Paul Mirengoff at Powerline takes up the challenge of defending Joe Paterno. Yike!
Having glanced through it, I would infer that an unspoken assumption of the Freeh report is that of course Joe Paterno knew what was happening in his football empire. Set against that, the 1998 abuse allegation seems to have been investigated and Sandusky exonerated. Here is Mr. Mirengoff quoting a contributor:
First, with respect to the 1998 incident, the Freeh Report says that several authorities promptly investigated and reviewed the matter, including the Department of Public Welfare, the University Police Department, the State College police, and the local district attorney’s office. Freeh Report at 42-47. A “counselor” named John Seasock issued a report that found “no indication of child abuse.” Freeh Report at 42-46. Mr. Seasock interviewed the alleged victim and determined that “there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children.” Freeh Report at 44 (quoting Mr. Seasock’s 1998 evaluation of the alleged victim). The Freeh Report adds that Mr. Seasock “couldn’t find any indication of child abuse.” Freeh Report at 45.
Obviously, that exoneration does not look good in hindsight, but no evidence of a cover-up as of 1998 is presented. As to what Parterno knew and when he knew it:
The Report does not provide any evidence about what Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 allegations against Sandusky. The Report does not provide any evidence about what Mr. Paterno did or said, or what anyone said to Mr. Paterno. Indeed, the Freeh Report suggests that both law enforcement and the University police agreed that nothing improper happened and that the allegations lacked merit. Did anyone tell Joe Paterno about those findings?
Invoking the "Of course he knew" principle allows an easy answer to those questions, but one might have expected more in the way of documentation from the Freeh team.
As to the 2001 incident:
Furthermore, if Mr. Paterno had reported the McQueary information to me (were I, like Schultz, the official in charge of the University Police), I would have told him to keep his mouth shut going forward and let the authorities handle the matter. Otherwise, Mr. Paterno could have tainted the investigation. And, because he was a potential trial witness (to McQueary’s prior consistent statements, see Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence613(c)), any further statements or action by Mr. Paterno could have become cross-examination fodder for the defense. Any further action by Mr.Paterno could only have damaged the integrity of the investigation and any prosecution against Sandusky.
Indeed, Mr. Paterno explained his actions before died by saying that “I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did.” Freeh Report at 77-78. This statement makes perfect sense, and the notion of a football coach supervising a criminal investigation is ridiculous. It is very possible that Curley or Schultz or both told Mr. Paterno to stay out of the matter; in fact, Schultz should have told him as much. But we don’t know because Schultz and Curley are under indictment and not talking, Paterno is dead, and the Freeh Report did not find any information about this issue.
This is a pretty legalistic case. A Joe Paterno with a more assertive attitude and a greater interest in the well-being of the children involved - i.e., the Joe Paterno we thought we knew - would not have let a mere University President tell him to back off and pipe down. The Joe Paterno we thought we knew would have made sure butts were kicked and names were taken, lawyers be damned.
Well - something to think about (or scream about).
What's absurd is Roman Polanski did the same thing as Sandusky, i.e., sodomize a minor, and Hollywood embraces him as the victim - THE VICTIM - of a witchhunt.
I'm just putting myself in his shoes. I'm a VP at Citigroup and my assistant says he witnessed a VP from another department having sex with a minor under 16. [Note, if the boy was 16 it technically would have been legal.] I'd probably tell my assistant to call the police actually. I don't think I'd call the police based on hearsay. Right.
I don't think Paterno deserves this villification.
Posted by: Commentator | July 28, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Gut check: If you had access to the information that Paterno had in 2001 (the 1998 police report and the 2001 McQuery testimony, would you have allowed your child to be alone with Sandusky? Of course not. Would you have allowed other children to be alone with Sandusky? Now I present to you Joe Paterno.
Posted by: jetty | July 28, 2012 at 06:58 PM
Here's another link, Ig.
He was acting violent and paranoid, demanding water when he still had water beside him. He threw a beaker of urine at a consultant. A psychiatrist was called and sedation was ordered by the surgeon. There was some assuming about his having previously had a brain tumor being the cause of his behavior. While he was unconscious, standard procedure was he should have an IV to keep his fluids up, but this was not written down, the surgeon assumed it would just happen.
Yes, he died of dehydration, but it wasn't because no one would bring him a glass of water - it's because no one understood he needed an excessive amount of fluids because no one noticed he needed medication and wasn't getting it. There were so many mistakes made here, every one of which relates to failure of each party to take personal responsibility for their patient.
I just think it's a mistake to make the story be he died because no one gave him a glass of water, because that is something someone like me thinks "hey, that's bad but I can make sure it doesn't happen to me or my loved ones, and that ought to be simple to fix" vs. the reality, which is complete and utter systemic failure of every party in fulfilling their MEDICAL responsibility of knowing their patient and reading the damn charts.
Posted by: AliceH | July 28, 2012 at 07:35 PM
Captain Hate, I see you have nothing to add to the topic other than hate. FWIW, I am not defending Penn State in this matter. I am defending the fans and the football players. If guilty after being fairly tried, Spanier, Curley, Schultz should all do a lot of jail time. Fines are OK by me too.
The NCAA does not need due process in order to levy penalties but they typically run their own investigation which I am sure is more thorough than the incomplete garbage put out by Freeh. The football team is innocent but they are the ones who are paying for this travesty. Still almost all of the team is staying put in Happy Valley where they do in fact graduate at a rate higher than any other D1 school in the country last year and in the top three most every year. Penn State is not a football factory unlike most successful D1 and that legacy survives this mess and will continue under the leadership of their new coach. These are facts. You are too full of hate to think logically. Go read the Freeh report........for the first time.
Posted by: tommy r | July 28, 2012 at 10:05 PM
I read most of the posts on Paterno and the sanctions last night, just caught up with a few tonight. Tommy r, whether or not a person's opinion is 'too full of hate to think logically' is not fair and a bit harsh. Whether or not Captain feels hate or scorn at what happened in the once Happy Value is not to be judged...by you or any of us. Penn State football is not important, children are.
Child molestation is the most base of crimes. If our society is to flourish, the innocent must be protected. Our society fails in that protection so many ways, the sexualization of our television shows, even some commercials, is overwhelming. Today children don't seem to have a chance at an innocent childhood like our country once provided. Therefore, a man in charge of one of the most vaunted and respected football programs in this country owes a special obligation to ensure that it is exemplary in all ways. Any whiff of a coach on his staff exhibiting unwarranted attention of a sexual nature should have raised alarm bells-- shrieking alarm bells. Paterno turned his back on this problem. There is no way he didn't know. He held on to his football kingdom grimly, going so far as to coach from the box one year and then returning to the sidelines a year later, all in pursuit of a record. A record. While children had been buggered and violated by one of his staff, a close friend and trusted confidant. Sometimes the pursuit of a dream turns a man's common sense and thinking to an absence of what really matters...no football game or program or record is worth crimes against children, crimes among the most cowardly and sickening on this earth.
Posted by: Joan | July 28, 2012 at 11:12 PM
The football team is innocent but they are the ones who are paying for this travesty.
How are they paying, genius? They still get to play football just like they signed up to do. So what if they don't go to a bowl game; lots of other teams don't either. Isn't this the type of situation that reveals character? If they have aspirations to play in the NFL they'll still take part in the Happy Valley farm team of the league. Seriously, where's the "Oh the humanity" aspect of this "punishment"?
Putting the football program on an unrealistic pedestal is what enabled this whole fiasco. It's time you and every other defender start owning up to that.
Penn State is not a football factory unlike most successful D1 and that legacy survives this mess and will continue under the leadership of their new coach. These are facts.
You, like most trolls, don't understand what a "fact" is.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 28, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Seems to me we should give Paterno the benefit of the doubt.
Up until this incident, he was viewed as a very ethical person.
All the evidence against him is innuendo and supposition.
We don't know what he knew.
We don't know what McQuery told him.
Posted by: mockmook | July 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Seems to me we should give Paterno the benefit of the doubt.
Up until this incident, he was viewed as a very ethical person.
Oh please, I've read this garbage so much I almost respond by rote. He was no more ethical than any other head coach of a large Division 1 football program. He wasn't a bad person per se but he'd gotten used to doing things his way for so long that his moral compass wasn't nearly as unerring as the Skip Baylesses and Brent Musbergers of the world would have you believe.
There has been far too much worry about the perception of somebody who's dead versus concern for the victims of the abuse.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 29, 2012 at 04:10 PM
Now
Then
As I said, indistinguishable from any other large Division 1 program.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 29, 2012 at 06:24 PM
"If the man is honorable"
Except this is Louis Freeh we are talking about, who covered up the Waco atrocities.
Posted by: Matt B | July 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM