In partnership with CBSSports.com
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
For those of you who don't think you have the time to read his report and only wish to read the main report, you are doing yourself a disservice. You cannot fully appreciate the main reports findings without reading this report as well.
Most of the media and public who even read the main report will not read this report either - big mistake.
This post was edited by Grammar Police 17 months ago
Damn, Its an absolutely MUST READ!
What an absolutely logical report from somebody with no axe to grind! I was a dunce about child sex molesters until I read this. No wonder that the bastard Sandusky got away with it for years. I must admit that I had a small number of doubts about Joe's involvement and the alleged coverup by PSU. Clemente's analysis and explanation expunged these doubts completely.
Thank you all, for reading this! For all of you that haven't, start to finish, please do so. You cannot speak intelligently about this new report without it.
It's sad that the media STILL misses the point. Check out this gem from Tom Harvey of the NY Daily News.
"Yet Clemente failed to acknowledge the simple reality that Sandusky didn’t hide what he was doing. No one denies that Sandusky molested a young teenager on the Penn State campus in the football locker room, which was witnessed by an assistant football coach, or that Paterno was told about it and took virtually no action. In his own words, under oath, Paterno said Mike McQueary, a graduate assistant, came over to the Paterno house and said he witnessed Sandusky “fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/harvey-authors-run-reverse-fail-attempt-defend-paterno-article-1.1260527#ixzz2KbVOdKEm
And Harvey is their "legal analyst". He attacks Clemente for being paid to write the Paterno report, but doesn't mention Freeh was paid as well.
Just wow, I mean, I can't even put into words how offensive and inaccurate his statements are.
"Sandusky didn't hide what he was doing" - are you effing kidding me!? How do you even justify saying such a thing!?
This is just another case of the media already having their minds made up and reverting to "What about the children!" instead of addressing the facts. We'll see this more and more I'm afraid. The media won't like the facts so instead they'll talk about the children that were harmed. Which ironically and perhaps, sadly, does the most disservice to the actual victims they claim to care so much about.
page 25 of said report:
"Is it reasonable to believe that five responsible adult men to whom McQueary reported
the 2001 Sandusky shower incident, understood what McQueary was implying, and still did not
feel the need to call the police? Is it reasonable to believe that they all turned a blind eye to the
sexual victimization of a child? In my opinion, based on investigating, consulting on, and
studying thousands of similar cases, it is more reasonable to conclude that these five men did not
understand the true nature of Sandusky’s actions because McQueary did not convey what he
thought he had conveyed to them. That’s because McQueary relied on implication, and
deliberately did not use explicit or graphic terms in describing what he thought he witnessed in
Whenever I talk to friends or family about the Sandusky scandal, I always refer to this. This makes me think that Big Red "mis-remembers" how he originally acted.
I am listening to Jim Clemente right now on College Sports Mation with Mark Packard (Bill King's channel on Sirius). He just finished.
He says he took this case because he saw a way to improve on his life's work helping children. Says he has never watched a college or pro football ge in his life.
Says Joe was a Prude. Never spoke to his kids or players about sex.
Everyone should read Clemente's report, but if for some reason you can't take the time, at least watch this video.
Jim Clemente (retired FBI and current Criminal Minds writer/producer) goes in depth on the case of Jerry Sandusky and the extent of Joe Paterno's involvement in any cover-up. Confirming guilt is very tricky in sex abuse cases, and Jim discusses the factors that enable some predators to abuse for years.
Jim Clemente is a retired FBI agent and current advisor, writer and producer for the TV series "Criminal Minds." A graduate of Fordham University School of Law, Jim was the head of the Child Sex Crimes Prosecution Team in Bronx County for the New York City Law Department. As a result of undercover work that led to the imprisonment of a child sex offender, Clemente was recruited into the FBI. From 1998 until October 2009 he was a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico, Virginia. He is an expert in the fields of Sex Crimes Investigations, Sex Offender Behavior, Child Sexual Victimization, and Child Pornography. Clemente has investigated and consulted on thousands of cases involving the violent and sexual crimes, sexual victimization of children, and he has interviewed hundreds of victims and offenders. He has also testified as an expert witness and lectured on these topics across the country and around the world.
Do you have a link to the report?
The Father, The Son... well, it's the
The Holy Trinity... as I see it.
October 12, 2013. PSU 43 - UM 40 (4 OT). Unfortunately this fan wasn't around long enough to see it!
This was a great report. Well worth the read.
As far as the Freeh report, having read it a few times, I had already noted it strengths and weaknesses in my own mind. One thing I missed though was this bias in the report as noted by Clemente:
"The SIC selectively quotes Paterno’s testimony to cast Paterno in the worst light.
According to the SIC, “We also know that he delayed . . . Mr. Paterno . . . reporting
Sandusky’s sexual conduct because Mr. Paterno did not to ‘want to interfere’ with people’s
The SIC is well aware that Paterno did in fact “interfere” with the weekends of Curley
and Schultz because he met with them the very next day on the very same weekend — Sunday,
February 11, 2001. And the SIC should be aware that Paterno may very well have called Curley
on Saturday to set that meeting up. Remarkably, the SIC failed to note that Paterno was
unavailable and flew to Pittsburgh that Saturday — the day McQueary reported to Paterno — to
be inducted into the Pittsburgh Sports Hall of Fame. This is a fact that was well documented in
The SIC quotes from Paterno’s grand jury testimony but ignores Paterno’s later testimony
and the testimony of others. In November 2011, Paterno told his biographer, “I’m pretty sure I
called him that day. I know it was a weekend, so I can’t be a hundred percent sure, but I do think
I called him that day.” In January 2012, Paterno told an interviewer that he “[w]aited till
Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing.” (Notably, the SIC quotes
Paterno’s words that immediately precede this sentence, but ignores this sentence.) Furthermore,
Curley and Schultz have testified that they did in fact meet on Sunday, February 11 to discuss
this matter. So, Paterno did interfere with Curley’s and Schultz’s weekend. None of them
remember exactly when Paterno called, but we do know that they met the very next day. It is
possible that Paterno made the call on Saturday, February 10, the same day that McQueary told
him about the incident, and they met the following day. In sum, the SIC selectively quotes the
one statement that puts Paterno in the worst light even though two of Paterno’s later statements
and the testimony of everyone else involved in addition to the facts themselves directly
contradict the quote that the SIC chose to highlight."
This post was edited by z28lt1 17 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports