Barron Claims He’s Read a “Significant” Portion of the Freeh Files
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
No. That's where you are wrong. Surma knew exactly what firing Joe would do and where the media focus would be.
Last edited:
I heard the same thing. Ideally, the reviewers should review the testimony with those providing it for accuracy and completeness. That, I think, will never be done.
More accurately he's eaten more of the sticky buns and ice cream from the creamery since he's come to town than all other humans combined.
A better title to this thread would be “Barron claims he ate a significant portion of the French fries.”
Regarding Erickson being the person who threw the snide "errand boy" comment at Tim...
I was surprised a number of years back when I read that it was Erickson who said that. He is so meek and spineless in his public appearance that I find it unlikely that he would say that about someone else, when no doubt others have said something along those lines about him.
When I read it years back, it immediately struck me as a Joynerism. Joyner saying it makes far more sense to me. I often wondered if maybe my little theory was right, and they credited Rodless with it to somehow make him seem tougher, or maybe to take the obvious conflict of interest in that remark off of Fester's Dome of Chrome.
Not that I think my theory is right, but still after all these years it makes more sense to me than believing Erickson said it.
The larger point is, the Freeh nonsense is so easily questioned and outright hard to believe that even the attribution of a quote makes people wonder if it is truthfully stated.
I was surprised a number of years back when I read that it was Erickson who said that. He is so meek and spineless in his public appearance that I find it unlikely that he would say that about someone else, when no doubt others have said something along those lines about him.
When I read it years back, it immediately struck me as a Joynerism. Joyner saying it makes far more sense to me. I often wondered if maybe my little theory was right, and they credited Rodless with it to somehow make him seem tougher, or maybe to take the obvious conflict of interest in that remark off of Fester's Dome of Chrome.
Not that I think my theory is right, but still after all these years it makes more sense to me than believing Erickson said it.
The larger point is, the Freeh nonsense is so easily questioned and outright hard to believe that even the attribution of a quote makes people wonder if it is truthfully stated.
One thing that lends credence to the theory that it may have been Rodless is that academia is a den of vipers. Snide remarks, innuendo, and rumors are the currency of membership.
Surma knew precisely what he was doing. He and Corbett had extensive cell phone communications.
Of course, the guy publically stated he was friends with Joe only to have them point out they never met.
I have no problem believing it. Erickson made it quite clear he's in the category of academics who strongly resent the stature of big-time athletics on campus. (And I agree with that point of view to an extent.) But I have no doubt that his resentment led him to have a negative view of Paterno.
I work at the University and recall Erickson addressing a large meeting of University employees shortly after he was named interim President. Early in his remarks when he was explaining what we could expect with him as President, he made the point that, paraphrasing, "you won't see me playing a washboard," which got a laugh from the audience. Now I could be reading too much into it, but I took it as a clear swipe at Spanier. Very consistent with the "errand boy" comment, IMO.
Wow. That was a totally inappropriate snarky comment. Whether a person liked Spanier or not, there's nothing wrong with someone having interests outside their profession. Apparently Erickson just sat around all day looking at maps.
Hard for me to imagine that I could think less of Rodless, but that gratuitous swipe at Spanier, particularly given the circumstances, just did it. I have no doubt that immediately beforehand he sucked Spanier's ass at every available opportunity. Perfect example of the species academicus reptilicus.
Additionally, I heard testimony was not only twisted but Freeh group members were overtly hostile if folks didn't give them the answers they were looking for, i.e. JVP ran the school like Hitler and would do anything to protect his image.
The reconquista took 780 years. You don't give in to the enemy, ever, when you are on the side of right.
Anthony @lubrano , I know the answer to my own question, but I'd like your take on it: If your report is false, wouldn't it be easy for the BOT to disprove? Just come out and give a few examples that are demonstrably false in your report. If they can't do that, then the report has merit and should be released. Why won't they take one of these two logical pathways? To do anything else just leaves the unending speculation to continue.
Hah! lol - That does seem to be the American way these days.
Can't imagine that he's that significant. He'll need a lot more company before anything is done, but at least someone has taken notice.
erickson has no business deriding Graham Spanier, or anyone else for that matter. Spanier was obviously a far better leader.
Bob,
I don't have Erickson's deposition in front of me (Corman v. NCAA, 12/2/14), but even though Rod wouldn't admit recalling it under oath, Corman's lawyers certainly attributed it to him. I'll paste this passage from the "Feckless" post from a couple years ago:
A university official interviewed by Freeh’s group reported that the request presented to Erickson for approval for emeritus status for Jerry Sandusky would have been made by Paterno, and that it was “likely brought forward, however, by his errand boy Curley.” (Freeh Report, p. 75; interview from 4/12/12) That university official was Rodney Erickson. The very same Rodney Erickson who signed the approval for Jerry Sandusky’s emeritus status.
Erickson’s contention that the request would have been made by Paterno, through Curley, was a falsehood known to both Erickson and Freeh. We know this from Freeh Exhibit 3I, an email string in which Erickson fielded the request from the vice provost for academic affairs, who noted: “Apparently, Graham told [redacted] that we would do this – he was wholly within his rights since the policy says ‘The President may grant (or deny) Emeritus Rank on an exception basis’ – then informed Tim, who suggested going through the college….” Erickson responded: “Let’s go ahead and grant it if Graham has already promised it.” Erickson knew that it was Spanier, not Paterno, who “informed Tim,” yet still told Freeh’s investigators that the request would have come from Paterno. If you’re keeping score at home, Spanier approved emeritus status for Sandusky. Erickson signed off. Erickson pinned it on Paterno.
In the [Corman v. NCAA] deposition, when questioned about the “errand boy Curley” remark, Erickson suddenly developed a case of what is commonly referred to as “Commonwealth amnesia”:
“I don’t remember the specific language that I used.” He allowed that “I didn’t ever observe their interactions firsthand.”
Moments later…this epic exchange:
Q: “Well, Dr. Erickson, I’m assuming the investigator did not just put quotes around the words ‘errand boy’ and make it up. So I’m asking whether or not your perception, at the time you were interviewed, was that Mr. Curley was Mr. Paterno’s errand boy?”
Erickson stammered out a meandering, 68-word non-response, using his vast geographical skills to maintain a safe, multi-time zone buffer between question and answer. The optimistic court reporter placed a period at the end, hopeful that this festive potpourri, held up to just the right light, might one day blossom into an actual English sentence. The questioner was both unenlightened and undeterred:
Q: “But my question is did you believe at the time that Mr. Curley was Mr. Paterno’s errand boy?”
A: “Well, I can’t characterize it that way.”
Well, now. That’s better. Except you did…to Freeh. The world heard that. Only family, friends (if you have any left) and a few people on a message board have read this testimony. Scoring update: Erickson gave Freeh’s investigator false information about the source of Sandusky’s emeritus request. Freeh knew it (Freeh Report, p. 60-61; Exh. 3I). Under oath, Erickson denied any recollection of any “errand boy” characterization, admitted he never observed interactions between Curley and Paterno firsthand, and could not characterize Curley as Paterno’s “errand boy.” Freeh still used the quote to fry Paterno…and Penn State. So Erickson’s own interview with Freeh’s group…an interview he would not stand behind under oath…was in large part responsible for his negotiating position with Emmert.
So Freeh says Rod said it. I believe Rod said it. I believe Rod is lying when he says he doesn't remember saying it. And when I believe someone is lying even more than I believe Louis Freeh is lying.....well, her name is usually Cynthia Baldwin.
But I digress.....
SR/BHF
Or just print out copies of the report for all trustees at the next meeting. With the dismissive behavior of the old guard trustees, I’m sure people would find a copy in the trash by the end of the day. It’d be public very quickly.
