Online Now 897

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 717
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 998
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

Editorial-John Ziegler

  • I don't know if this is worth its own thread, or should be moved somewhere else?
    IMO, Definitely worth the time to read and give some other angles to think about other than what is being crammed down our throats from the national media.

    Interesting analysis regarding the two emails...

    A close examination of these two emails raises significant questions as to what they actually mean. The first email is from athletic director Curley to the university president with the subject line “Joe Paterno.” As far as we know, the only content of the email was “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”

    Based on this, Freeh concludes that because the email was sent after Curley knew of the investigation into Sandusky that Sandusky had to be the subject of their “touching base.” Even if this wasn’t a bit of an evidentiary leap (which it is), we have no idea what “touching base” really means and, again, Freeh has never even spoken to Curley to find out. The president didn’t even remember this email, which he referred to as a “vague reference with no individual named.”

    The second email is just as problematic. In it Curley writes to the head of campus police, “anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Freeh writes, without any actual evidence that, “the reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.” We are to assume that “is believed” really means “believed by Louis Freeh.”

    Could “coach” be Paterno? Absolutely. But interestingly the subject line of the email (which Freeh uses in the first instance to substantiate that “coach” means Paterno) is “Jerry.” Why is it not plausible that “coach” there actually means Sandusky, who was still a coach at Penn State at the time? Freeh seems to completely forget that Sandusky was engaged in retirement negotiations at the very same time and there there are many emails in his own record marked "Sandusky" which have nothing at all to do with the investigation (it should be noted that Gary Schultz, the head of campus police, was also VP of business and finance).

    Is it not very plausible that this email had nothing at all to do with sexual abuse? If this were to be the case, this would dramatically change many of the presumptions on which the report bases its conclusions.

    Contrary to What You Have Heard, the Freeh Report has Big Problems

    http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=219

    www.johnziegler.com
    signature image

    NotoriousGMan

  • Thanks for posting!

    ...and if you're not down with that, then I got 2 words for ya.."suck it!!"

    paupacklion ●

  • You know what, I completely understand this post. As a Buckeye fan, I searched for every angle to try and rationalize Tressel's mistakes - but in the end, they were still mistakes. From the outside, the inferences and evidence don't look good. I wish for you that the Freeh report is inaccurate, but it's probably more on target than any of us care to believe. As fans, we just need to endure right now and wait this stuff out. We want you all to be done with this torture as well.

    buckeyematt

  • This was in the Freeh report thread but it is definitely worthy of it's own thread.

    Sloepoke20 ●

  • NotoriousG-Man said...

    Interesting analysis regarding the two emails...

    A close examination of these two emails raises significant questions as to what they actually mean. The first email is from athletic director Curley to the university president with the subject line “Joe Paterno.” As far as we know, the only content of the email was “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”

    Based on this, Freeh concludes that because the email was sent after Curley knew of the investigation into Sandusky that Sandusky had to be the subject of their “touching base.” Even if this wasn’t a bit of an evidentiary leap (which it is), we have no idea what “touching base” really means and, again, Freeh has never even spoken to Curley to find out. The president didn’t even remember this email, which he referred to as a “vague reference with no individual named.”

    The second email is just as problematic. In it Curley writes to the head of campus police, “anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Freeh writes, without any actual evidence that, “the reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.” We are to assume that “is believed” really means “believed by Louis Freeh.”

    Could “coach” be Paterno? Absolutely. But interestingly the subject line of the email (which Freeh uses in the first instance to substantiate that “coach” means Paterno) is “Jerry.” Why is it not plausible that “coach” there actually means Sandusky, who was still a coach at Penn State at the time? Freeh seems to completely forget that Sandusky was engaged in retirement negotiations at the very same time and there there are many emails in his own record marked "Sandusky" which have nothing at all to do with the investigation (it should be noted that Gary Schultz, the head of campus police, was also VP of business and finance).

    Is it not very plausible that this email had nothing at all to do with sexual abuse? If this were to be the case, this would dramatically change many of the presumptions on which the report bases its conclusions.

    i had a chance to read some of the report, and his argument about the e-mails is debunked when you actually look at the exhibits.. It's obvious from previous e-mail responces that each of those e-mails are discussing Sandusky's 1998 investigation, as they reference the Dept of Public Welfare. I encourage people to read the report before accepting anyone's opinions, columns, articles, etc as fact..

    fwiw, the actual e-mails are on page 167 and 169

    This post was edited by BaltLions24 on 7/13/2012 at 8:27 AM

    BaltLions24 ●

  • Signs of desperation as people grasp to straws. Hard for people to see their deities fall from grace as they were thought to stand on the shoulders of giants.

