[Husker] Lengthy editorial on Freeh report

[Scott Stewart]

Long Post...Sorry but I find this fascinating.

Interesting read. I also finished reading the report this morning. I concur
with his conclusion that the report is both upsetting and somewhat poorly
put together.

I disagree with his assertion that Jo Pa is less culpable because he may
not have known about the 1998 incident. I don't think that is
very relevant to the not reporting it in 2001.

Additionally, his assertion about the Feb 12th is a distortion at best.
There is a note written on Feb 12th that Shultz investigated Second Mile on
the internet and contacted campus police to see if there was a record of
the 1998 incident. It wasn't to discuss their plan of action. Additionally,
a Feb 26th email from Shultz to Curley affirms the plan was to notify Dept
of Welfare. On Feb 27th Shultz sends a email to Spanier and Curley stating
that after further thought and talking to Coach Paterno he has decided on
another course of action and is warned by Spanier that there could be
adverse outcomes if the "message" isn't heard.

Clearly, the plan changed after talking with Paterno. Additionally, it is
clear that they realized they were not following the advice of their own
counsel, and that it was dangerous. To me this is the smoking gun, and
exposes them to severe liability.

Other things that are interesting in the report are:

1. PSU never reported the first allegation. It was reported by the child's
psychologist. It was also the psychologists opinion that Sandusky's
behavior was consistent with a pedofile "softening" a child for abuse.

2. Child Protective Services could not handle the case as they had multiple
contracts with Second Mile and it was a conflict of interest. It was
instead investigated through Dept of Welfare. An entity likely unfamiliar
with this type of investigation.

3. Dept of Welfare determined no abuse occurred. What I have not seen in
the news is that the investigator did not receive a copy of the
psychologists report, even though the police investigator working with them
on the case had a copy of it. In testimony the administrator overseeing the
investigation stated the psychologists report would have changed their
decision. Their decision was based upon interviews with Sandusky and the
child, and the report of their counselor that stated Sandusky "didn't fit
the profile of a pedophile." This counselor was then hired by PSU as an
independent contractor in 2000.

4. There is a potential opening for the NCAA to get involved in the report.
When talking about the Janitor's fear they would be fired if they came
forward, a footnote on that page cites two incidents where
the athletics department exerted pressure to have athletes university
sanctions reduced for infractions so they could retain their eligibility.

5. There are also a lot of interesting coincidences. I noted that the
counselor was later hired by PSU. Also right after the 2001 incident, PSU
sold a piece of property at cost to Second Mile for an amount of money
almost identical to PSU's final settlement with Sandusky and his retirement
in 1999. Freeh says there was evidence of impropriety in either of these
cases, but it makes me wonder.

6. Freeh goes to great length to identify Shultz, Paterno, and McQuery as
violating law for not reporting the incident. However, his reasoning is a
stretch. He cites the Clery Act, which states that people who work and
oversee students have an obligation to report a crime to the police so it
can be added to the schools crime statistics. He uses this law, but at the
end of the report admits that PSU had no policy in place regarding the
Clery Act until 2011, and that there is no evidence that any of these
individuals had training on the act by PSU.

In my opinion, he uses the Clery Act because it specifically identifies
Coaches and AD's. The state law regarding mandatory reporters in 2001 would
have to be stretched to include Shultz, Paterno, or McQuery. That law
defined mandatory reporters as people "who in the course of their
employment... come into contact with children." Therefore, you would have
to define college students as children by that law. In my experience,
teachers are mandatory reporters, but college professors are not usually
considered mandatory reporters unless they supervise or train people that
are are directly working with children.

Scott

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Mike Nolan <nolan at tssi.com> wrote:

> This commentator finds flaws in the Freeh report, which he HAS read:
>
> http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=219
> --
> Mike Nolan
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>