Penn State University - The Freeh Report

aeroclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2006
9,833
5,859
113
When the first alegations came out he was an indispensible coach to them and closely connected to JoePa. They pushed it all aside.

In 1998 they couldn't ignore it and had him "retire".

In 2002 they had to cover it up because they covered it up in 1998. Also, JoePa was getting heat at that time for some poor seasons and he wasn't ready to retire. If they took their chances and outed Sandusky in 2002 it might have led them to be forced to make JoePa retire.



The only way they could have expeosed him and limited their damage was to out him after the first alegations. Instead they started the vicious cycle of cover ups.

The 1998 allegations were investigated by campus police and ultimately no charges were filed, so they could have claimed the high road on that if they had chosen to go ahead and out Sandusky in 2002.
 

tim_redd

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2006
13,166
7,989
113
41
Ankeny
The 1998 allegations were investigated by campus police and ultimately no charges were filed, so they could have claimed the high road on that if they had chosen to go ahead and out Sandusky in 2002.

It's all about perception. Would the general public really believe he was innocent in 98 then guilty of the same thing in 2002?
 

rholtgraves

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,201
6,751
113
When the first alegations came out he was an indispensible coach to them and closely connected to JoePa. They pushed it all aside.

In 1998 they couldn't ignore it and had him "retire".

In 2002 they had to cover it up because they covered it up in 1998. Also, JoePa was getting heat at that time for some poor seasons and he wasn't ready to retire. If they took their chances and outed Sandusky in 2002 it might have led them to be forced to make JoePa retire.



The only way they could have expeosed him and limited their damage was to out him after the first alegations. Instead they started the vicious cycle of cover ups.

As far as I can tell, 1998 wasn't a cover up. An investigation took place by the police and the prosecution decided they couldn't go forward with charges. That's not a cover up.

A cover up is what happened in 2002 when McQueary reported what he saw to Paterno and it wasn't reported to authorities.
 

twistedredbird

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2008
3,371
85
48
53
Midwest
As far as I can tell, 1998 wasn't a cover up. An investigation took place by the police and the prosecution decided they weren't going forward with charges. That's not a cover up.

A cover up is what happened in 2002 when McQueary reported what he saw to Paterno and it wasn't reported to authorities.

FIFY

why did they abruptly "STOP" their investigation and prosecution? This is a lingering question....oh, it's probably nothing, oh wait, let's ask the prosecutor....oh, nevermind, he is missing, isn't that convenient.
 
C

CyBer

Guest
FIFY

why did they abruptly "STOP" their investigation and prosecution? This is a lingering question....oh, it's probably nothing, oh wait, let's ask the prosecutor....oh, nevermind, he is missing, isn't that convenient.

The FBI should be investigating this hardcore too, and they probably are. I have a feeling that the rabbit hole goes quite deep.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron