As the Paterno, Spanier and Alum Trustees cases grind forward,
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
Ray, you know I respect all the great work you do, but I have to say that with respect to Tim's email, you are failing to see the forest for the trees. Not only does the text, as is, completely exonerate Joe, it totally debunks the entire Freeh narrative.
1) Tim was obviously giving it more thought before he ever spoke to Joe.
2) Tim uses "I" no less than six times. At no time does he say 'Joe is uncomfortable....', or 'we are uncomfortable'. He says "I am uncomfortable...".
3) And this is huge as far as Joe is concerned...."with what we agreed" says it all. Who is "we"? It is Tim, Gary and Graham. Joe is not part of the decision making cabal.
4) And finally, IMO, the single most important word in the entire email exchange is "everyone". Tim says he is having trouble going to "everyone, but the person involved. English comprehension 101 suggests that Tim isn't trying to exclude anyone (after talking it over with Joe), he simply wants to include Sandusky among those to be informed. Had Tim said, 'anyone, but the person involved', the Freeh narrative might have some validity, because it would then suggest that Tim was uncomfortable informing 'anyone' other than Sandusky. However as written, what Tim is saying is that he is uncomfortable going behind Jerry's back. Thus, the only change proposed by Curley was to inform Sandusky about what was reported to them, along with whomever else was to be informed. No one was to be excluded. The Freeh narrative is complete BS and shame on the press for not picking up on this.
I had scheduled a meeting with you this afternoon about the subject we discussed on Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday – I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate that we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative, we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?
Q: When did they flip the script to condemn Curley, Schultz and Spanier in the Freeh Report?
I bet the timing lines up perfectly with "the Paterno hook."
This is probably the Philadelphia Inquirer piece that Ron "the Ghost" Tomalis was sharing with them:
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/sports/colleges&id=158520375
It was one of the first leaks about the "discovered" emails.
Here is the Paterno "hook"
Thanks; the article I saw was written before that one which does in fact connect Joe to the email.
Judge already told the plaintiffs he would reconsider if openness is in the public's interest
There's also the fact everything mentioned in that email was in accordance to their original plan down to the letter so it is impossible JoePa could've had any influence in the formulation of a plan that already existed before he was even consulted. Schultz's note from 2/12/01 reads "Talked w/ TMC (Curley)
- reviewed 1998 history
- agreed TMC will discuss w/ JVP & advise we think TMC should meet w/ JS on Friday - unless he "confesses" to having a problem TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned w/ child welfare
- TMC will keep me posted."
As anyone can plainly see Joe had no influence on the formulation of the plan.
Amen.
Got a feeling it would go something like this:
What I'm suggesting is that someone was eager to sell "the Paterno hook," which was based on the worst possible interpretation of two emails with no context nor insight from any of the people involved.
If the original draft of the Freeh Report was published without implicating C/S/S/P, then our old guard trustees go down as the worst leaders in the history of the world in their rush to judgment. But those two emails (used as "the Paterno hook" in the story) could be used to flip the script and validate the BOT's decision-making.
So, who took the lead in recklessly using those two emails to re-write the Freeh Report and redefine the narrative? Who took the iniative to leak it out, effectively poisoning the public's perception of Paterno? Someone was promoting a premature narrative, as Scott points out:
Scott's tweet was in response to Omar McNeill's email.
Last edited:
Thanks, Indy. I think we are in violent agreement that even with the inserted text, the email is a big nothing burger.
However, Freeh put all the blame on Paterno for the 2001 failure to report.
From Freeh's press conference....
Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.
Revisiting that line is just mind-blowing.
I have to wonder if CR66 is posting from Turks and Caicos....
This was at the bottom of the Paterno "hook" article.
Penn State acknowledged that the e-mails were discovered in the course of the Freeh investigation but declined to comment further.
"In deference to the legal process, the university could not comment further on the specifics of the ongoing case as it unfolds," said spokesman David La Torre.
How many lies has PSU propagated after Graham and Joe were "removed?"
Penn State acknowledged that the e-mails were discovered in the course of the Freeh investigation but declined to comment further.
"In deference to the legal process, the university could not comment further on the specifics of the ongoing case as it unfolds," said spokesman David La Torre.
How many lies has PSU propagated after Graham and Joe were "removed?"
So you put your trust in Freeh who has been discredited by many for much of his work. You put your faith in a report that has been debunked because you believe Freeh must have interviews and documents that support his conclusions, even though this evidence remains hidden. But you willingly condemn Paterno a man who honorably served the university. Paterno who reported what MM told him promptly, testified honestly and has been the only person to say with the benefit of hindsight he wish he had done more. Paterno who before he died in his biography made it very clear he did not understand from MM that JS was raping a child. So with apparent joy, you applaud Louis Freeh, not bound by a reasonable standard of doubt or any requirement for transparency, when he condemns Paterno and others, despite the harm his report has done to the individuals and the university. And you belittle others who are asking for full disclosure and are unconvinced by Freeh. Very sad.
Ironic that Rodless would refer to another as an errand boy.
Would Tomalis actually show up to get on the stand? That might inconvenience him too much. The worthless POS couldn't even show up for the $140,000 job that Corbett created for him.
Your second paragraph couldn't scream any louder that either you, or someone very close to you is hiding something very, very, very bad. Whatever you and\or your cronies are covering up must be pretty sinister.
I've always thought CR666 is really Baldwin...
To calculate the number of PSU lies, just count the number of times La Torre officially opens his mouth.
CR is an idiot. But it is definitely not Baldwin. Cynthia Baldwin is too dumb to put together a series of sentences that we who speak and write call paragraphs. I am not joking.
She seems too stupid to figure out how to put together that .sig, though.
But he also deleted my fun replies to that d-bag. : (
TPC Jasna Polana's address is:
8 Lawrenceville Rd
Princeton, NJ 08540
Kenneth Frazier's company address is:
One Merck Dr
PO Box 100 Ws2f-96
Whitehouse Station NJ 08889
Depending on the route you take the distance between them is 24-26 miles. IQ66 has inside knowledge that only the OG BoT, or one of their flunkies, would have; which he repeatedly spews here. And, he certainly has the arrogance to hang out on a football forum and spread half truths and lies assuming no one can figure out which OG a-hole he is. Kenny -- IQ66 and the other people that look like you are the only PSU fans left that still push Freeh's lies as the gospel truth. In the end, you won't be able to hide behind a handle and a report that you and a few other BoT members spent Penn State's money on to spread your lies.
But wait, as we've been reminded numerous times, Jasna Polana is a gated compound for the secluded elite.
See this post about how the Freeh Report was written/influenced by Frazier & Tomalis. They knew it was going to be released early, but told the Board it wouldn't be released until the Fall
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/09/frazier-tomalis-oag-instrumental-in.html
Also, sometimes I forget some of the other stuff I've written about how our BOT gave the University the shaft. This is long, but it spells it out.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-psu-board-of-trustees-role-in.html
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/09/frazier-tomalis-oag-instrumental-in.html
Also, sometimes I forget some of the other stuff I've written about how our BOT gave the University the shaft. This is long, but it spells it out.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-psu-board-of-trustees-role-in.html
Last edited:
Doing the geographic math as well, I've wondered here before if CR is actually Peetz' husband. It's not perfect, but it is within the realm of possibility. Plus, when you counter in that Peetz is quite man-like, and CR seems to be sexually ambiguous in many ways, you do wonder. They would seem to be a good match.
(Not that there is anything wrong with that.)
(Not that there is anything wrong with that.)
I'm not sure it was personal for Frazier. he's just a sneaky little sh*t like Niedermeyer.
But it amazes me how the press whiffed on the favorable Vioxx settlement Merck got in PA just after the Freeh Report "took down" the football program.
Frazier is a piece of excrement who won his spurs screwing over victims (families) one by one. It takes a very special kind of demented individual to take pride in that. Let's not focus too far from Surma, I think he will be back in the limelight when the truth is told.
Surma needs a new company to drive into the ground
Last edited:
My sense (and I don't have anything concrete to back this up) is that Frazier had his feelings hurt by the intense blow-back from alums when they fired Paterno. How DARE the proletariat question his wisdom. Thus, the Freeh Report had to vindicate them.
Similar threads
