These people make it up, repeat it to each other over and over and presto; it becomes fact.
Paterno had two legacies and his followers need to accept it
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
These people make it up, repeat it to each other over and over and presto; it becomes fact.
Wow, I don't believe I've seen a more fabricated response that that one. I never said that Joe made a morally inferior choice. I never said that I would have called the police.
All I said was that each of us has different moral standards as relates to how we feel about Joe's response to MM's report. If my neighbor feels that the morally correct thing to do when observing an illegal left turn is to take down the license number and report it to the police while I feel no such moral responsibility, that does not mean that my position is morally inferior to my neighbor. All it means is that we have different moral standards; no more and no less.
As for whether I would have notified the police; I can't know for sure since I didn't live it. I can only hope I would have because my moral code says it should be reported to the police. My moral code is different than yours and I make no judgment as to superiority or inferiority.
You wrote:
Gary Schultz and Wendell Courtney recalled reporting the incident to Children and Youth Services. Schultz's statement is on page 213 of the Preliminary Perjury hearing transcripts, while Courtney's is on page 84 of the Freeh Report.
1. Schultz doesn't know what entity it was supposedly reported to
2. He thinks somebody reported it, but he can't remember who. It might have been him. It might not. He can't remember.
3. Courtney is certain he didn't report it.
4. He doesn't know who reported it.
5. He doesn't know if it actually was reported other than what he was told.
So, other than being completely wrong, you were right on point.
While I agree that some of Freeh's conclusions are not supported by the facts, I'm not aware of any fabricated facts in the report; although I must say I haven't read it for years.
What key facts were fabricated by Freeh?
Has been awhile for me as well. Let's simplify the discussion. Which of his key findings are substantiated by evidence in the report?
I can only hope that facts prove a different scenario. But I was trained to deal with facts as are established on the record. As of today the facts do not support your notification scenario.
I don't have the time or desire to do that. I only asked the question because you equated the MO of many on this board to make up their own facts and said that is what Freeh had done.
He said that Paterno didn't talk to Curley right away on Saturday because he (Paterno) didn't want to interfere with their weekends (Freeh Report pages 23, 62, 68).
This is absolutely false on two counts:
1) Paterno didn't meet with Curley that day (Saturday) because he was headed to Pittsburgh for the Dapper Dan banquet (a FACT omitted from the Freeh Report).
2) Paterno did meet with Curley that weekend (Sunday).
Based on this, I have reasonably concluded that Freeh deliberately misled people about Paterno's actions that weekend.
Then why didn't he call the police right then? If what MM claims is true, he is the second biggest scumbag after JS. If he truly believes his testimony is truthful, then he is an incredibly horrible person. He absolutely should have done more - not in hindsight - at the time. So either he is an unempathetic enabler, or he is lying/stretching the truth.
It's really this simple, many have been saying this for years. If what MM saw required Paterno to call the police, MM, JM, or Dranov should have called the police.
Paterno testified:
Q: You recall this taking place on a Saturday morning, the conversation with Mike?
Mr. Paterno: Yes.
Q: When did you — did you do something with that information?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I can’t be precise.
I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends.
So I don’t know whether I did it Saturday or did it early the next week.
I’m not sure when, but I did it within the week.
Your use of the words 'different moral standard' to me implied higher or lower levels of morality. In the case with Paterno, I would agree a poor moral choice would be if he had done nothing. In this case he did do something and if you are questioning his judgment as to the action he chose I got it, but it is not about a moral standard. And as to his judgement, I agree with your assertion that it is impossible for any of us to know what we might have done since we did not live it. I take him at his word that he was trying to do the right thing and he made a judgement. The distinction to notify C&S versus call the police was not a result of different moral standards but his view as to how best to address what MM told him after he made the decision that the information needed to be acted on.
It doesn't matter what Paterno testified. Penn State paid Louis Freeh EIGHT AND HALF MILLION DOLLARS to find out the FACTS of what happened in 2001. And the fact is that Paterno went to Pittsburgh on Saturday and he talked to Curley on Sunday.
There is no honest reason for Freeh to misrepresent the events of that weekend. Louis Freeh is a lying piece of human waste.
