Freeh Report confirms the worst | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Freeh Report confirms the worst

OrangePA said:
No it does not exonerate others with respect to what happened in later years.

That's not the point.

Seasock's ridiculous conclusion gave others within the University some form of cover - at best it allowed others to essentially look the other way.

Think about it.

The so-called expert declares that Sandusky is not a pedophile and did nothing sexual to the kid.

What is the DA to do with that? Prosecute the guy?

And what is the University to do at that point?

I was surprised to learn that Sandusky retired before the May, 1998 incident.

I still suspect that his decision to retire and the decision not to make him HC had something to do with his odd relationship with boys.
Expand...


So...despite the findings of an eight month investigation headed by the former director of the FBI, including interviews with 430 witnesses and the examination of more than 3.5 million emails and other documents, and the 267-page report that clearly and unquestionably implicated and condemned top officials at PSU and Joe Paterno, your personal conclusion is that Seasock's report was THE factor that provided plausible deniability going forward?
 
man o man. So glad I threw out my Paterno recruiting letter and info that I once revered when this all started. Saves me the trouble now. But I was hoping just hoping that he was at least a little in the dark or too old and senile to know the gravity of the situation.

That's all out the window now. To the man I once held up in reverence second only to a few others in my life.....I hope you're rotting in hell.
 
007 said:
So...despite the findings of an eight month investigation headed by the former director of the FBI, including interviews with 430 witnesses and the examination of more than 3.5 million emails and other documents, and the 267-page report that clearly and unquestionably implicated and condemned top officials at PSU and Joe Paterno, your personal conclusion is that Seasock's report was THE factor that provided plausible deniability going forward?
Expand...


No.

You don't get it.

Read it again.
 
kingtidge said:
It is the point...

What did Paterno and the administration do when McQueery reported Sandusky buggering a kid in the PSU showers a few years later?

Did they sit around and say "It's a lie. Seascock told us he was clean..."?

I think the broader question is how far did Paterno's power in the community really stretch to cover this thing up?

We know that while Curly was his boss on paper, the truth was the other way around... JoePa did as he pleased with impunity in the Athletic Dept.

Could Seascock have been muscled by JoePa and the PSU machine to brush stuff under the rug as well? Did their local power stretch beyond the state college campus?

I don't know if that has any merit in truth but it would not surprise me if so...

This Freeh report is a new pandora's box, and things are going to get a lot worse for a lot of people as this gets dissected.
Expand...



Oh my goodness.

The reference to Seasock is with respect to what occurred in 1998 - three or four years before the McQueery incident.

Don't you people read?
 
Cuseregular said:
man o man. So glad I threw out my Paterno recruiting letter and info that I once revered when this all started. Saves me the trouble now. But I was hoping just hoping that he was at least a little in the dark or too old and senile to know the gravity of the situation.

That's all out the window now. To the man I once held up in reverence second only to a few others in my life.....I hope you're rotting in hell.
Expand...

From the Fox Article above... Sums up the disparity in blame and attitudes:

Paterno did not get it even as he faced death. As Freeh said, “The facts are the facts. He was an integral part of the act to conceal,” yet the JoePalogists still do not get it. Neither does his family.
Expand...
 
rrlbees said:
That's because they all knew well before the 1998 incident.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Expand...


Yes, my gut tells me that they suspected that there was something odd about the guy before 1998.

What it is exactly that they "knew" is a really tough question.
 
OrangePA said:
Oh my goodness.

The reference to Seasock is with respect to what occurred in 1998 - three or four years before the McQueery incident.

Don't you people read?
Expand...

We read what you wrote, some of us just don't agree with it.
 
OrangePA said:
Yes, my gut tells me that they suspected that there was something odd about the guy before 1998.

What it is exactly that they "knew" is a really tough question.
Expand...

No it's not a tough question at all

"Hey Jerry, I don't know what's true or not...but you can't bring kids here on campus, ever again..period...end of story"
 
kingtidge said:
We read what you wrote, some of us just don't agree with it.
Expand...


You really don't get it.

The point of the post - and a crucial notation in the report itself - did you read the actual report? - is that in 1998 when the DA and the police were prepared to prosecute, Seasock issued an incredibly stupid report that would deep six any prosecutorial effort.

Seasock was the supposed professional who concluded that nothing in May, 1998 was sexual, that there was no evidence that Sandusky was "grooming" the kid and no evidence that he was a pedophile.

The DA had no choice at that point. He could not prosecute.

And the school, without the benefit of hindsight, which you have clearly embraced with great enthusiasim - had the cover it so clearly wanted to have. Since the professional had concluded that nothing inappropriate had occurred, the school could feel comfortable doing essentially nothing.

Now, what happened after 1998 was obviously foreshadowed by what happened in May, 1998. Had Seasock read the situation correctly Sandusky would likely have been prosecuted - the situation would have become very public and the school would have had no choice at that point but to face up to the situation - in 1998.

Obviously Seasock is not responsible for what the school did or did not do three or four yeas later in 2001 when McQueery reported what he saw to Paterno.

And nobody is suggesting otherwise.

What the post concludes is that by not doing his job properly, Seasock allowed the DA to forego prosecution in 1998 and gave the school cover in 1998.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Suppose you had been the DA in 1998. Would you, in the context of the report issued by the YSC expert, had gone ahead with a prosecution?

And supposed you had been a University administrator in 1998. What action would you have taken in the context of the YSC report indicating that nothing sexual had occurred and that Sandusky was not a pedophile?

Just curious.
 
rrlbees said:
I missed his word "officials" meaning people. I took it to mean PedSt the institution. Many people wanted to downplay the responsibility of the school and some even Paterno, when it was obvious as hell.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Expand...

Gotcha. Doyel, who I generally loathe, has a pretty good article about this. Saying the 2 words he wants to hear from everyone associated with PSU is "we're sorry". Most of us think they had run out of defenses awhile ago, but now it's beyond ridiculous.
 
djcon57 said:
No it's not a tough question at all

"Hey Jerry, I don't know what's true or not...but you can't bring kids here on campus, ever again..period...end of story"
Expand...


I think the problem with your observation is that there is nothing in the report or any other report that refers to any known incident before the 1998 time period.

In other words, there was no basis at that time for anybody to say "Hey Jerry I don't know what true or not" since there were no allegations to debate before that time period.

What Bees and I are talking about is really just gut speculation - that somebody knew something before 1998.

No facts, just a gut feeling on my part.
 
ncaa needs to take action even if only if they are told it is out of their juristiction(as apparantly their lawyers are already saying) if they do nothing with this,the flood gates open and they have virtually no credibility
 
OrangePA said:
I think the problem with your observation is that there is nothing in the report or any other report that refers to any known incident before the 1998 time period.

In other words, there was no basis at that time for anybody to say "Hey Jerry I don't know what true or not" since there were no allegations to debate before that time period.

What Bees and I are talking about is really just gut speculation - that somebody knew something before 1998.

No facts, just a gut feeling on my part.
Expand...

Got it. I was talking about '98 specifically.
 
OrangePA said:
You really don't get it.

The point of the post - and a crucial notation in the report itself - did you read the actual report? - is that in 1998 when the DA and the police were prepared to prosecute, Seasock issued an incredibly stupid report that would deep six any prosecutorial effort.

Seasock was the supposed professional who concluded that nothing in May, 1998 was sexual, that there was no evidence that Sandusky was "grooming" the kid and no evidence that he was a pedophile.

The DA had no choice at that point. He could not prosecute.

And the school, without the benefit of hindsight, which you have clearly embraced with great enthusiasim - had the cover it so clearly wanted to have. Since the professional had concluded that nothing inappropriate had occurred, the school could feel comfortable doing essentially nothing.

Now, what happened after 1998 was obviously foreshadowed by what happened in May, 1998. Had Seasock read the situation correctly Sandusky would likely have been prosecuted - the situation would have become very public and the school would have had no choice at that point but to face up to the situation - in 1998.

Obviously Seasock is not responsible for what the school did or did not do three or four yeas later in 2001 when McQueery reported what he saw to Paterno.

And nobody is suggesting otherwise.

What the post concludes is that by not doing his job properly, Seasock allowed the DA to forego prosecution in 1998 and gave the school cover in 1998.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Suppose you had been the DA in 1998. Would you, in the context of the report issued by the YSC expert, had gone ahead with a prosecution?

And supposed you had been a University administrator in 1998. What action would you have taken in the context of the YSC report indicating that nothing sexual had occurred and that Sandusky was not a pedophile?

Just curious.
Expand...
if the da at that time was SINCERELY concerned they would have pursued further than sesacock's report. maybe seascock gave them what they wanted,and someone like the missing da --did not go along with company line
 
WOW talk about a cover up. Hopefully the kids molested get justice via the upcoming trials and or civil litigation. I dont see the NCAA doing much to Penn State surely not the death penalty.
 
I have absolutely no idea what "jurisdition" the NCAA has, but if they're going to punt on this one then can they please just fold up shop on regulating absolutely anything from now on?

I mean how on Earth can anyone take such diddly-squat issues as coaches texting recruits during the wrong week, or boosters getting a player a car, seriously when one of the premiere collegiate athletic departments in the country is allowed to cover up a pedophile for a decade?
 
how fitting is it that PSU's BOT is addressing the Freeh Report from a city hours from declaring bankruptcy
 
tipphill said:
if the da at that time was SINCERELY concerned they would have pursued further than sesacock's report. maybe seascock gave them what they wanted,and someone like the missing da --did not go along with company line
Expand...


Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

Read the report issued this morning.

It is very clear that Seasock issued a report that made it impossible to prosecute.

Implicit in the report are the efforts some of the investigators made to convince Seasock that this was a real problem.

Those efforts failed and it had nothing to do with the DA.
 
djcon57 said:
Got it. I was talking about '98 specifically.
Expand...


I understand.

Like I have said, the effort to take action in 1998 - and there were many who wanted to take action - was hurt badly by the report issued by the YSC investigator who concluded that there was no evidence of sexual activity or pedophilia.
 
OrangePA said:
No.

You don't get it.

Read it again.
Expand...


I have read the report.

I simply disagree with your assumption that Seasock was the key player in why Sandusky was allowed to continue.

There is a huge difference between disagreeing with your opinion and not "getting it." I suspect that your wife has proably mentioned this to you before.

Are you aware that Seasock provided the second psychological evaluation at that time and that his findings were contray to the findings of the initial evaluation? Or that, when questioned about his findings, Seasock admitted that his was not aware of the details of the victim's experiences with Sandusky.

See pages 44-45 of the Freeh report.

And then explain to me again what I don't "get"
 
OrangePA said:
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

Read the report issued this morning.

It is very clear that Seasock issued a report that made it impossible to prosecute.

Implicit in the report are the efforts some of the investigators made to convince Seasock that this was a real problem.

Those efforts failed and it had nothing to do with the DA.
Expand...

Why hang their hats on Seasocks report? The other psyche report said differently.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
171,894
Messages
4,981,143
Members
6,021
Latest member
OldeOstrom

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
220
Guests online
3,181
Total visitors
3,401
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom