Are we ever going to get a review of Freeh??

[psu00]

Barron appears to be a liar saying he would review it......then he went on his tour of southern states in February (?) and we've never heard anything about Freeh again. The alumni trustees were trying to work out the details and not get everything redacted by the lawyers.....but months have passed and we haven't heard of any progress. Anyone have any update on where the alumni trustees stand now?

 

[nits74]

There will never be a review, at least not by Penn State. Too many powerful peoples reputations are at stake. Barron has been a liar since the day he arrived on campus. He occasionally attempts to appease the masses with hollow promises or statements, but never follows through. He was as easy to read as a Dick and Jane book. How anyone bought into his line of BS is mystifying. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

This post was edited on 4/9 7:22 PM by nits74

 

[Mixolydian]

I have wondered lately if the story will ever be any different...

than it is right now. Will the Paterno lawsuit and CSS criminal trials ever go anywhere? I hope so, but it sure seems the wind went out of the sails when the Corman lawsuit settled.

 

[Fayette_LION]

The Paterno's and Spanier hold the keys here. This is the only

remaining chance to get the Freeh info out of Gulag No 9.

 

[canuckhal]

Masser and gang--review, we don't need no stinkin' review.

Badges

 

[bdgan]

Barron did review it

Eric Barron told The Associated Press that the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh took a prosecutorial approach and created an "absurd" and "unwarranted" picture of students, faculty and others associated with the university.

"I have to say, I'm not a fan of the report," Barron said during a half-hour interview in his office in Old Main, the school's administrative headquarters. "There's no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case."

 

[91Joe95]

But he didn't actually review any files to reach that conclusion.

The courts will have a field day.

 

[psu00]

Re: But he didn't actually review any files to reach that conclusion.

Exactly. IIRC he said that like 3 days after announcing 'the review' while they were still bitching about the confidentiality statement and degree of redacted materials.

This post was edited on 4/9 11:07 PM by psu00

 

[bjf1984]

Barron had three choices:


1 - Review the Freeh file. Find that sufficient evidence existed to support Freeh's claims that the University community "placed football ahead of basic human decency"....and outline what that evidence is.

2 - Review the Free file. Find that sufficient evidence DID NOT exist to support Freeh's claim that the University community "placed football ahead of basic human decency"....and publically and persistently outline the facts that refuted Freeh's conclusions.

or

3 - Do nothing, and let the Freeh conclusions - that the PSU community "placed football ahead of basic human decency" - stand unchallenged.

His internal bloviations notwithstanding, that (option #3) is EXACTLY what he has done.......and what anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew he intended to do the moment he chimed in at the November BOT meeting with his "I'll review the file" nonsense.

His bloviations about doing a review were NEVER anything more than a ploy to take some of the heat off of the Old Guard scoundrels.....heat that was building when several of the elected trustees repeated demands to review the Freeh file.

An empty, soul-less, money-whore shill ($6 million for 5 years ain't a bad price for your soul - especially when you weren't planning on using it anyway). I wished it would be different....but when the guy you get is the second choice behind David R Smith, you have to temper your hopes.

This post was edited on 4/10 12:16 AM by bjf1984

 

[PennSt8er]

The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Be patient. Things are happening.

 

[WeR0206]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Originally posted by PennSt8er:
Be patient. Things are happening.

Care to elaborate? I sure hope so but it seems like as long as Masser has a say on who gets access a review wont be happening.

From Lubranos comments at todays meeting:

"I hereby request that the Secretary note in the minutes that I asked Chairman Masser, through University counsel, for full access to source materials necessary to inform the exercise of my independent judgment on this Board Resolution. My request was repeatedly denied.

Put simply, without full access to this information, I am unable to exercise my independent judgment as a Trustee in this matter."

 

[Aoshiro]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Anthony's wording refers to some specific PA statute.

 

[PennSt8er]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Masser cannot legally prevent the review.

This post was edited on 4/10 3:36 AM by PennSt8er

 

[PennSt8er]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Lubrano and Lord will not rest until the Freeh Report has been publicly vetted. And there are deep pockets and very smart people supporting them.

This post was edited on 4/10 2:57 AM by PennSt8er

 

[PennSt8er]

^^This. + 1

x

 

[PSUriseANDfire]

Didn't Barron already go about as far as an employee can go here? Maybe he had reviewed it already when he pretty much said that any value it ever had was a waste.

And it's been reviewed many times. The people that have reviewed it without bias and actually understand where the report originated from think it is a huge pile of bullshit. Barron can't say that in public. He already came down on it.

 

[Diego Badman]

Re: Barron had three choices:

I honestly don't think Barron "thought it through" when he declared he would review Freeh.

After he made that declaration, it is my opinion that the trustees who negotiated Freeh's contract either reminded or enlightened Barron about Penn State's obligation to indemnify Louis' legal costs should they arise.

Actually, Barron made more of a statement than I expected. Granted, it wasn't of any value, but it allowed him to keep his word, so to speak, and to skate away from it at the same time.

Personally, I don't think he ever read the thing.

 

[pnnylion]

Re: Barron had three choices:

Originally posted by Diego Badman:
I honestly don't think Barron "thought it through" when he declared he would review Freeh.

After he made that declaration, it is my opinion that the trustees who negotiated Freeh's contract either reminded or enlightened Barron about Penn State's obligation to indemnify Louis' legal costs should they arise.

Actually, Barron made more of a statement than I expected. Granted, it wasn't of any value, but it allowed him to keep his word, so to speak, and to skate away from it at the same time.

Personally, I don't think he ever read the thing.

If it is established criminality was involved with Freeh, the indemnification means nothing.