"He said that Paterno didn't talk to Curley right away on Saturday because he (Paterno) didn't want to interfere with their weekends"
You may think that it is absolutely false but that is what Joe testified to under oath.
I would really like to see real evidence of fabricated facts in the Freeh Report if you can find them.
I think whether a man reports to an inside authority notice of sexual conduct and leaves it at that versus reporting and then satisfying himself that outside authorities have also been notified of very serious allegations is a result of differing moral standards. The decision of how much to do in any situation, or whether to do anything, involves moral decisions.
There is no honest reason for Freeh to misrepresent the events of that weekend. Louis Freeh is a fundamentally dishonest person.
How many times do you have to be corrected? It was SUSPECTED abuse, not KNOWN abuse. If it was KNOWN abuse, MM should have reported to outside authorities. Since it was SUSPECTED abuse, reporting to inside authorities was appropriate. This is very simple.
Mr. McQueary chose to call a friend that night, not just any friend. But a man that is bound to an oath in part that says: "I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm." If that friend felt the best course of action that night was to do nothing and call a football coach the next morning, who are we to argue with him?
Last edited:
And Paterno agreed! In fact, he testified:
Q: Did you tell Mike McQueary at that time what you were going to do with that information that he had provided to you?
Mr. Paterno: I don’t know whether I was specific or not. I did tell Mike, Mike, you did what was right; you told me.
Even though Jerry does not work for the football staff any longer, I would refer his concerns to the right people.
Why was Dranov called that night, CDW? Was it because he and Mr. McQueary were golfing buds or because of his professional expertise? What did Dranov do with the info presented to him and did his actions/inactions fulfill his oath?
Other than the state of Pa asking questions about something from 2002 I think it is they that are completely wrong. There is no doubt GS testified it was reported to agency. That's a fact you moron. You just repeated it to me!!! The state is also on record that they won't prosecute GS/TC
Nah. You just don't wAnt to admit you are wrong. Clearly GS testified it was reported to the same agency that was involved w the 1998 investigation. Read the transcript. He says it at least 3 times!!!!
Joe also said:
"Well, I can’t be precise. So I don’t know whether I did it Saturday or did it early the next week." Why do you ignore the qualifiers? Oh... because you have an agenda.
As for fabricated facts in the Freeh report, he presents his conclusions based on vague emails. It's his opinion of what happened, his opinion of who the emails were talking about, yet it is presented as fact.
Well, we can all agree that information is incomplete, at best. What we have seen from Freeh evidence is that the plan when Curley met with JVP was to notify TSM, notify DPW, and restrict JS' access. Curley changed that plan a day later. We know that Fina indicated that they found no evidence that JVP was involved in a coverup (counter to the position in Fina took on Curley, Schultz, and Spanier). Therefore, there is no evidence that Joe directed a change in plan. And if you look at evidence (Curley's email), he notes that he (not we) are uncomfortable with the plan. So a reasonable conclusion is that JVP believed the matter was reported to DPW. This is much more reasonable thant Freeh's conclusions, given Fina's subsequent comments.
As for Harmon, we definitely need to learn more. He is certainly on record stating he was not informed of the 2001incident. Curious as to why certain emails between Schultz and Harmon in Feb 2001 are referenced but not included.
I agree, I think Harmon is the key, if anyone dropped the ball I think it was he, just a gut feeling.
when I first read the Freeh Report, I thought the allegations in the summary were damning. than I read the "meat" of the report and felt like it utterly failed to prove those allegations. simply because it requires strong interpretations of language and leaps of logic to make its case.
the truth is the information is WOEFULLY incomplete, and there are far more credible interpretations of those emails and testimony that make more sense
The thing is, if any emails exist which inculpate Harmon, they exculpate Shultz. In which case, there is no case; prosecution would be fools to continue.
Yet the case continues; a clear indication that the emails contain little of import.
"Yet the case continues; a clear indication that the emails contain little of import"
Serious....or being sarcastic?
If you're seriously asking the question, you didn't understand the post.
If prosecution knows the defense has emails proving that Schultz told Harmon about the shower, then in effect, prosecutors know Schultz 'reported' the incident to the police and would have no choice but to discontinue his prosecution. Since Gary's prosecution continues, it's easy to conclude said exculpatory emails don't exist.
Because, you know, there's no such thing as prosecutorial misconduct.
