We have been following the Penn State scandal and the school’s possible culpability in the matter. Now the long-awaited Freeh report has been issued (a copy is below). The report is a damning indictment of the school which is found to have failed to protect the children in order to protect the school from embarrassment. This included “striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the University.”
Both former president Graham Spanier and former head football coach Joe Paterno are found to have “failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.” Former university vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley were also found to have failed to protect the children. These officials effectively facilitated the abuse by continuing to give Sandusky the means used for the abuse: “Indeed, that continued access provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims. 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 board of trustees is also mentioned as failing its responsibility in the face of what Freeh found was active concealment of the crimes: “These men concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001.”
Athletic director Tim Curley is found to have clearly revealed the alleged crimes to former head coach Joe Paterno but “they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities.” Indeed, while McQueary reported the assault to Paterno on Saturday, February 10, Paterno reported the incident to Curley and Schultz on Sunday, February 11 as Paterno did not “want to interfere with their weekends.”
Cynthia Baldwin, a former Board member and Chair, also is criticized as the school’s first general counsel. The report states that she failed to brief the board until such a briefing was demanded by a trustee and downplayed the significance for the school. She also failed to bring in someone experienced with criminal matters and opposed an independent investigation. Ironically, in the effort to avoid independent review and action, Baldwin contributed to a far worse result for her client.
The report will no doubt assist any lawsuit for negligence against the university. Penn State is a state university but may not be able to use sovereign immunity because it is not a member of the Pennsylvania System of Higher Education.
There is also the question of liability for the Second Mile organization. On March 19, 2001, Curley met with the executive director of the Second Mile and “shared the information we had with him.” The Second Mile leadership simply found the matter to be a “non‐incident” and took no further action.
It is a report that shows a consistent and disturbing series of failures in university and Second Mile officials taking the allegation seriously or taking meaningful action to protect these victims.
This is one of the areas where the threat of liability would be a good thing. There is no evidence of concern for the victims in this matter. What does come out of the report and earlier news account is a football culture that overwhelmed every other concern at the university. This has long been a concern among academics over the degree of reliance and identification of universities with their sports programs. The report describes Penn State as creating a “culture of reverence.”
Freeh notes “Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State . . . The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.”
Here is the report: freeh.report
Curious, here’s my response to you about the Franklin case — Long long long ago I was working on a ton of child abuse cases all at once, and this crossed my already piled up desk. Since I had no “dog in the race” and there was no child involved at the moment who needed any advocacy or any kind of publicity maneuvers, I remember that I read the pamphlet, remarked on the fact that the cover was red with a black spider, and moved on to things that had deadlines on them. So when it was mentioned I remarked that I remembered it, that some of the copies of that thing were undoubtedly still around, and that’s all.
But let me address your general complaint that nobody is answering you and, in addition, the implication that nobody will deal with the issue of the veracity or falsity of this alleged “hooey” because of a perceived lack of evidence to back it up. Because that issue is important and I think your general desire to get to the bottom of things is important as well.
There ARE in fact cover-ups of wide, deep and almost unimaginable proportions involving conscience-shocking and credibility-stretching child abuse (and even other kinds of abuse) that involve some of the most prominent and even “respectable” persons in our culture, and the fact that these things are unbelievable to normal people helps the perpetrators keep them covered up, because those who insist that they are happening can be easily written off as lunatics, vengeful personal enemies, and liars. In fact, the concerted effort to paint any accuser as an evildoer or a madman is the hallmark of the really nasty cover-up.
There IS SUCH A THING as organized, sadistic child sexual abuse (and other forms of child abuse, but usually mixed all together in a sort of terroristic-threatening-pornographic amalgam that is hard to even hear about, much less believe). One characteristic of this kind of hideous activity (which, fortunately, is quite rare) is that it involves people who all have something on each other. This is an essential piece of the way it works. In other words, if one person who knew about such a thing were to tell, others would fall, yes, but that one person would probably fall the hardest — thus the self-made prepaid cover-up.
I don’t even remember the details of the Franklin cover-up and I don’t remember if, when I read about it, I believed it myself. This is a faint memory in a long history of knowing too much about lots of terrible things. But stop for a moment and think about one case that found its way into the news in a different light, and let me use it to explain what was carefully explained to ME (by law enforcement officers who were peripheral to the case itself).
JonBenet Ramsey.
Physical evidence in the case could not convict the father, nor could it convict the mother. The autopsy found that the child had a healed sexual injury indicating sexual penetration six months or so before her death. No one ever “broke” and no one ever “told” anything. There was a dead body.
How did this happen? Nobody rational believed there was an intruder who carried the tot from her upstairs bedroom down to the basement to kill her and leave her there and duck out again. None of the facts fit the conclusions (which were, essentially, NO CONCLUSIONS) reached by the police. What happened?
Just the point: Both parents, and probably even the brother, KNEW what had happened but none of them had actually killed the child. A non-family member had killed the child, but the family knew WHO that was. Yet they could not reveal who that was because if they did, the killer (who had not meant to kill the child, only to throttle her while he was enjoying himself that night) would reveal what he knew about THEM. (And of course, I am not ruling out that the killer was actually female — whoever the killer was, it was not an immediate family member.)
When you have a situation like that, and when the police do not use the various techniques and tools they have available to pin down who the perp was, you must presume that there were cops “on the inside” in the case, and they were part of whatever situation had led to the accident that blasted this across our front pages. THE COPS WHO HAD BEEN “RETAINED” either had enough power to mess up the investigation forever OR they obtained it as needed when the bad stuff hit the proverbial fan. And how?
Whoever tries to bust that cover-up gets busted for something else.
Whoever opposes the cover-up gets marginalized, undone, fired, convicted of an unrelated crime, welcomed in the psych ward, drugged, ECT’ed, whatever it takes. No witnesses remain to really undo the case or to cut through the Gordian knot.
If one judge needs to call another judge to make sure things go down as needed, so be it; there are interjudicial phone calls. If a judge needs to call al prosecutor from a different county to bring somebody in on a felony warrant for a crime that was never committed, so be it, let it happen, and it does happen. Deals are struck all over the place.
This is nothing bizarre. This is not just for TV. This is our country.
I am not saying the Franklin cover-up happened as it was told in that red pamphlet; I am saying, however, that it certainly COULD HAVE.
Penn State and the Catholic Church are not the kinds of closed systems breeding child sexual abuse because of sports and religion; they are what they are because in a large powerful institution handling lots of money and controlling lots of lives, THESE THINGS HAPPEN.
Curious,
My only point is, you need to speak for yourself.
Matt,
A unambiguous statement has been made that boys from Second Mile were PIMPED to wealthy donors. Three of my favorite commenters have responded to that statement in affirmation or in general support. Frankly, I thought the accusation was “quite a leap” and asked for clarification. Check out what Mike S, Blouise, and Malisha had to say. I will be only too glad to retract my statement about support should Mike, Blouise, or Malisha object.
Henry M – I can’t account for all the stupidity of those who think pedaphiles are not found among Catholic priests and that the Catholic Church, including the Pope(probably more than one), has not actively participated in the coverup of such crimes WORLDWIDE. I still think the Franklin Scandal is hooey and I have not read anything that supports the existence of a pedaphile sex ring at Second Mile.
I agree that there were probably many important people who had strong suspicions that “something” was off with Sandusky and their silence was a terrible thing. That does not make them part of a child sex ring.
Editorial by John Ziegler
Contrary to What You Have Heard, the Freeh Report has Big Problems
7/12/2012
As someone who has been critical of what I have perceived as the media’s rush to judgment against Joe Paterno in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, I was very eager to hear the results of the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh. My primary concern through all of this is that the case against Paterno for knowingly protecting a pedophile had not yet been truly proven. If it was, then I would be the first to admit that Paterno’s legacy would be rightly shattered and that his statue at Penn State should be uprooted.
Now that the report has come out and I (unlike the media at Freeh’s press conference) have actually had time to read it, I will acknowledge that the report raises some very serious questions about Paterno’s role. I now think that it is “probable” that Paterno deserves some level of condemnation for how he handled the Sandusky situation.
However, despite what you have heard in the news media, there are also some very significant problems with the report itself and, at least at this point, there is still a whole lot more speculative smoke than actual evidentiary fire in its findings.
The most glaring omission in the report is that Freeh did speak to any of the primary witnesses in the case. Not Paterno. Not Tim Curley. Not Mike McQueary (whom he referred to as “McQuade” in the press conference). Not Jerry Sandusky.
How can any investigation possibly be considered remotely complete or come to any legitimate conclusions without even speaking to any of the most important witnesses?
How can we possibly fully evaluate Paterno’s actions if we don’t know exactly what Mike McQueary (who, it must be pointed out, misremembered the year he witnessed the episode in the shower, an incident for which there is still no actual victim) told him? How can we possibly understand fairly vague emails without even hearing from the guy who wrote them?
Secondly, Freeh seems to promise far more in his press release/conclusions than he actually delivers in real evidence. Most of the media of course, at best, only read the summary and not the actual report. Thanks to that, it appears that most people have no idea that the real evidence backing up Freeh’s conclusions is, given the strong language he uses, remarkably thin.
The key pieces of new evidence (and frankly, maybe the only significant ones) against Paterno are two emails cited on pages 48 and 49 of the report which Freeh concludes are “clear” proof that Paterno was fully in the loop on the 1998 investigation of Sandusky which resulted in no criminal charges.
There is no doubt that if Paterno really knew about the 1998 investigation then any defense of him falls apart like a house of cards. This is because if he knew about 1998 then he had no reason to give Sandusky any benefit of the doubt in 2001 and he actually had a significant incentive to cover up the McQueary episode because there would have been a history of inaction. His credibility would also be shot because he essentially testified to the Grand Jury that he had no knowledge of the investigation.
However, Freeh is grotesquely overstating his evidence.
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 teh 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. 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.
One of the many elements of the report which the media is completely missing (because they obviously haven’t bothered to actually read it) is that Freeh essentially exonerates Paterno on a very important point which has bothered many Paterno defenders since the beginning of this story.
The report seems to prove (much more conclusively than it does other elements) that Sandusky being told that he would never be the head coach at Penn State had nothing to do with any allegations of sexual abuse. In fact, Paterno told him this before the 1998 investigation even began and his own hand written notes make it clear that the reason was because Sandusky, ironically, refused to give up his position as the head of the Second Mile charity, which was the source of his victims. Unfortunately, it is being routinely reported today that the report indicates the Sandusky’s resignation was proof Paterno knew of the problem in 1998. In actuality, the exact opposite is true.
Similarly, much has been made of the previously leaked email from February 27th 2001 in which Curley seems to indicate a change in plans to not report Sandusky to higher authorities after having spoken to Paterno. Not yet mentioned in any media coverage that I have seen is that the report divulges (on page 63) the existence of a February 12th 2001 note in which Curley discusses with the head of campus police coming to the very same conclusion, well before any evidence of influence from Paterno.
Why does this not at least bring into question the real role Paterno had in that decision, especially when the “evidence” is based almost entirely on mind reading through vague emails?
Perhaps the strangest argument Freeh attempts to make is that Paterno’s response to McQueary (to whom Freeh has never spoken) is proof that Paterno was immediately in some sort of cover up mode because the head coach told McQueary, “Now we’ll see what we want to do.”
What is amazing about what a huge deal Freeh made about this in the report and at his press conference is that he acts as if there is a recording of that conversation and we have Paterno’s actual words (which are obviously incredibly important is a situation like this). But that is just not the case. All we have is the testimony of McQueary TEN years after the conversation took place! And again, this is the same guy who inexplicably got the YEAR of the actual incident wrong. How in the world can you possibly conclude anything significant based on such a tenuous recollection?
One of the most blatant errors in the report with regard to both facts as well as their interpretation comes with regard to the two Penn State janitors about whom Freeh spoke so glowingly at his press conference. Here Freeh exposes himself and his report to very credible charges of malpractice.
Freeh claims that two janitors saw something “horrific” in the Penn State locker room in 2000. He says that they didn’t report the episode because they were terrified of speaking of what they saw to Paterno because going up against the football program was like taking on the “President of the United States” and they feared being fired. Freeh then concludes that this fear proved that there was a “chilling effect” within the football program, which was, in it self, is evidence of a culture of corruption.
These assertions by Freeh are simply as laughable as they are inaccurate.
First of all, whether Freeh realizes it or not, his team has never spoken to the actual witness in the 2000 episode because the lone witness now has dementia. The other janitor who testified at trial did so under a hearsay exception and only told of what the other janitor told him. Secondly, neither janitor would have been reporting to Paterno. Thirdly, Sandusky was a former football coach at that time. Fourthly, Freeh seems to completely disregard the obvious reality that these janitors desperately need an explanation for why they didn’t report the episode and that their claiming “fear” of a now dead man (without a shred of evidence) should be looked at with great suspicion. Finally, it seems totally lost on Freeh that these janitors who didn’t report the episode at all are being treated by him as heroes while Paterno, who did at least report allegations which he didn’t even witness, is seen as a pedophile protector.
I want to make it clear that it is quite possible that Joe Paterno did indeed know more than he let on and enough to justify him doing more than he did to stop the monster that was Jerry Sandusky. It is even possible that he actively helped cover it up. But the truth is that the evidence that any of this happened is just not nearly as strong as the media or Louis Freeh are portraying it to be.
All I want is for the truth to come out. We may never get the full truth, but it is important that people understand that, while there may have been some important progress, we didn’t get nearly as much of it from the Freeh report as everyone seems to want to believe.
Curious,
Hooey? That’s exactly the same thing many people said when the Catholic priest pedophilia rumors first surfaced. They continued to say hooey for years. Some even believe it’s still all hooey.
Before the books close on this incident, Penn State will likely be a bankrupt institution. There is absolutely no doubt that the Freeh Report exposes the university and its leadership to liability for intentional wrongdoing.
Curious,
What support?
Matt Johnson,
No. I am not being silent and based on a quick search on the web, I concluded that the Franklin Scandal was hooey. However, I am open to and interested in more evidence should it be forthcoming. If not, I find the accusation of a cabal of child rapists among the wealthy donors of Second Mile more hooey and am taken aback that such an opinion would find support on this blog.
Penn State, new leaf after Sandusky? Marvelous — and Penn’s only one among hundreds, so I’m not having any.
This is what ivory tower bureaucrats do with serial life-threatening acts of moral turpitude. Shall we check up on how they’ve been handling the small stuff – little matters of trifling moral consequence, like wasted subsidies, bloated departments, inflated curricula, and the unsustainable abuse of debt financing to sustain an indefensible value proposition?
Curious,
There is a synopsis on Wikipedia, which has a list of references at the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations
There are some near the center of that case who are convinced there was at least one wrongful conviction. Suggest you read the novel, “Billy Budd,” which may give you some insight into the dynamics of what happened. Sometimes fiction explains real life better than wading through evidence files.
I had a friend when I was a kid, who was molested by a homosexual pedophile who was the organist at the church where the Southern Baptist Convention was founded & the minister did nothing, because HE was having an affair with a married woman.
Curious,
I have asked for clarification several times and have heard nothing. Of course no one is required to respond, but it’s rather ironic when we are complaining about the silence of onlookers…
====================================
Are you being silent? Can you find your own conclusions?
“Paterno put ‘the brand’ ahead of human decency.”
Ray Ratto, Csnbayarea:
http://www.csnbayarea.com/ncaa/news/Paterno-put-the-brand-ahead-of-human-dec?blockID=739194&feedID=8349
I am ready to be set straight about the Franklin Scandal – have at me. I had never heard of it and after a search on the web it looks like a bunch of hooey. Its web site presents a book that looks like a lurid. cheap, sexploitation full of conspiracy theories about high ranking government officals, cover ups, and mysterious deaths. On a par with the Vince Foster “murder”. I am unnerved that several commenters that I admire seem to believe that the Franklin Scandal was in fact true and not a hoax and are willing to link that case with an accusation that boys from Second Mile were “PIMPED” to wealthy donors. I have asked for clarification several times and have heard nothing. Of course no one is required to respond, but it’s rather ironic when we are complaining about the silence of onlookers…
Dredd-
“And, this could also mean financial support will suffer.”
Not yet: “Despite Sandusky scandal, Penn State draws $208.7 million in donations”
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-09/us/us_pennsylvania-penn-state-donations_1_sandusky-image-joe-paterno-and-university-sandusky-conviction
That’s the second highest figure of all time for them.
Let’s just call it what it is. Most people don’t have the balls to do what they know they should do if it will impact them negatively.
It’s not inconceivable to me that more than the inner sanctum at Penn knew, or heard repeated rumors about child abuse by Sandusky and that the Freeh Report did not “go there”. But I am very skeptical that boys from Second Mile were made available to wealthy donors for sex and that it was not exposed during Sandusky’s trial. Perhaps I have misinterpreted bettykath’s statement. Can someone please address this concern?
Mike Spindell 1, July 12, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Sadly I must agree with Bettykath. This was a broader-based problem than is being let on. The self-serving hypocrisy of letting this loathsome predator continue illustrates that many people who are in positions of authority care more for themselves than their duty. While on some level self interest may be understandable in a given situation, when it comes to something as horrific as child sexual abuse, or indeed child abuse without sex, then the failure to act indicates someone who is essentially inhuman.
======================================
Right on Mike.
The “penn staters” are essentially parasites engendered by the universal bully religion dynamics that our nation has become host to.
As the song “Deth Starr”, by Tenacious D, points out, there is a mania about that wants this stuff spread throughout the galaxy.
Gene H. 1, July 12, 2012 at 12:32 pm
FYI, MSNBC started running an Op-Ed column yesterday titled “NCAA must give death penalty to Penn State”
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48126484/ns/sports-college_football/
====================================
Seems quite reasonable to me.
Otteray Scribe 1, July 12, 2012 at 11:16 am
Dredd, most insurance companies with which I am familiar (mine included) provide professionals with a legal defense if accused, but if claims of sexual impropriety are proved, they will not pay damages. Additionally, the company may very well send a bill for the amount expended defending the accused.
==========================
Seems quite reasonable to me.