 

[bjf1984]

We are talking about the Freeh FILE....

not the Freeh Report (though that often gets mis-stated)

Every person with access to the internet has always had access to the Freeh report. No one has ever had to "receive clearance" to review the Freeh report. The issue here is the underlying documents/evidence/interview notes etc etc that either support or do not support those "findings" contained in the Freeh Report....the meaningful stuff that the OG keeps hidden from review and consideration (even from other members of the Board)

Barron not only did not review that data....but his actions were intended to provide a further obstacle to the Trustees access to that data. Judging by your statement, and similar statements of many others, his actions achieved their intended result. That is EXACTLY what he hoped for.

It is MUCH more than a difference in semantics...it goes completely to the issue at hand.

 

[PennSt8er]

Re: We are talking about the Freeh FILE....

If you are referring to my posts, then I misspoke. I know the raw files will get vetted.

 

[nits74]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Be patient. Things are happening.


Like hearing things such as this. but with all due respect, we've been told for so, so long things are happening on many fronts with little or no results. This, Fed investigation, Erickson, etc, etc. Just wish for once something would come to fruition.

 

[PennSt8er]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

There are multiple fronts.

 

[bjf1984]

Not you 8er.....

response was to "rise and fire"....maybe I committed a "thread view" FUBAR

 

[PennSt8er]

Re: Not you 8er.....

oops. looks like I'm the one who messed up thread view. sorry and thanks for all the effort recently. Your voice has been loud and on point and we appreciate that.

 

[Southeastern PA Buck]

It will never happen

nm

 

[PennSt8er]

Re: It will never happen

You have no clue.

 

[jjsocrates]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Originally posted by nits74:
Be patient. Things are happening.


Like hearing things such as this. but with all due respect, we've been told for so, so long things are happening on many fronts with little or no results. This, Fed investigation, Erickson, etc, etc. Just wish for once something would come to fruition.

Just for ONCE, I'd like someone who claims to be in the know to actually tell us what is going on. I mean, its not like the internet is a giant anonymous wild west where someone can start up a blog and anonymously give the details and then anonymously give the heads up to someone where they can find this information.

At least give us a REASON why you can't tell. If it would damage the wheels in motion, ok fine...but some details??

 

[jerseylion109]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

agreed...sick of all these cryptic posters. you don't know anything and nothing is happening. that has been clear for many years now.

 

[nits74]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

As much as I'd like to believe these posts, I'm now pretty much of the opinion that they're mostly BS. If there were so much "inside" information, it would have come to the forefront by now. Nothing can be concealed for this long, and I can't see where revealing it would be harmful. It may in fact speed things up.

 

[psu00]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

I think it's a mix of some BS and also a mix of fear or misplaced loyalty to a friend who doesn't want anything out because of fear (that could be tracked to them). Whatever the reason, it's why I'm now more certain than ever that things will not change at PSU. Not at all. Ironically, the reign of terror by Erickson, Joyner, and the BoT has apparently turned Psu into the community that will not report things out of fear-........ turning it into the mess that Freeh and company said it was.

This post was edited on 4/10 2:00 PM by psu00

 

[bjf1984]

IN many ways you are right.....


PSU has become the Moscow of the Appalachians.

 

[PennSt8er]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

The reason why I can't tell is because of legal strategy. I am not a bullshit artist. This is real. There are multiple fronts of movement. Things are nowhere near over. In fact, some efforts are just starting. So sit back. I have no interest in trolling and I am probably more impatient than any poster here. That is all I will share.

 

[Misder2]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Originally posted by PennSt8er:
The reason why I can't tell is because of legal strategy. I am not a bullshit artist. This is real. There are multiple fronts of movement. Things are nowhere near over. In fact, some efforts are just starting. So sit back. I have no interest in trolling and I am probably more impatient than any poster here. That is all I will share.

I will add to this and say that there is movement on the insurance side of things.

 

[nits74]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Well, thank you for your reply. That is far more than most others have provided when questioned. But, I do hope you can understand the skepticism at this point.

 

[lubrano]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Perceptive interpretation.

I do not intend to allow Freeh's Report to go unvetted and neither do some of my colleagues on the board.

As frustrating as this has been for all of you, I can assure you, I have been equally frustrated. But, the wheels of justice turn slowly, and our battle on this front is about to get hot.

By the way, I believe some thought, mistakenly in my opinion, that the settlement with the NCAA would end the need to vet Freeh's work.

This post was edited on 4/10 4:42 PM by lubrano

This post was edited on 4/10 4:44 PM by lubrano

This post was edited on 4/10 4:49 PM by lubrano

 

[nits74]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Again, thanks Anthony and to the previous two posters.

 

[lattydaddy]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Originally posted by lubrano:
Perceptive interpretation.

I do not intend to allow Freeh's Report to go unvetted and neither do some of my colleagues on the board.

As frustrating as this has been for all of you, I can assure you, I have been equally frustrated. But, the wheels of justice turn slowly, and our battle on this front is about to get hot.

By the way, I believe some thought, mistakenly in my opinion, that the settlement with the NCAA would end the need to vet Freeh's work.

This post was edited on 4/10 4:42 PM by lubrano

This post was edited on 4/10 4:44 PM by lubrano

This post was edited on 4/10 4:49 PM by lubrano

Tony, I got some extra dough lying around. What can I do to speed this thing up?

 

[Aoshiro]

Re: The short answer is Yes. There will be a thorough review

Originally posted by lubrano:
Perceptive interpretation.

I do not intend to allow Freeh's Report to go unvetted and neither do some of my colleagues on the board.

As frustrating as this has been for all of you, I can assure you, I have been equally frustrated. But, the wheels of justice turn slowly, and our battle on this front is about to get hot.

By the way, I believe some thought, mistakenly in my opinion, that the settlement with the NCAA would end the need to vet Freeh's work.

Anyone who thought this does not understand why Penn Staters are so angry about that report.