    FireJayPa

  • Very interesting. I haven't wanted to go too far down this road right away for fear of looking like an "apologist," but while I was reading the report yesterday, I kept asking myself similar questions. if there were emails from Joe, then sure. We know Joe didn't use email. Instead, we have extremely vague emails from Curley and Schultz that not only say very little, but are also from two guys who are charged with perjury. So people easily believe they lied to the grand jury, but there vague words in an email must be the iron-clad truth.

    I believe there was bad judgment by all involved, including Joe. Do I believe that he knew Sandusky was a pedophile and covered up for him? I don't believe that for a minute. Maybe he SHOULD have known. Maybe he should have asked a lot more questions and then acted upon the answers. But do I believe Joe Paterno made the evil choice to knowingly protect this monster? I just don't.

    DocAlan02 ●

  • DocAlan02 said...

    Very interesting. I haven't wanted to go too far down this road right away for fear of looking like an "apologist," but while I was reading the report yesterday, I kept asking myself similar questions. if there were emails from Joe, then sure. We know Joe didn't use email. Instead, we have extremely vague emails from Curley and Schultz that not only say very little, but are also from two guys who are charged with perjury. So people easily believe they lied to the grand jury, but there vague words in an email must be the iron-clad truth.

    I believe there was bad judgment by all involved, including Joe. Do I believe that he knew Sandusky was a pedophile and covered up for him? I don't believe that for a minute. Maybe he SHOULD have known. Maybe he should have asked a lot more questions and then acted upon the answers. But do I believe Joe Paterno made the evil choice to knowingly protect this monster? I just don't.

    from what i read so far, i don't think anyone was trying to protect sandusky.. i think the people involved didn't know how to handle the information and didn't want to risk their postition with the university to report what they knew. It went from the president, all the way down to janitors. I think it was wrong for them to be secretive about it and for lying in the grand jury testimonies. Spanier even downplaying the whole grand jury testimonies spoke ot the type of man he was. Some people just had too much power..

    BaltLions24 ●

  • I agree. They didn't know how to handle it and botched it big time. I don't believe they or Joe were consciously trying to protect a serial pedophile because back then that's not what he was. '98 was a dismissed charge of inappropriate touching where the kid's and JS's account matched. case closed. No case, move on. JS was still the founder of 2nd mile and admired child advocate. 2001 comes along (and they do not know about 2000 janitor incident at this time) and they get the stories from JP and MM independently, JP's story is vague but came first, then MM with the detail 10 days later (after they had already formed an opinion not to report), and they simply didn't know how to handle it and were probably wary of protecting their positions given what they knew of 1998. You see what kind of leadership you have in time of crisis, and the leadership failed badly. It seems GS tried to find out more by asking a Curley/Shultz a couple times "are you sure that's all it was" but Curley/Shultz downplaying everything sunk it. (Dranov also asked MM several times if he saw sexual contact, it's clear a few people who knew something about the law regarding reporting tried to pry more info from those they spoke to, but no dice) I wish GS would have just rounded up all 4 of those guys in the same room and get MM to tell his story again in front of all of them to be sure they were on the same page. This is what a true leader would have done, esp. someone in his position, then I'm pretty sure GS would have said to get the authorities involved overruling everyone else. Once that didn't happen it just disentigrated... There's just too much smoke though to not have reported it either way. Like they say fool me once, shame on you (JS-1998), fool me twice, shame on me (PSU-2001). As they said in The Dark Knight - you either die a hero, or live long enough to be the villain.....

    arringfortt11 ●

  • Kinda shows that even though Joe may have been involved, that the main goal of the freeh report was to smear, regardless of actual evidence.

    This post was edited by Tom88 on 7/13/2012 at 11:50 AM

    Tom88 ●

  • There is nothing in the Freeh report that clearly shows Joe was involved in a cover-up. He could have done more, which he openly admitted. I think he had no idea how to handle a situation like this and relied on these other idiots to handle the situation. I may be wrong but that is what I think after reading the report. I plan on reading it again, and my opinion may change.

    alogsdon

  • Tom In Paine

    http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/

    tominpaine.blogspot.com
    signature image

    NotoriousGMan

  • If you read the actual emails, when they refer to coach wants to know in 1998, it was not Jerry that they were referring to, it was Joe. You might be able to grasp at that by just reading the report, but the actual email makes it clear.

    Flipper10

  • Flipper10 said...

    If you read the actual emails, when they refer to coach wants to know in 1998, it was not Jerry that they were referring to, it was Joe. You might be able to grasp at that by just reading the report, but the actual email makes it clear.

    Wait--youve seen and read the actual emails?
    Please provide or link a copy.

    pennstatel0

  • They are included in the appendices. Hardly worth a downvote. Read it and tell me what you think.

    Flipper10

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports