crushing on her like a lovelorn schoolboy.

Which could be considered either a win....or a loss. Depending on her point of view.

 

[wensilver]

I'm not arguing that Freeh proved some conspiracy to protect football.

I've openly stated Freeh's conclusions about Joe and football are asinine. All you have to do is compare Joe's testimony to the others he was supposedly part of a conspiracy with.

I'm talking about the evidence that C/S/S are lying when they claim they were told it was innocent horseplay and never suspected it was more.

It's clear that 98 was discussed in 2001. They're claiming it wasn't. Spanier is claiming he didn't know anything about it until 2011. That is an outright lie. He claims that he was never concerned about anything other than "how it would look". That's another lie.

Read the emails. You're being intentionally obtuse if you can't see they're talking about something more than horseplay. Spanier is a former family therapist that has done significant studies on sexuality. He knows what grooming is.

They decided it was better to pass the buck to TSM rather than report it themselves. Considering how TSM has escaped any scrutiny it's obvious TSM had major political clout. 3 administrators putting politics first isn't unheard of.

But keep pretending it's all a misunderstanding that's been manipulated, and that they wouldn't lie.

The arguing over the emails is a red herring. Why y'all continue to spin over them is baffling, unless certain posters come here to advance an agenda on behalf of the pornslinging prosecution under Tom Corbett's tenure.

Let's put it all into context and it has Tom Corbett's fingerprints all over it.

• Corbett had these emails well before the shitstorm happened. Freeh wasn't even on the radar.
  
• Snippets of these emails were leaked to the press in advance of July 12, 2012. Curiously, the OAG & Freeh have "no idea" how this happened. Uh huh.
  
• Freeh lied to the nation when he claimed his team discovered these emails. And the media is okay with that. Uh huh.
  
• To date, Freeh has not provided the original emails pulled from the server for review. Alrighty then.
  
• Freeh repackaged the Fina/Eshbach grand jury presentment. Penn State paid $8.5 million for something I could have run off at Kinko's.
  
• More specifically - Fina/Eshbach never charged Dr. Dranov, Dr. Raykovitz or Katherine Genovese, all three are professionals with a legal & ethical obligation to do more. Didn't Fina have a moral obligation to do more?

So what was the real purpose of these emails, why did Freeh use them specifically and why didn't Fina use them in his presentment? Fina had them well in hand in time to do so. Why not just charge Spanier along with Curley and Schultz? Fina knew that Curley reported to Second Mile. Why not charge Dranov, Raykovitz & Genovese as well and REALLY clean house of all these child rape enablers?

• It's reasonable to conclude that Freeh was looped in on Fina's flip strategy and working for the prosecution to nail Curley & Schultz to eventually take down Dr. Spanier.
  
• It's reasonable to conclude that these emails show that Second Mile was aware of the conduct of their Executive Director around minors and Dr. Raykovitz should have been charged.
  
• It's reasonable to conclude that if Dr. Raykovitz gets charged, that weakens the case against the ultimate target - Spanier.
  
• It's reasonable to conclude that our commonwealth was more interested in a trophy kill than truly investigating child sexual abuse at a children's charitable non-profit under their oversight.
• It's reasonable to conclude that Louis Freeh is perfectly comfortable lying in a nationally televised press conference.
• It's reasonable to conclude that Freeh was more interested in advancing the narrative out of the OAG, auditioning for the NCAA and lining his pockets than delivering a full, fair, independent investigation to the SITF and the Penn State community.

And all of that should concern you.

Penn State paid $8.5 million dollars for a report that was neither full, fair nor independent. Penn State was an unwitting enabler of this corrupt practice out of Harrisburg and paid for it.

The Board of Trustees was groomed & abused by Louis Freeh. If you think about it, Freeh is a Nice Guy/Pillar of the Community Offender.

And if you live in Pennsylvania, it should concern you greatly that a sitting Governor with a hard on for a university president can use his Office of Attorney General in this matter.

"It was a calculated risk" - Tom Corbett

 

[bdgan]

The arguing over the emails is a red herring. Why y'all continue to spin over them is baffling, unless certain posters come here to advance an agenda on behalf of the pornslinging prosecution under Tom Corbett's tenure.

