Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by freestoneangler, Nov 8, 2011.

  1. The reports from Freeh's investigation make it pretty clear that not only did Paterno, president Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and V.P. Gary Schultz know the severity of the case, they deliberated it and noted that if they didn't report it they could later be held legally liable, yet still conspired to cover it up, at Paterno's urging, no less. That pretty well sinks Penn State as far as complicity in child sex abuse. This is going to cost the University dearly.
  2. Bingo...
  3. And just now, the internal Penn State investigation findings have been released, with damning results for Paterno and the other "leaders" in question:

    "An internal probe into the Penn State child sex abuse scandal found that top university officials, including former president Graham Spanier and then-head football coach Joe Paterno, concealed allegations of abuse by ex-assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky to "avoid the consequences of bad publicity.

    "Spanier and Paterno, as well as former university vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley, failed to protect victims from Sandusky, the report found. "Some coaches, administrators and football program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors and no one warned the public about him," the report says."

    Full story:
  4. I just wish trout would pounce on my fly offerings the way that trial attorneys are going to pounce on Penn State. Ever thrown out food pellets into a crowded koi pond?
    Lugan likes this.
  5. No, but a buddy of mine caught a ton of Brute stock on (and I SWEAR I'm not making this up) a "pellet fly" in Oregon, after a local fish hatchery flooded into an adjacent stream. They couldn't catch those fish to save their lives for two days, then his friend jokingly suggested tying brown chenille on a hook... presto! Third day was a charm!
  6. Few years back I was in Northern Cal and stopped by The Fly Shop in Redding and found these in stock ......I did not buy any but always found it funny.
  7. That is awesome Sky! Who would of thought....
  8. Never heard of brooders being referred to as "brute stock". Kind of like it, especially if they had fins......
  9. LOL, sorry... that's the name I give them :D
  10. Penn State officials have announced the statue of Joe Paterno will remain outside the stadium, but it will now look the other way.

    (ok, I stole this joke)
    Jeff Sawyer, ribka and Lugan like this.
  11. Did any of you guys actually read the 200+ page Freeh report? I did and it is clear in the report that Freeh made the determination that Paterno was involved on the basis of an email sent to Spanier by Schultz that said "coach was on board". Neither we, nor Mr. Freeh knows who the coach was that Schutz referred to. It may have been Sandusky that he was referring to. However, this didn't stop Freeh from deciding that it was Paterno being referred to and therefore, Paterno had to be involved in a cover-up. This is what is known as circumstancial evidence and such "evidence" is not allowed in criminal courts because there is zero certainty who was being spoken about.

    Another piece of "evidence Mr. Freeh mentioned was Sandusky being given Professor Emeritus status. Paterno (or any other coach at any unsiversity or college) does not have the authority to do so. Only the top administrators like Curley, Schultz, or President Spanier have that authority for former coaches or assistant coaches.

    Mr.Freeh used the University granting Sandusky "unlimited use of the football and athletic facilities" and allowing him to "use the facilities to bring in youth" as further evidence" of Paterno's wrong doing. Once again, Paterno did not have the authority to do this. It was University administrators who granted these priviledges to Sandusky.

    It is also curiuos that Mr. Freeh used this "evidence" of the Schutz-Spanier email despite the well-known fact that Paterno did not use email, didn't use a computer, heck he didn't even use or own a cell phone. But non of that stopped Mr. Freeh from "determining" that Paterno knew what Spanier, Schultz, and Curley were doing. That is tatamount to the head of the Seattle Street Department knowing what the Mayor, Chief of Police, and Head of Public Works are talking to each other about.

    Mr. Freeh also included Paterno's statement that he "should have done more" as futher evidence that he was involved in a cover-up. In the whole 200+ pages of Mr. Freeh's report, these are the only two pieces of "evidence" he cited to show Paterno was involved in a cover-up.

    It is very clear in Mr. Freeh's report, and the Grand Jury Criminal Indictments that Schultz and Curley and possibly Spanier did cover up for Sandusky and didn't take action. The Grand Jury did not indict Paterno, excused him after only 15 minutes, and said he had nothing to do with the criminal actions or cover-up. The determination that Paterno was involved in a cover-up despite a lack of real evidence.

    And since Paterno died in January, no one can question him about these things, he is not able to bring forth evidence on his behalf, nor can he make legal motions to demand Mr. Freeh explain how he came up with his determination. And Mr. Spanier, Schultz, and Curley aren't about to make any statement because they are all indicted on criminal charges by the grand jury and the trial hasn't been held yet. Also interesting is Paterno's family has filed a motion in Centre County Court a motion to force/compell the University to release all the emails and internal correspondence that was given to Mr. Freeh and which were concerning Sandusky and the allegations against him. The University has refused to release them and it fighting the request. I wonder why the Board of Trustees is doing this. Perhaps they don't want things available to would exonerate Paterno. Just sayin.
    Joepa likes this.
  12. FT...I'm with you. I haven't read the whole report like you have yet but I agree with your assessment from what I have read. The media has been clearly wanting to take Paterno down from the start despite being armed with little facts. Paterno was afforded virtually no due process before the media convicted him in public opinion. Despite all the public commentary the last several months, I still think there is still a lot unknown here in regards to Paterno's involvement with this sorrid Sandusky Affair.

    I also saw this editorial recently and it contains some of the same themes you mention above if you haven't seen it yet.
    Joepa likes this.
  13. you guys must really worship this dude to be so willfully lost in the weeds on what went down here - he was either the extraordinary person indicated by his position and accomplishments (and therefore knew what was going on), or he's a complete rube. "...100 blows into a fool"
    bennysbuddy likes this.
  14. He should of done more.

    Would any of you just let this monster continue on
    if the powers that be do nothing to stop him? Paterno
    could say he was just following orders, being a team player,
    but by doing nothing for whatever reason makes him as bad
    as the one commiting the crimes.

  15. I am not a Paterno fan, I did read the report. It is pretty vague with regards to Paterno. I will say for example if a husband or wife is cheating, they are typically the last to know as they are so close to actually see it. The guy is dead and there really has not been anything presented that shows he knew. So lets get the people that are still alive and leave the easy targets alone. BR
  16. Brookie_Hunter,

    No I hadn't read that editorial you provided the link to. But you're absolutely right, it gets to the heart of the matter: The media decided Paterno had to be guilty because no man could possibly be as full of integrity as the evidence clearly showed Paterno to have been thoughout his very long career. This editorial also very clearly shows some of the inaccuracies Freeh relied upon and why many current students and many alumni (along with many who never attended Penn State) are upset with the media: There was no due process, no vetting of the facts (still hasn't been by major media), but still they pronounced Paternon guilty. And the media (and unfortunately many, many others who are blinded by the outrage at Sandusky and what he did) ignored and still ignore facts such as: 1) Paterno reported what McQuerry told him to the head of campus police; 2) Penn State has its own police force that the City of State College, PA has no jurisdiction on campus; 3) The Grand Jury excused Paterno after only 15 minutes of questioning him and reported that he had done nothing wrong and that he had done what he was supposed to and required to do by both Pennsylania law and Penn State policies; 4) Paterno had no authority or ability to grant Sanduske Proffessor Emeritus status, only the top administrators had that authority; 5) The Centre County Prosecutor 10 years prior decided that there wasn't evidence strong enough to bring charges against Sandusky; and 6) That the Athletic Director and University President granted Sandusky in his retirement package (that they alone were responsible for with the blessing of the Board of Trustees) the ability to use the athletic department facilities, including the football complex when the team wasn't using it, and that Paterno had nothing to do with it and no authority to keep Sandusky out of the facilities.

    And as the editorial writer says, the media has done a great job of getting folks riled up with inuendo and emotion evoking language to the point that the vast majority of people don't stop to find out the facts and instead or acting on pure emotional reasoning. Great for ratings and sales of the various print media, but terrible for Paterno's memory and his family. But they don't need to worry about that because it isn't them in the spotlight being unjustly accused with inuendo.

    GoFish and dflett68,

    It is very obvious you haven't read the Freeh report. Until you read the report in its entirety, you have no basis for your statements and your ignorance of what Freeh actually based his "determination" on clearly shows.
  17. So I guess you are saying that JoePa was never
    told that Sanduske was raping a child in the
    shower and knew nothing about any of this?
    Come on...we know that isn't true. He knew,
    and did nothing or to be correct "I should have done more"
    which means he was told and did nothing to change the
    outcome of more child rapes.

    Sounds F-ing bad to me.
  18. The sad thing is we don't know exactly what JoePa knew nor will we EVER know. Just like when everyone started swirling rumors and trying to write books about the navy seals raid on Osama Bin Laden. We will NEVER know what the truth is. JoePa isn't around to defend himself, and it seems that the national media is taking advantage of this fact.

    Not defending him, since I haven't read the report...but..just sayin.
  19. This is really odd to me.....been around football most of my life as a player (17 years) and a coach (12). Most in the profession are semi arrogant but righteous did this continue? Usually in this line of work the weak link or the freaky, absurd, etc. is called out and peer pressure eliminates them quickly from the brotherhood. So much history here with prominent people in the football world associated with Paterno, but no matter what...not in the end , but the beginning....meaning first suspicion of these acts...Sandusky should have been called out, and reported, ........and perhaps given an left under hand to the gut and right hand uppercut to the jaw followed by a jolting knee to the jaw as he slumped! If I take this course of action will I get in trouble?...Paterno covering up who witnessed shower incident and took immediate physical action, perhaps?....maybe?...but I want to slap silly any jury that accuses a man guilty for doing the right thing if he took physical action to stop or prevent ...that shower scene!!!!

    Always do the right thing, even if you have to stand alone! All PSU staff with knowledge and did little or nothing involved are guilty!

  20. I stopped contributing to PSU shortly after the 2003 season when I concluded that Paterno was running the football program into the ground. After that season he was 76 years old (soon to be 77) with a 3-9 record - the worst in school history. The Rubicon moment for me came in December of that year when we lost an in-state recruit, in part, because Paterno had to cancel his initial recruiting visit as a result of not having taking the mandatory NCAA coach recruiting test. Up until that point, I was a supporter of Paterno leaving on his own terms.

    I never really understood the power that Paterno held over the university until now. Ultimately, like many things, it simply came down to money. He donated millions to the university, but as a figure head, he was indirectly responsible for hundreds of millions more. So I have no doubt that the university didn’t miss or even take note of my measly donation.

    Nevertheless, having read the Freeh report, I think it’s unfair to conclude Paterno “concealed” or covered-up the Sandusky abuse based on the evidence in the report. Yes, Paterno himself stated “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." However, there’s no direct evidence in the report that clearly shows Paterno participated in a conspiracy to cover up the abuse. There are only vague emails from Tim Curley that indicate that Curley spoke to “Joe” or “Coach” but nothing from Paterno himself. I find it a bit ironic that the report concludes Paterno was involved in the cover-up, presumably based largely on the statements of Curley who himself is under indictment for lying to the grand jury, while Paterno was not indicted based on his testimony. The report assumes these statements in email from Curley are factual, but at the same time, assumes his statements to the grand jury are not. That’s not enough evidence for me, and presumably wasn’t enough evidence for the grand jury either.
    I would recommend those of you commenting on this to read the report and draw your own conclusions with respect to the cover up. Was Paterno guilty of not doing enough? Absolutely, but I think folks are going off the deep end prematurely with all the cover-up talk (among other things) based only on a summary of the report, or worse, media reports.
    jaybo41 likes this.

Share This Page