Paterno legacy tarnished by Louis Freeh report; despite Paterno report

Share

joepa

The Louis Freeh report, a Penn State internal investigation lacking subpoena power, was released in summer and the results were scathing for Joe Paterno, the Paterno family and the Paterno legacy. It’ll never be the same again.

After that day, even those painted a halo over Paterno’s head on a mural in Happy Valley will realize the falseness of their idol. It’ll be very inappropriate for Penn State football and general human morals and values to have that Paterno statue remain outside the football stadium, or retain the Paterno name on the library after today.

The disgraced trio of Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were ready to go to the authorities in 2001, and deal with Jerry Sandusky and his serial child rape. Paterno shot it down.

Like I said before, the email paper trails display this event happening. And they convey the true hierarchy in State College- a Paterno patriarchy. At least three more of Sandusky’s victims were abused after this 2001 incident. The Freeh report also shows that the PSU higher-ups all knew about Sandusky and his sexual abuse of children since 1998. In other words, what Paterno did contradicts what he said in testimony to grand jury. The report from the ex-FBI member shows a Penn State where all the leaders had a blatant disregard for the safety of the children. Simply because they were afraid of bad publicity for the school.

The NCAA was already aware of the “lack of institutional control,” possibility at Penn State as they undergo their investigation. Now they have their “smoking gun,” an indictment of the ruling despot. The Freeh report is to Joe Paterno’s legacy what “Game of Shadows” was for Barry Bonds.

jerry-sandusky

And today via ESPN:

Joe Paterno’s family calls the July 2012 Freeh report that was accepted by Penn State trustees before unprecedented sanctions were levied by the NCAA against the school’s football program a “total failure” that is “full of fallacies, unsupported personal opinions, false allegations and biased assertions.”

The Paterno family report, which targets nearly every conclusion and assertion the Freeh report made about Paterno in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, states that while former FBI director Louis J. Freeh has had an honorable past and good reputation, his investigation — especially as it relates to Paterno — relied on “rank speculation,” “innuendo” and “subjective opinions” when it concluded that Paterno concealed facts about Sandusky in part to avoid bad publicity.

Yeah, sorry I’m going to stick with the Freeh Report on this one.

Paul M. Banks is CEO of The Sports Bank.net, an official Google News site generating millions of unique visitors. He’s also a regular contributor to Chicago Now, Chicago Tribune.com, Fox Sports, MSN, Walter Football and Yardbarker

A Fulbright scholar and MBA, Banks has appeared on live radio all over the world; and he’s a member of the Football Writers Association of America, U.S. Basketball Writers Association, and Society of Professional Journalists. The President of the United States follows him on Twitter (@Paul_M_BanksTSB) You should too

Powered by

Comments

  1. 3 magic words, there – “lacking subpoena power”.

    IF they had it, trust me, FAR more would have been found.

    They got off, big time, so…

    Shut up, Scott, Jay and other hillbilly myopians!

  2. Frank Shulock says:

    If you had taken the time to read the full Freeh report and the appendices, I did, you would have reached the same conclusion as Governor Thornburg. There was a rush to judgment. The “Conclusions” of Freeh regarding Joe Paterno were not supported by the few facts that their investigation was able to determine. Their “Conclusions” assumed too much and ignored any facts that were contrary to their hypothesis. The Thornberg report does not say Joe Paterno was innocent. It does state the obvious that anyone who read the entire Freeh report would have seen. The Freeh report was procedurally flawed, and slanted to implicate Joe Paterno irregardless of the few facts presented. I personally feel that, based upon Paterno’s lifetime record the Freeh Reports “Conclusions” were incorrect, and that the Thornberg “Conclusions” that the Freeh Report was flawed and biased are correct.

  3. Frank pfeiffer says:

    Where is the evidence Paterno shot it down. Freeh report doesn’t have any other than “believed to be” or words like that. Does it make sense for paterno to report the incident and then tell them not to report it?

  4. The Paterno family report is trying to say the Freeh report is biased and invalid

Speak Your Mind