Let's put it all into context and it has Tom Corbett's fingerprints all over it.

• Corbett had these emails well before the shitstorm happened. Freeh wasn't even on the radar.
  
• Snippets of these emails were leaked to the press in advance of July 12, 2012. Curiously, the OAG & Freeh have "no idea" how this happened. Uh huh.
  
• Freeh lied to the nation when he claimed his team discovered these emails. And the media is okay with that. Uh huh.
  
• To date, Freeh has not provided the original emails pulled from the server for review. Alrighty then.
  
• Freeh repackaged the Fina/Eshbach grand jury presentment. Penn State paid $8.5 million for something I could have run off at Kinko's.
  
• More specifically - Fina/Eshbach never charged Dr. Dranov, Dr. Raykovitz or Katherine Genovese, all three are professionals with a legal & ethical obligation to do more. Didn't Fina have a moral obligation to do more?

So what was the real purpose of these emails, why did Freeh use them specifically and why didn't Fina use them in his presentment? Fina had them well in hand in time to do so. Why not just charge Spanier along with Curley and Schultz? Fina knew that Curley reported to Second Mile. Why not charge Dranov, Raykovitz & Genovese as well and REALLY clean house of all these child rape enablers?

• It's reasonable to conclude that Freeh was looped in on Fina's flip strategy and working for the prosecution to nail Curley & Schultz to eventually take down Dr. Spanier.
  
• It's reasonable to conclude that these emails show that Second Mile was aware of the conduct of their Executive Director around minors and Dr. Raykovitz should have been charged.
  
• It's reasonable to conclude that if Dr. Raykovitz gets charged, that weakens the case against the ultimate target - Spanier.
  
• It's reasonable to conclude that our commonwealth was more interested in a trophy kill than truly investigating child sexual abuse at a children's charitable non-profit under their oversight.

And all of that should concern you.

Penn State paid $8.5 million dollars for a report that was neither full, fair nor independent. Penn State was an unwitting enabler of this corrupt practice out of Harrisburg and paid for it.

The Board of Trustees was groomed & abused by Louis Freeh. If you think about it, Freeh is a Nice Guy/Pillar of the Community Offender.

And if you live in Pennsylvania, it should concern you greatly that a sitting Governor with a hard on for a university president can use his Office of Attorney General in this matter.

"It was a calculated risk" - Tom Corbett

I think the best way to alter the national narrative is to get the media to write about why people like Fina, Dranov, Raykovitz & Genovese didn't do more. The public doesn't want to hear more defense of Joe.

 

[psuro]

I think the best way to alter the national narrative is to get the media to write about why people like Fina, Dranov, Raykovitz & Genovese didn't do more. The public doesn't want to hear more defense of Joe.

They care even less about four people they have never heard of.

 

[wensilver]

I think the best way to alter the national narrative is to get the media to write about why people like Fina, Dranov, Raykovitz & Genovese didn't do more. The public doesn't want to hear more defense of Joe.

To quote Louis Freeh when queried on this very subject - "you raise a good question" < exit stage left >

The national media is too stupid and names like Fina, Dranov, Raykovitz and Genovese don't ensure someone will click on your article.

 

[bdgan]

They care even less about four people they have never heard of.

I agree that's a problem. I think we need a Ganim type who wants to make a name for themselves. It wouldn't be anything like bringing down the great JoePa but it would still be a good story if you could document as a matter of fact the number of non PSU people that knew about 2001.

 

[psuro]

I agree that's a problem. I think we need a Ganim type who wants to make a name for themselves. It wouldn't be anything like bringing down the great JoePa but it would still be a good story if you could document as a matter of fact the number of non PSU people that knew about 2001.

If you want to general public to get interested in this, then here are some names that matter

Louis Freeh
Mark Emmert
Tom Corbett

to a lesser degree - Peetz, Lubert, et al.

 

[Bob78]

I'm not arguing that Freeh proved some conspiracy to protect football.

