start leaking shit then. force their hand. do something besides posting cryptic shit on message boards.
Barron Claims He’s Read a “Significant” Portion of the Freeh Files
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
start leaking shit then. force their hand. do something besides posting cryptic shit on message boards.
True, but at least they will be on the record. It's hard to justify not letting people see this thing. I'm sure there will be "Moving On" talking points, but if they truly have nothing to hide then they shouldn't care if it gets released.
Here's the thing. Barron made a commitment 2 years ago to review the Freeh report. Now 2 years later he states he's read a large portion of it. That is possibly the dumbest damn thing he could have said as university President. He just admitted he didn't do his job and didn't keep his word or comittment. That's pretty freekin stupid from a professional standpoint.
step 1.
print out the rebuttal and report uncovering misdeeds. make a few copies for the hell of it. forward anything with the hint of criminality uncovered to the local fbi/irs offices.
step 2.
mail it to local papers or interest groups.
step3.
stop posting cryptic shit on message boards and let the public see.
print out the rebuttal and report uncovering misdeeds. make a few copies for the hell of it. forward anything with the hint of criminality uncovered to the local fbi/irs offices.
step 2.
mail it to local papers or interest groups.
step3.
stop posting cryptic shit on message boards and let the public see.
A bunch of documents were recently leaked that:
a. Show half of the men paid multi million dollar settlements by PSU did not even know Jerry Sandusky personally
b. Show that some of the settlements were paid to men who strongly defended Sandusky even after the arrest
c. Some of the accusers who did testify at Sandusky’s trial completely contradicted their testimonies when they made claims against PSU
This fight has just begun.
Last edited:
Well I for one believe his word completely and without any reservations, which is why I have such contempt for him for not speaking up.
When I read the header of this thread, I can see where this is headed. Barron will do his review just in time for the next BOT meeting. He'll give his results that will say that he sees nothing wrong with the Freeh Report. He'll be thanked by the mainstream BOT and they'll vote to accept his review.
The next line of business will be the A9 report release. That will be voted down. Since they have the Barron review, there will be no need for the A9 presentation. Business as usual.
The next line of business will be the A9 report release. That will be voted down. Since they have the Barron review, there will be no need for the A9 presentation. Business as usual.
Peetz, Erickson, and others made similar promises. Heck, I even recall promises to honor Joe.
True, but we all know the BoT will vote not to release it.
The A9 should print out a copy of their report and hand it to every BoT member at the next meeting for them to read and discuss. I have no doubt it would be public shortly after.
Barron got bashed by the ignorant media when he questioned the obviously bullshit 1970s accusers and has become a complete pussy ever since.
I would think getting the job as a president of a major university that is involved in this type of crisis, one would read the entire thing immediately as well as everything other piece of information you could get your hands on. That’s called just doing your job. When I was promoted to open up a new state for my company, I spent countless hours reading to learn about the industry in that state. That was just doing my job. Not reading this is a huge fail on Barron’s behalf just in terms of doing what he should for his job.
Probably spilled his baked potato soup on it and licked, I mean leafed through it with his tongue.
That's what some one who takes his job responsibilities seriously would do.Someone who doesn't give a rat's ass...........?
It's not a fail on Barron's part if he's doing exactly what his bosses want him to do, at least not from his perspective.
Oh hell Anthony, just leak it. Works for everyone else or you could just say there was a "glitch".
I’m interested in whether there is any evidence that certain statements that Freeh’s crew received were omitted from the documents the review committee received, and whether those statements were contradictory the conclusions. Was there any channel that would provide a basic check of that? Has anybody come forward and said I gave a statement that contradicts a key conclusion, can you tell me if my statement was represented in those materials?
The fate of K Kane makes it clear that Anthony would have to be an idiot to do that. People who are part of the cabal get away with things that others do not
One of the problems with that is the Freeh folks apparently didn’t follow standard procedures for interviews IIRC.
The testimony reportedly wasn’t recorded word for word like a deposition but rather just as a ‘gestalt’ of what the Freeh interviewer thought was important. (This is likely why they refused to allow people’s lawyers in the room with them).
It would be almost impossible to confirm anything without bringing back every person interviewed to see what was recorded by the Freeh folks and confirm or deny the accuracy (or point out anything that was said and not recorded).
Last edited:
Translation:
“Anthony, throw your life away because I want the information right now.”
With regard to the interview process, the method is secondary to determining whether a) the folks rendering observations/opinions are in a position to do so; and b) the work papers accurately reflect what was said. Believe that the A9 reviewers can accomplish a. but not b.
So what is plan B? Because the possibility of ever getting enough votes from the board to allow a public release of this report is almost nil, we all know that.
I'm no supporter of Freeh, but I'd argue that as a hired consultant he had the freedom to conduct the interviews however he saw fit and was by no means required to follow standard deposition protocols, or any others for that matter. While we can be critical of his techniques, doing so because he didn't follow the format of a proper deposition or other standard seems misguided. Freeh held the power to handle it however he wanted because this was nothing more than a private party hiring him to do a job.
These are good points Art.
FYI - there is one case where we can get a window into some of this...
From Freeh, p.75
Apparently this was Erickson, according to Freeh's interview notes. Erickson does not remember having used that specific language. Nor did he recall ever seeing Curley and Paterno interact. Ref: Erickson 2/27/2015 deposition in PSU vs PMA.
On some level, okay.
If somebody builds a wall in a house that needs to support a load (maybe a load worth, say, $150MM) it’s not unreasonable for somebody that wants to evaluate the work to poke a hole in the dry wall here and there to see what’s inside.
I respectfully disagree. He was always presented as a ‘former federal judge’, “Judge Freeh”, and that “the legal firm of (forget the official name) was in charge of the investigation”. The legal background was always presented up front as their credentials and base of authority to ensure accuracy.
To then abandon legal principle and practice was misleading at best, deceptive at worst. In that case, Penn State should have just hired ‘Joe from Philly’ to do a review and report back. It would have saved the university around $7.5 million.
By being focused on the Freeh Report supporting evidence I think most here are missing the more important facts. "Evidence/testimony" doesn't have to be exposed to make people believe the resulting report was nonsense. If those behind the investigation are shown to be corrupt and with motive to create a false report, who would believe their report? Especially when no one in the public has ever been given answers or even allowed to question the authors of the report. The report gets undone by exposing its authors as perpetrators of fraud. It is the corruption that we already know about that must be exposed.
We know of Freeh's previous, rather dubious paid-for investigations. We know of vendettas and a conspiracy by BOT members to create a False Narrative. We know that 2nd Mile liability was protected and their documents shredded. We know that victims were not vetted but paid off (by PSU), while being forced to sign a liability waiver that protects the 2nd Mile. How is this stuff in the public domain?
And if in the public domain, why can't this incriminating stuff get into a news magazine? Who cares what the BOT doesn't want out there that isn't already there if we already have enough? Taken as a whole, the story of corruption is big. It engulfs prominent people.
We have a GJ presentation to fire up the story, but it doesn't match the testimony. We have Surma blaming JVP for what he (Surma) failed to do as his son's father, then he becomes Corbett's axman. Frazier, on top of his Merck scandal, is shown to be the creator of this crazy narrative about our school and fan base. The NCAA comes down hard without an investigation, then completely back pedals to the point of endorsing what JVP actually did. Corbett brags about firing JVP in a bar after, while AG, holding tangible complaints about Sandusky.
Are not the links by BOT members/family to the 2nd Mile already public record? How could none of them know about Sandusky incidents as 2nd Mile benefactors and fiduciaries?
Put it all together and it tells the real story.
A good mystery doesn't just tell you what happened. It tells the story by gradually exposing seemingly disconnected facts and motives, then letting you formulate reality in your mind. What's missing here is the mechanism to tell the story, not the basis for some bogus report.
We know of Freeh's previous, rather dubious paid-for investigations. We know of vendettas and a conspiracy by BOT members to create a False Narrative. We know that 2nd Mile liability was protected and their documents shredded. We know that victims were not vetted but paid off (by PSU), while being forced to sign a liability waiver that protects the 2nd Mile. How is this stuff in the public domain?
And if in the public domain, why can't this incriminating stuff get into a news magazine? Who cares what the BOT doesn't want out there that isn't already there if we already have enough? Taken as a whole, the story of corruption is big. It engulfs prominent people.
We have a GJ presentation to fire up the story, but it doesn't match the testimony. We have Surma blaming JVP for what he (Surma) failed to do as his son's father, then he becomes Corbett's axman. Frazier, on top of his Merck scandal, is shown to be the creator of this crazy narrative about our school and fan base. The NCAA comes down hard without an investigation, then completely back pedals to the point of endorsing what JVP actually did. Corbett brags about firing JVP in a bar after, while AG, holding tangible complaints about Sandusky.
Are not the links by BOT members/family to the 2nd Mile already public record? How could none of them know about Sandusky incidents as 2nd Mile benefactors and fiduciaries?
Put it all together and it tells the real story.
A good mystery doesn't just tell you what happened. It tells the story by gradually exposing seemingly disconnected facts and motives, then letting you formulate reality in your mind. What's missing here is the mechanism to tell the story, not the basis for some bogus report.
I'll add to what others have said in regards to your post.
IF what Freeh purported to do were 'simply' an internal investigation, then he was free to follow whatever protocol he wanted. In that case, I would agree with you.
