It may have something to do with Jerry still having a shot at a new trial. But the issues surrounding the state, PSU and TSM are such a can of worms, I don't know.
CSS, and the Paterno suit
- Thread starter lionlurker
- Start date
It may have something to do with Jerry still having a shot at a new trial. But the issues surrounding the state, PSU and TSM are such a can of worms, I don't know.
- The PSU BOT will NEVER repudiate the Freeh report.
- Emmert will NEVER apologize.
Unfortunately I expect C/S/S cases to be resolved with some sort of plea bargain that results in a reprimand, no prison time, and a gag order. I fear we will never learn the truth, or even discover what Curley meant when saying "after talking to Joe".
I really feel everyone is waiting for the Feds to bail them out of the pile of shit they dropped, stepped, and rolled around in.
They've had 5 years to take a plea bargain. That's not going to happen!
We already know what Curley meant. Tim was uncomfortable going to everyone but Jerry. Not anyone except Jerry. IOW, he wanted to include Jerry among those to be in the loop rather than go behind his back. Spanier replied by acknowledging that his proposal would require an additional step on Tim's part and would be an uncomfortable conversation.
Curley: "...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...."
Spanier: "This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive...."
Tim never proposed to exclude anyone! The correct interpretation of that single sentence...the difference between 'everyone' and 'anyone' completely destroys the narrative Freeh was paid $ millions to sell with respect to JVP.
Last edited:
The A9 have full access to the Freeh materials, so they will have an objective answer to the question of whether or not the Freeh findings as presented match up with the information gathered in the interview process. So we will, at some point, have an objective analysis of the Freeh Report's veracity.
I agree some additional info will eventually come out. If nothing else, someone that is privy to the facts will get a juicy book deal.
100% agree. No matter what comes out going forward it is not going to change the public's perception that might as well be set in stone right now.
Longer than it should but sooner than you think. You must be patient, you don't know what the A9 know. It is so difficult for them.
The more important question is "When (if ever) will the results of the review be available to the public?" Hope you are familiar with the imaginary number system.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Anthony I believe somewhat addresses this, in his "measure twice cut once" quote. When you are going to go public and onto offense (hope that is what is going to happen) and push back to take on the press against the narrative formed by the media, you better have all the facts correct with the i's dotted and t's crossed. Including knowing the material inside and out to answer questions and push back on people/media immediately not saying let me get back to you on that... They also hopefully will be calling people out and exposing them in public, so to me they need to make sure they are correct in facts and analysis. Worst thing would be to do all this work and go public only to have facts/people/etc wrong, would totally blow any chance of changing the winds and narrative now and in the future. Anywho just my thoughts on why their review is taking a long time, I hope I am correct on this but only time will reveal that.
Anything the "A9" put out moving forward will be viewed - by 95% of the world (if anyone even pays attention) - as anything other than "objective"
That is just one of the "prices to be paid" by having an "A9" that has - for all intents and purposes - abdicated all of their serious responsibilities aside from the "409/Freeh/Football" stuff.
Which is what I have been saying (and telling them) for the last 5 years.
By failing to act as responsible stewards on the broader issues, they have effectively neutered themselves wrt their ability to have a serious impact on the one issue that they do focus on (because they are seen, understandably, as "one-trick 409 ponies").
Why they failed to understand that? IDK. It is bewildering.
There will be no plea bargain.. That is a lose situation for the Three. A plea bargain I would assume would mean a gag order... And these guys must have book deals , speaking engagements even movie deals that they would go after...and more.
It's been 5 years... As others have mentioned I believe as well that everyone needs to see what happens with Sandusky's motion...
95% of the rest of the world is 100% unimportant IMHO.
In many ways, I would agree....without a doubt
But, with regard to the issue at hand - if that be the case ("who cares about the 95%") - then what is the point of consternating over a "public refutation" of the Freeh Report? When the other 5% (us) already know it is a POS?
That's a minor issue, of course.
_______________________
The 1,000 X more important and impactful issue in this regard is - - - -
What do you do with respect to solving/improving/correcting/cleaning out "IT"?......."IT" being the broader picture issues and problems wrt Penn State......I don't think we have to engage in any lengthy discussions of just what those issues are - I expect we have gone over them enough, over the last 5 years, that we all are familiar.
Identifying one of the cancer's side effects (the Freeh Report), in and of itself, doesn't put you one step closer to eradicating the cancer
It is one thing to say the "Freeh Report Scenario" was F-ed up thanks to ___________(an irresponsible, self-interested BOT, a scumbag Governor, etc etc etc).......but, even if the "Freeh Review" report states as such - - - - what good does it do wrt the big picture?
The answer is obvious.
If those providing the report are viewed by everyone else as "one-trick 409 ponies", any chance to actually effect positive change is KAPUT.
Their review - BEST case scenario - is simply viewed as a slanted, self-serving, pre-determined opinion piece (more likely scenario being that no one even notices....not for more than a brief moment).
Without garnering support - significant support and understanding - from among a large contingent of that 95%.....ain't no way you've improved the chances for EVER cleaning up Penn State.
And you can't do that until you have - at the least - established your "bona-fides" as righteous stewards.
In that regard, we have failed, miserably (by a count of 34-0
).This shit ain't even that hard.
Which makes it bewildering.....absolutely bewildering......what we have seen transpire over the last several years.
There are things people know, but it is far too soon for them to be at liberty to reveal such information. Patience, please.
That would be "what is the square root of negative one, Alex?"
That could very well be.......I wouldn't argue that one bit
In fact, I expect that is likely to be correct - - - - and I wouldn't say "certainly" correct only because I haven't had personal access to those materials
But that has no effect.....has nothing to do with ......the concerns I raised or the points I outlined
why would there be a gag order resulting from the disposition of a criminal matter? Am I missing something?
You new here?
Tell us. What type of governance issues are not being addressed due to the A9?
I certainly agree that their duties go far beyond the JS scandal. That said, I think the reputation of the university is also kind of important.
Who said "......governance issues are not being addressed DUE TO the A9...."?
Not me, that's for sure
, so why would you ask me?My response was to this post (it's there just a few posts up the thread
):"What serious responsibilities have they (the A9) abdicated?"
In response to THAT question - my question/answer remains as is.......
"You new here?"
Last edited:
Don't forget, it's not just reviewing the report. It's reviewing what wasn't in it. They're reviewing the source materials from which One-Eyed Louie and his band of jackals wrote their report.
Like for example, things that are labeled as exhibits that for some reason aren't in the report. It's trying to track down and review whatever notes might exist of these 400-some interviews that claimed that Paterno ran the university and had people fearful for their jobs. It's trying to find out whether some of these e-mails were altered or tampered with, and certain e-mails from a chain aren't there.
It's not something these 9 people can work on full-time. And it's not something they can knock off in one afternoon while waiting for the pizza delivery guy.
If not downright deplorable......
Latest posts
-
-
Football James Franklin offers update on Penn State DE Abdul Carter- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
