And "unproven" is not the same as "disproven" which is close to "proven false" which is what Ray and his minions think (or claim) they have done, but they're not even close. Do you get it yet?
Erickson's Notebook Reveals Deceptions, Possible Crimes
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
And "unproven" is not the same as "disproven" which is close to "proven false" which is what Ray and his minions think (or claim) they have done, but they're not even close. Do you get it yet?
So as long as I'm first to make an accusation, I need not provide substantive proof. Is that right?
Just to be clear: That Freeh offers sufficient proof for his claims (especially as they relate to Paterno) is a fool's argument.
Last edited:
Just trying to follow along here with your opinions. Are any of these remotely true or are they bogus? Feel free to clean this up, as you seem to be all over the place at times. I'm sincerely just trying to follow along.
1. Jerry had a bogus trial and may in fact be innocent? or He just had a bogus trial and is guilty.
2. C/S/S had no trial, but are guilty as hell based on the Freeh report evidence.
3. The Freeh report is ok by your standards.
4. JZ does solid work but not Ray?
The Freeh report is OK for what it is - an effort to figure out what people at PSU did in the Sandusky affair while also not being allowed to interfere with an active criminal prosecution. Judging the Freeh report by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is unfair. Simply establishing that some of the conclusions don't stand up when judged by that standard is no great achievement, and it does NOT indicate that you have disproven the claims ("you haven't done enough to prove X by this standard" does not mean the same thing as "I have proven that you said something false when you said X").
CSS are guilty of bad management of the PSU football program and the university itself. There's enough evidence of that already.
Neither Ray nor Ziegler does good work. Ray's work is 'throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks in an effort to establish general doubt'. Ziegler is a charlatan self-promoter who does NOT have PSU's interests at heart in any way, shape, or form.
Jerry is guilty and the trial was about as fair as trials can generally be in a case like this.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
CSS are guilty of bad management of the PSU football program and the university itself. There's enough evidence of that already.
Neither Ray nor Ziegler does good work. Ray's work is 'throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks in an effort to establish general doubt'. Ziegler is a charlatan self-promoter who does NOT have PSU's interests at heart in any way, shape, or form.
Jerry is guilty and the trial was about as fair as trials can generally be in a case like this.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
The Freeh report is OK for what it is - an effort to figure out what people at PSU did in the Sandusky affair while also not being allowed to interfere with an active criminal prosecution. Judging the Freeh report by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is unfair. Simply establishing that some of the conclusions don't stand up when judged by that standard is no great achievement, and it does NOT indicate that you have disproven the claims ("you haven't done enough to prove X by this standard" does not mean the same thing as "I have proven that you said something false when you said X").
CSS are guilty of bad management of the PSU football program and the university itself. There's enough evidence of that already. I am not sure they will be found guilty of the crimes of which they are charged. I would not bet on it either way.
Neither Ray nor Ziegler does 'good' work by my definition (tell the truth and educate rather than actively mislead). Ray's work is 'throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks in an effort to establish general doubt'. If your goal is only to establish reasonable doubt, it's 'good' work. Ziegler is a charlatan self-promoter who does NOT have PSU's interests at heart in any way, shape, or form.
Jerry is guilty and the trial was about as fair as trials can generally be in a case like this.
During the last two years, you guys have shouted wild claims at each other often enough that you think they are now supporting evidence in a great theory of wrongdoing, but at its base, most of those claims are nothing more than the kind of nonsense you hear from Kennedy conspiracy theorists or 9/11 truthers. Simply repeating them to each other a hundred times doesn't make them any more valid than they were at the beginning. Most of the rest of the sane people just gave up on rebutting you a long time ago and have moved on.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
CSS are guilty of bad management of the PSU football program and the university itself. There's enough evidence of that already. I am not sure they will be found guilty of the crimes of which they are charged. I would not bet on it either way.
Neither Ray nor Ziegler does 'good' work by my definition (tell the truth and educate rather than actively mislead). Ray's work is 'throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks in an effort to establish general doubt'. If your goal is only to establish reasonable doubt, it's 'good' work. Ziegler is a charlatan self-promoter who does NOT have PSU's interests at heart in any way, shape, or form.
Jerry is guilty and the trial was about as fair as trials can generally be in a case like this.
During the last two years, you guys have shouted wild claims at each other often enough that you think they are now supporting evidence in a great theory of wrongdoing, but at its base, most of those claims are nothing more than the kind of nonsense you hear from Kennedy conspiracy theorists or 9/11 truthers. Simply repeating them to each other a hundred times doesn't make them any more valid than they were at the beginning. Most of the rest of the sane people just gave up on rebutting you a long time ago and have moved on.
Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
You seem to be confused. Freeh is the person who made the accusations. He is the person who needs to provide evidence that backs up his "reasonable conclusions". Where is the evidence of a deliberate cover up? Where is the evidence that Curley and Schultz thought that Penn State football was more important than the welfare of children? Where is the evidence that Mike McQueary told Curley & Schultz that he had witnessed a child being molested? Where is the evidence that the entire Penn State "culture" is one that doesn't care about the welfare of children?
If Freeh cannot provide evidence to back up his conclusions then his conclusions must be dismissed.
"The four most powerful people at Penn State knowingly failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade." -Louis Freeh July, 12, 2012
I challenge you to demonstrate the "fairness" of this statement and/or to provide sufficient proof of the accusation.
I challenge you to read for comprehension again. I said by the standards of a criminal prosecution, his conclusions are not sufficiently proven.
By other standards, such as the preponderance of the evidence, his conclusions are sufficiently proven.
Despite the claims many of you have yelled back and forth at each other for years now, the emails remain substantial enough to contribute to proving those claims, for instance, as long as your standard is preponderance, not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In the trials, we'll see how much more the state has (if CSS stop delaying the case).
Let's resume this discussion after you read the actual report
Read it several times through, thanks. "BBBBut you didn't read the report!" must be a reflex with you guys, huh?
Yes, I have. Right after it was released and several times afterwards. You guys are such incredibly delusional zealots that you can't even conceive that somebody would come to different conclusions than you do if they have seen the same things - it would be funny if it weren't sad.
1. I'm a singular individual.
2. There's no need for name calling (unless your position is weak, so I can understand why you're doing it).
3. Even Ken Frazier disagrees with you.
Last edited:
mdahmus - be honest, you haven't read the damned Freeh "report".
Louis Freeh lied to me as I sat in that ballroom with a handful of other Alumni that day in July, 2012. He lied to you, he lied to the others here on this board, he lied to the nation at large. I sat at that press conference and watched what went down. I spoke to the media before and after. I saw the dynamics at play and in playing that morning back in my mind I am kicking myself for letting Louis end that press conference like he did and skating from my question.
It took me 10 days to fully digest the Freeh report and after I was done I said to myself - "that's it? 3 crummy emails?" . The report asked more questions than it ever answered - at least to those of us that have been following this story closely.
So you can stop with your line of reasoning. Louis Freeh has a business model that was working for him and his clients that find themselves in trouble - a private Blackwater of sorts. Well, it WAS working for him, until he tried to apply it to the Penn State community - and in the process torching a larger community - one that also happens to be parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and voters across the state.
Louis Freeh lied to me as I sat in that ballroom with a handful of other Alumni that day in July, 2012. He lied to you, he lied to the others here on this board, he lied to the nation at large. I sat at that press conference and watched what went down. I spoke to the media before and after. I saw the dynamics at play and in playing that morning back in my mind I am kicking myself for letting Louis end that press conference like he did and skating from my question.
It took me 10 days to fully digest the Freeh report and after I was done I said to myself - "that's it? 3 crummy emails?" . The report asked more questions than it ever answered - at least to those of us that have been following this story closely.
So you can stop with your line of reasoning. Louis Freeh has a business model that was working for him and his clients that find themselves in trouble - a private Blackwater of sorts. Well, it WAS working for him, until he tried to apply it to the Penn State community - and in the process torching a larger community - one that also happens to be parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and voters across the state.
I have read the report multiple times. If you persist in this claim, despite being corrected publically on numerous occasions, you are lying.
mdahmus is just a sad, attention starved contrarian. Spend a few minutes searching the internet for his name and you will see that almost every hit is him on a blog, message board, or similar going against the grain for attention. He loves this stuff and you'll see him feeding his need on an astounding range of topics spanning over 10 years. The internet is a great archive and he's used it as much as anyone. His record is well documented and speaks for itself. If there is an opportunity to go against the grain somewhere on the internet, he'll find it and spend hours researching and debating it. He's really not worth anyone's time because he's not here to discuss actual facts or find any truth. He just gets his jollies from argument and stirring the pot.
So the same question applies. Please provide a PREPONDERANCE of evidence of a cover up. Explain while doing this
1. why Fina found nothing as it relates to JVP
2. why no one was asked coached or otherwise included in the cover up - specifically MM, DD, Mr M. or anyone else MM told over the years.
Really what have we all missed in the preponderance of evidence category.
1. why Fina found nothing as it relates to JVP
2. why no one was asked coached or otherwise included in the cover up - specifically MM, DD, Mr M. or anyone else MM told over the years.
Really what have we all missed in the preponderance of evidence category.
Exactly! Without interviewing the principles you cannot conclude anything from those emails. If mdahmus is that fixated on accepting Freeh's conclusions it is sad that he holds such disdain for his alma mater.
I think you need to go read the Freeh report!
But seriously, to me, pretending to investigate and then not actually doing anything other than telling TSM (who would never tell anybody else) is under the umbrella of "covering up", although I understand some feel otherwise.
I noticed you didn't respond to Zenophile's question (more accurately, "challenge") about the fairness of Freeh's "reasonable conclusion". You stated there was a preponderance of evidence. OK. How do you reconcile that with the fact that Freeh did not attempt to provide any other "reasonable conclusion" to balance the one he did offer? How do you reconcile your stance with the following statements? In particular, note Ken Frazier's deposition statement about there being other reasonable inferences that could have been drawn.
Conclusions about the motivations of Paterno, former university President Graham Spanier, former Athletic Director Tim Curley and former Vice President Gary Schultz detailed in a report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh amounted to "speculation." - Keith Masser, 7/2013
I think the Penn State issue that was done, there was an outcry to do something and do it quickly... In hindsight, you have to decide how much the public outcry pushed both sides in a process that was unconventional. - Lou Anna Simon, 9/2013
I don’t believe I read or was able to download and get a copy of the full [Freeh] report until after I got back, which would have been around the time of the press conference [announcing the Consent Decree], or sometime shortly thereafter. - Ed Ray, 12/2014
The Board of Trustees has never formally accepted the [Freeh] report. They received it. - Rodney Erickson, 12/2014
We were scrambling to deal with the public fallout... Human motivation is an extremely complex subject that has multiple layers... I am simply saying that there are other reasonable inferences that could be drawn [as opposed to the “reasonable conclusion” offered in the Freeh report]. - Ken Frazier, 12/2014
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... [The Freeh report] very clearly paints a picture about every student, every faculty member, every staff member and every alum. And it's absurd. It's unwarranted. So from my viewpoint the Freeh report is not useful to make decisions... Unfortunately, there are a lot of shoes that have to drop. You could argue that public opinion has found us guilty before the criminal trials. There's no doubt in my mind what was completely and totally wrong was the notion that this entire alumni base, our students, our faculty, our staff, got the blame for what occurred... Freeh expressed his personal opinions and conclusions about the motivation of individuals, rather than simply presenting factual information. Certainly, some of the content raises real questions, but only through criminal proceedings do you have access to all witnesses and only through this process do you view information from the counter-balanced perspective of both defense and prosecutor. - Eric Barron, 1/2015
Few would have predicted the bombshells in the NCAA’s documents that exposed its embarrassing and indefensible decision-making process, just as few outsiders are able to discern what facts are behind Penn State’s communications regarding the Freeh report. Penn State has the answers, and its failure to disclose them only underscores the importance of learning what really happened... For a community seeking to heal and come together, I would hope Barron’s courageous leadership in disavowing the Freeh report would be reason enough to seize the moment of the sanctions reversal, commit to transparency, and help the public understand all the events that have profoundly impacted so many lives. - Richard Thornburgh, 4/2015
https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2015/04...e-board-approve-settlements-april-9th-2005/5/
To all of this I would answer "Freeh was required to work with the prosecution and make sure that he didn't report anything or do anything which would jeopardize the criminal cases". This is also a valid answer to "why didn't he interview [XX]".
I think that Freeh was required to work with the Penn State BOT and make sure that he didn't report anything that made the BOT look bad and question whether their firings of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier were justified.
That certainly doesn't sound very "independent" or "fair."
And also why Freeh could not conclude anything contrary to the OAG's position.
That is a pitifully weak response even for you. Even if as you say they only "pretended to investigate" and ONLY reported it to the man's employer and the organization responsible for the safety of the kids, and as many suggest ONLY brought Harmon [aka police] into the loop. So IF you believe MM's story [I don't] these actions at the very worst are inadequate and in absolutely no way indicative of a cover up.
So MM knew DD knew, Mr M knew, Harmon knew, Courtney knew, Raykovitz knew, MM's girlfriend knew, Heim knew, and yet these guys were covering up. Ridiculous!!
So MM knew DD knew, Mr M knew, Harmon knew, Courtney knew, Raykovitz knew, MM's girlfriend knew, Heim knew, and yet these guys were covering up. Ridiculous!!
So in essence,
This clearly shows you have no clue, an agenda or both
I think that it illustrates a level of "douche-baggery" that we haven't achieved here in some time.
Therein lies the problem. The standards of proof you bandy about are used in a court of law. Freeh was not and is not a court of law. He was hired in a private capacity and in a grandstanding press conference accused several people of criminal acts. But I'll play your game and refer to the standards of proof you're playing with. To the best of my knowledge the standard of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Freeh accused people of criminal conduct yet he (and you apparently) is trying to use the civil standard of proof to show he's right. That's pretty dumb for a guy who is/was a judge. Maybe he'll explain his reasoning when he fulfills his promise and arrives on the Penn State campus to answer questions.
Last edited:
Similar threads