However, both the NCAA and the PA OAG used the results of his work and collaborated with Freeh to apply sanctions, extort money, irresponsibly file criminal charges where no crime was committed and so severely poisoned the public minds and the jury pool that defendants had zero chance of a fair trial. Additionally, while in cahoots with the NCAA and the OAG, he did not and was not able to speak with any of the people that were made to be the primary actors in the ordeal. Namely, C/S/S/P and even McQ. He also chose not to walk across the street and talk to Raykovitz or Heim, nor anyone at CMHS etc.
However, as psu00 asserts above, he is referred to and wants to carry himself as 'Judge Freeh' and was sold to the public by the OGBOT as impartial and independent Judge Freeh.
Add PSU to the litany of investigative and impartial failures conducted by Freeh
is there a way to see the images? All I get is a red x and when I right click, download image, I get this message...Blocked..These are good points Art.
FYI - there is one case where we can get a window into some of this...
From Freeh, p.75
Apparently this was Erickson, according to Freeh's interview notes. Erickson does not remember having used that specific language. Nor did he recall ever seeing Curley and Paterno interact. Ref: Erickson 2/27/2015 deposition in PSU vs PMA.
Why have I been blocked?
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.
What can I do to resolve this?
You can email the site owner to let them know you were blocked. Please include what you were doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page.
Oh he'll, his own report contradicted his press conference.
I respectfully disagree. He was always presented as a ‘former federal judge’, “Judge Freeh”, and that “the legal firm of (forget the official name) was in charge of the investigation”. The legal background was always presented up front as their credentials and base of authority to ensure accuracy.
To then abandon legal principle and practice was misleading at best, deceptive at worst. In that case, Penn State should have just hired ‘Joe from Philly’ to do a review and report back. It would have saved the university around $7.5 million.
Exactly, I can’t believe how many people have claimed that Freehs charade was an “FBI investigation”. The ironic thing is that the Federal Government did investigate the case and special agent J.R. Snedden came to the complete opposite conclusion as Freeh.
I respectfully disagree. He was always presented as a ‘former federal judge’, “Judge Freeh”, and that “the legal firm of (forget the official name) was in charge of the investigation”. The legal background was always presented up front as their credentials and base of authority to ensure accuracy.
To then abandon legal principle and practice was misleading at best, deceptive at worst. In that case, Penn State should have just hired ‘Joe from Philly’ to do a review and report back. It would have saved the university around $7.5 million.
All that matters is what Freeh was hired to do. What was in the statement of work? If the SOW stated he had to maintain a certain legal standard, or something of that nature, then Freeh would be required to follow said protocols and PSU would have an official mechanism to claim he didn't do what he was paid to do. If the SOW made no such specifications as to the standards by which the work was to be performed, Freeh is free and clear regarding his methods. It really doesn't matter if publicly they stressed that he was a former judge or FBI Director, if the SOW didn't ask for work consistent in the manner of a legal or FBI investigation Freeh is under no obligation to do his work to that standard.
The NCAA and OAG coming in and leveraging his work doesn't mean Freeh has to change the standards to which is was performed because they weren't the party that hired him. Officially, they didn't set the terms and scope of his investigation, Penn State did so whatever the PSU BOT asked for is the important factor. In reality, we know they had some influence but it was not in a formal, requested in the SOW/contractual, capacity. The NCAA and OAG also shoulder blame for leveraging a work product that was never designed to be used in such a manner and is one that was prepared in a manner that doesn't meet their own typical standards, although the NCAA's standards are probably just as loose as Freeh's might have been, but the OAG has very strict rules that need to be followed.
I don't disagree with your post but to clarify the Surma connection......
John Surma was the CEO of USX. His brother Vic Sr. was a former PSU football player. Vic Jr. (also a former PSU football player) was the son of Vic Sr. and nephew of John. Vic Jr. encountered some problems in his life and tragically died in 2014. At one time Vic Sr. sang the praises of Joe Paterno but that all changed when Vic Jr. began facing adversity. All of the sudden Joe Paterno was to blame for the problems of Vic Jr. Uncle John was more than happy to settle imaginary personal scores even though Joe Paterno had no responsibility for Vic Jr. after his playing days concluded in 2005.
Surma was so nutless he couldn't even face Joe in person. Instead he had Ganter pass a note like a kid in elementary school. Surma didn't have the foresight to understand that firing Joe was more than replacing a football coach. The media saw it as Joe being to blame for Sandusky and it basically set the tone for the university accepting blame for everything.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
Huhn and Mickens: already committed for 2026! Nice start- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
Will this be the year we start bringing in offensive 5 stars again?- Latest: Sportfan2017