c****e
发帖数: 1984 | 1 http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=219
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 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.
It must also be pointed out (it never ever is in the media), that all of the
critical emails come from Curley. This is incredibly important because at
the time of Paterno's death Curley released a statement praising Paterno's "
honor and integrity." How in the world does it make any sense that someone
whom we are now led to believe was led into a horrific cover by Paterno
would needlessly praise him like that at his death? This is even more
inexplicable when you consider that Curley is facing criminal charges where
such a statement could significantly curtail his easiest defense, which
would be to blame Paterno.
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, “It's my job now to figure out 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 Paterno's description of it to Sally Jenkins
just before he died! 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. | r***l
发帖数: 9084 | 2 这些疑问被告律师提出，肯定影响陪审团，但人类的common sense，正常人没人怀疑结
论了。再说了freeh看了那么多email，interview了几百人，得出的结论肯定是链接式
的，单看几个piece的论据当然会有doubt. | c****e
发帖数: 1984 | 3 "正常人没人怀疑结
论了" 你这结论下的？ 很多人都怀疑，只是现在Media导向
Freeh的 conclusion is based on doubt, not hard facts | U*L
发帖数: 1449 | 4
"正常人没人怀疑结
I hate to see these no-brainer conclusions.
【在 r***l 的大作中提到】
: 这些疑问被告律师提出，肯定影响陪审团，但人类的common sense，正常人没人怀疑结
: 论了。再说了freeh看了那么多email，interview了几百人，得出的结论肯定是链接式
: 的，单看几个piece的论据当然会有doubt.
| b**j
发帖数: 20742 | 5 大家都表示个人看法就好了，不要动不动就要当代表
【在 U*L 的大作中提到】
:
: "正常人没人怀疑结
: I hate to see these no-brainer conclusions.
|
|