I've openly stated Freeh's conclusions about Joe and football are asinine. All you have to do is compare Joe's testimony to the others he was supposedly part of a conspiracy with.

I'm talking about the evidence that C/S/S are lying when they claim they were told it was innocent horseplay and never suspected it was more.

It's clear that 98 was discussed in 2001. They're claiming it wasn't. Spanier is claiming he didn't know anything about it until 2011. That is an outright lie. He claims that he was never concerned about anything other than "how it would look". That's another lie.

Read the emails. You're being intentionally obtuse if you can't see they're talking about something more than horseplay. Spanier is a former family therapist that has done significant studies on sexuality. He knows what grooming is.

They decided it was better to pass the buck to TSM rather than report it themselves. Considering how TSM has escaped any scrutiny it's obvious TSM had major political clout. 3 administrators putting politics first isn't unheard of.

But keep pretending it's all a misunderstanding that's been manipulated, and that they wouldn't lie.

I've always been of the opinion that if any discussion happened wrt '98, the fact that '98 was fully investigated and dismissed could easily have influenced '01 when taken with McQ's non-specific report (Other than of horseplay). Could be 'here we go again with what is most likely another report that turns out to be nothing from a criminal standpoint' as heard by untrained folks.... so best path is to turn it over to those trained and responsible for looking into such matters and use their conclusions as the basis for further action. Given that, 10 years later, it is possible that those guys forgot about hearing about '98.
To me, that is perfectly reasonable and I can see myself doing that in that same circumstance. Sounds like '98, I'm no expert, let's get the experts to look at this. Now I go knocking on TSM's door.

 

[LundyPSU]

I've always been of the opinion that if any discussion happened wrt '98, the fact that '98 was fully investigated and dismissed could easily have influenced '01 when taken with McQ's non-specific report (Other than of horseplay). Could be 'here we go again with what is most likely another report that turns out to be nothing from a criminal standpoint' as heard by untrained folks.... so best path is to turn it over to those trained and responsible for looking into such matters and use their conclusions as the basis for further action. Given that, 10 years later, it is possible that those guys forgot about hearing about '98.
To me, that is perfectly reasonable and I can see myself doing that in that same circumstance. Sounds like '98, I'm no expert, let's get the experts to look at this. Now I go knocking on TSM's door.

Let's ask Harmon (again) what was discussed in 2001 about 1998.

 

[Bob78]

Let's ask Harmon (again) what was discussed in 2001 about 1998.

Yes, and once Harmon was in the picture, it was in the right hands and no other 'blame' is to be owned by anyone else at PSU.
I have no idea what he was told or what was discussed, but the fact that Schultz called him to ask for the file leads me to think he was made aware of 'something' happening in '01. It was his duty to then ask a couple of follow-up questions, imo.

 

[LundyPSU]

Yes, and once Harmon was in the picture, it was in the right hands and no other 'blame' is to be owned by anyone else at PSU.
I have no idea what he was told or what was discussed, but the fact that Schultz called him to ask for the file leads me to think he was made aware of 'something' happening in '01. It was his duty to then ask a couple of follow-up questions, imo.

We do not know the substance of the discussion, so I am not going to automatically absolve anyone else. However, it does make me wonder why Freeh did not include the email from Schultz to Harmon, yet referenced it in the footnotes. I also think we need more of an explanation from Courtney regarding the billing sheet. Everyone is in CYA mode, so not sure we will ever get to the truth here.

 

[BowieLion]

The national media is too stupid and names like Fina, Dranov, Raykovitz and Genovese don't ensure someone will click on your article.

Nail meet hammer! Mic drop!

 

[Aoshiro]

If you want to general public to get interested in this, then here are some names that matter

Louis Freeh
Mark Emmert
Tom Corbett

to a lesser degree - Peetz, Lubert, et al.

Don't forget the two Fortune 500 CEOs: Frazier & Surma

 

[psuro]

Don't forget the two Fortune 500 CEOs: Frazier & Surma

they are the "et al"

 

[Aoshiro]

they are the "et al"

Well in the minds of the press, they are bigger fry than Peetz and Lubert.
Implicating Frazier in a conspiracy to throw Paterno under the bus would certainly get the media's attention.

 

[ChiTownLion]

You need to bring down a public hero to generate any media interest. Remember when the IndyStar revealed an alleged cover-up by Team USA Gymnastics for protecting over 50 coaches? The story was released during the Olympics and should've been Jerry Sandusky times 50, but since no celebrities were named, nobody really cared. This is the scandal that revealed the Michigan-educated, Michigan State-employed pillar-of-the-community pedophile doctor whose name nobdy can remember.

 

[Zenophile]

By Freeh's own admission, the lawyer's statement was not recorded but was reconstructed from investigative notes.

Very interesting.

 

[didier]

Implicating a since-missing DA in cutting a break for a man he knew was a pedophile would get the media's interest.

 

[tomfleet]

they are the "et al"

More like eat all.

 

[L.T. Young]

I'm not so sure they are lying about what MM told them. It makes no sense to me that:

MM's Dad said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Dranov said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Joe said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Curley said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault
Shultz said that MM didn't tell him about sexual assault

Why would we believe some but not others?

I don't recall evidence that Curley knew about 1998. I do recall evidence that Shultz was told about 1998. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless, it's quite possible that Shultz's comment that he didn't know about 1998 meant that he didn't know that JS had abused kids. After all, no charges were filed.

I'll agree with this much. I think Shultz was covering his rear end during his testimony. I think a lot of people have been covering their rear ends starting with the BOT, TSM, child agencies, Corbett, John McQueary, Dranov, etc. But that doesn't mean they were knowingly allowing JS to molest kids or that they were conspiring to keep things quiet in order to protect football.

WTF are you talking about? Curley and Schultz traded emails about 98 in 98.

What do you think Curley was referring to in 2001 when he wrote "I would inform him that we're aware of the first situation and we think there's a problem. I would tell him we want to assist him in getting professional help"? I'd really like to know what else it could be?

Joe's testimony is that he was told about something of "a sexual nature".

Spanier flat out wrote "the only downside is that we leave ourselves vulnerable by not reporting it". He's a former family therapist. Not only was he trained in CSA, he knew proper protocol.

It's right there in black and white. You guys keep pretending that it's all a big misunderstanding. It clearly isn't.

If you ever hope to clear Paterno's name you need to accept the people Joe informed and trusted to handle it screwed up big time.

The easiest way to refute Freeh's conclusion about Joe being involved in a conspiracy of silence is to point out he was never silent. That means taking his testimony at face value and comparing it to those who he supposedly conspired with.

For whatever reason nobody here is interested in doing that.

 

[bdgan]

WTF are you talking about? Curley and Schultz traded emails about 98 in 98.

What do you think Curley was referring to in 2001 when he wrote "I would inform him that we're aware of the first situation and we think there's a problem. I would tell him we want to assist him in getting professional help"? I'd really like to know what else it could be?

Joe's testimony is that he was told about something of "a sexual nature".

Spanier flat out wrote "the only downside is that we leave ourselves vulnerable by not reporting it". He's a former family therapist. Not only was he trained in CSA, he knew proper protocol.

It's right there in black and white. You guys keep pretending that it's all a big misunderstanding. It clearly isn't.

If you ever hope to clear Paterno's name you need to accept the people Joe informed and trusted to handle it screwed up big time.

The easiest way to refute Freeh's conclusion about Joe being involved in a conspiracy of silence is to point out he was never silent. That means taking his testimony at face value and comparing it to those who he supposedly conspired with.

For whatever reason nobody here is interested in doing that.

That's just wrong.

In 2001 Curley's says he's aware of the 1998 situation but that doesn't mean that he was aware of it back then.

Joe's sexual nature comment is very sketchy. In no way does he acknowledge that MM told him about sexual assault. Here's his statement:

As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky.

And here's his grand jury testimony:

Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?

Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

Sounds like Joe considered fondling or horseplay to be of a sexual nature. Analysis Intercourse is completely different.

I agree that Spanier's comment is troubling but he could also thought it was inappropriate touching.

There's no doubt that C/S/S handled this poorly but it doesn't mean that they understood MM's report to be about analysis Intercourse or oral sex.

 

[pandaczar12]

WTF are you talking about? Curley and Schultz traded emails about 98 in 98.

What do you think Curley was referring to in 2001 when he wrote "I would inform him that we're aware of the first situation and we think there's a problem. I would tell him we want to assist him in getting professional help"? I'd really like to know what else it could be?

Joe's testimony is that he was told about something of "a sexual nature".

Spanier flat out wrote "the only downside is that we leave ourselves vulnerable by not reporting it". He's a former family therapist. Not only was he trained in CSA, he knew proper protocol.

It's right there in black and white. You guys keep pretending that it's all a big misunderstanding. It clearly isn't.

If you ever hope to clear Paterno's name you need to accept the people Joe informed and trusted to handle it screwed up big time.

The easiest way to refute Freeh's conclusion about Joe being involved in a conspiracy of silence is to point out he was never silent. That means taking his testimony at face value and comparing it to those who he supposedly conspired with.

For whatever reason nobody here is interested in doing that.

"I don’t know what you would call it. I’m not sure exactly what it was."

It's right there in black and white. You keep pretending it's not, but it is and always will be.

 

[Lefty Hill]

"I don’t know what you would call it. I’m not sure exactly what it was."

It's right there in black and white. You keep pretending it's not, but it is and always will be.

Anybody who doesn't get that is just flat-out thick. And proud of it.

 

[pandaczar12]

Anybody who doesn't get that is just flat-out thick. And proud of it.

Agreed, anyone who ignores that so they can twist/truncate his words, simply has an agenda.

 

[Mixolydian]

Agreed, anyone who ignores that so they can twist/truncate his words, simply has an agenda.

"I don't know" what the douches with the agendas do, but when I know something I don't precede it with "I don't know". And I definitely don't say "I don't know" twice within a few sentences when stating something that I do know. Maybe that's just me....

 

[wensilver]

Spanier flat out wrote "the only downside is that we leave ourselves vulnerable by not reporting it"

But you don't know for certain that this is truly in that email.

No one has seen the originals pulled from the server. I think we have to question everything- even if it is in "black & white".

Just because Louis Freeh slaps it in his report doesn't make it so. Freeh is a Pillar of the Community Offender. He's riding that wave of plausible deniability, wrapped up in the squeaky clean banner of the FBI & title of "Judge" - when really his lucrative business model is corporate clean up artist.

Sounds just like another Pillar Offender who rode that wave of plausible deniability, wrapped up in the squeaky clean banner of Blue & White, Second Mile & CYS - when really his lucrative business model was access to minors.

I simply can't understand the blind faith in Freeh, and by extent our AG's Office, by some people here.

It's almost as if.....

 

[Mixolydian]

Spanier flat out wrote "the only downside is that we leave ourselves vulnerable by not reporting it"

But you don't know for certain that this is truly in that email.

No one has seen the originals pulled from the server. I think we have to question everything- even if it is in "black & white".

Just because Louis Freeh slaps it in his report doesn't make it so. Freeh is a Pillar of the Community Offender. He's riding that wave of plausible deniability, wrapped up in the squeaky clean banner of the FBI & title of "Judge" - when really his lucrative business model is corporate clean up artist.

Sounds just like another Pillar Offender who rode that wave of plausible deniability, wrapped up in the squeaky clean banner of Blue & White, Second Mile & CYS - when really his lucrative business model was access to minors.

I simply can't understand the blind faith in Freeh, and by extent our AG's Office, by some people here.

It's almost as if.....

Should not be opened at work with speakers up....

 

[wensilver]

For the posters that come here nit-picking about these #RedHerring emails - which Freeh LIED to the nation about.

This is what Freeh should have credibly done - but didn't.

 

[bjf1991]

Implicating a since-missing DA in cutting a break for a man he knew was a pedophile would get the media's interest.

Bewilderingly....I doubt it

 

[Zenophile]

Paterno had otherworldly abilities that allowed him to identify child predators.

 

[Zenophile]

Two (2) of Freeh's key witnesses have finally come forward to discuss the conspiracy of silence led by Coach Paterno.

 

[psu7113]

I don't know... but like Paterno himself stated: "I wish I had done more". Because if he had... maybe he legacy wouldn't have been tarnished.

That statement is so often misquoted (as you did), misinterpreted, overblown and taken out of context. Joe said what any decent human being, now knowing that Sandusky is a monster, would say. It was an expression of compassion, not guilt. Weak response on your part.

 

[psu7113]

Because honestly... it doesn't make a difference. I believe mistakes were made by all. I think Coach Joe Paterno is/was a great man who's devotion to what is good in this world and making this world a better place far outweighs some of the mistakes he made. And in my mind... by not doing more... he made a mistake. Nothing will ever change that to me.

Just what, pretell, was he supposed to do? What is this "more?" The head of the only police department with jurisdiction was notified, by the witness. Joe could not have notified the police if he wanted to. He witnessed nothing. He also knew that Curley was meeting with the head of TSM. I suppose he could have called CYS himself, but then he would be usurping the authority of his bosses and, in any event, he had no reason to believe such an action was necessary given what was already being done.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Spanier flat out wrote "the only downside is that we leave ourselves vulnerable by not reporting it"

But you don't know for certain that this is truly in that email.

No one has seen the originals pulled from the server. I think we have to question everything- even if it is in "black & white".

Just because Louis Freeh slaps it in his report doesn't make it so. Freeh is a Pillar of the Community Offender. He's riding that wave of plausible deniability, wrapped up in the squeaky clean banner of the FBI & title of "Judge" - when really his lucrative business model is corporate clean up artist.

Sounds just like another Pillar Offender who rode that wave of plausible deniability, wrapped up in the squeaky clean banner of Blue & White, Second Mile & CYS - when really his lucrative business model was access to minors.

I simply can't understand the blind faith in Freeh, and by extent our AG's Office, by some people here.

It's almost as if.....

Everything the guy touches is tarnished. Every investigation and every report, even the gd FBI crime lab is marked by sloppy work, incompetence, and downright rigging data and character assassination to get a desired result. Flight 800, Waco, Wen Ho Lee, the Centennial Park bombing, Khobar Towers, BP, FIFA...

But yet, so many cling to the belief that Freeh nailed the Penn State case. This is the only one out of dozens that wasn't FUBARed.

 

[wensilver]

I had a little fun with Page 9 of Jim Clemente's Background On Child Sexual Vicimization.

http://www.paterno.com/Resources/Docs/Background-On-Child-Sexual-Victimization.pdf

IMO, our Board of Trustees was clearly groomed, seduced and abused by Freeh. They are too embarrassed, ashamed and disgusted with themselves to ever disclose that. So this vicious cycle repeats itself once again.

"There are certain high-risk situations that arise in investigating acquaintance exploitation cases.


Unfortunately certain corporate organizations inadvertently provide the offender with almost everything necessary to operate their craft.

A university organization, for example, fulfills the offender’s needs for access to clients of a specific age, gender or bank account, a bonding mechanism to ensure the cooperation and secrecy of a Board, and opportunities to confer with a Board or have a Board sign a lucrative contract.


The bonding mechanism of the Board is especially useful to the offender. Loyalty to the leader and group, competition among Board members, a system of rewards and recognition, and indoctrination through Standing Orders & By-Laws can all be used to control, manipulate, and motivate victims. Consultants to such organizations should be carefully screened and closely monitored.


Another high-risk situation involves high-status authority figures. As stated above, offenders sometimes use their adult authority to give them an edge in the seduction process. Adults with an added authority such as former FBI Directors, judges and prosecutors, present even greater problems in the investigation of these cases. Such offenders are in a better position to seduce and manipulate a Board and escape responsibility.


They are usually believed when they deny any allegations.


In such cases the law-enforcement investigator must always incorporate understanding of the seduction process into interviews, take the “big-picture” approach, and try to find multiple victims or recover altered or manipulated data, misrepresentations of fact, and missing exculpatory evidence"