But Freeh even fails to meet that standard.
It's such a complete failure in that regard that I'm sincerely curious if the author of the conclusions/executive summary was prevented from having any contact with the author of the 267-page report.
Erickson's Notebook Reveals Deceptions, Possible Crimes
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
But Freeh even fails to meet that standard.
It's such a complete failure in that regard that I'm sincerely curious if the author of the conclusions/executive summary was prevented from having any contact with the author of the 267-page report.
Reference 3. above.....
Ken Frazier disagrees with people who wear hats that look like yours.....
Also in a civil case the defendant has an opportunity to rebut and present evidence. That did not occur with Freeh. He refused to interview Joe before he died then subsequently lied about it (trying to claim that Paterno refused to be interviewed which was contradicted by his own report). He also only grudgingly agreed to interview Spanier at the 11th hour after the report had already essentially been written.
How does this possible meet the preponderance of evidence standard?
I've never understood this line of thinking. I guess how this goes is that CSS were scared of what might happen if word about what MM saw got out. But they also didn't want to get in trouble for not reporting. So, part of their cover up was to go to Raykovitz -- giving them plausible deniability w.r.t. not reporting -- but also feeling certain that he would keep quiet. CSS apparently knew they could ignore that Raykovitz had gone through many years of hard work to earn a PhD and had dedicated his life to helping children. (That was probably just a facade like Paterno's...) CSS apparently knew that Raykovitz was bringing in big $$ with TSM and that he would put keeping that sweet gig ahead of the welfare of the children in his care.
If you can't see this part of CSS's sinister plan, you're just naive... I mean, think about how hard it is to find work with just a PhD. Just look at how far Raykovitz has fallen. Oh, that's right. He's still got his private practice.
Seriously, it seems to me you need to have either a strong bias against CSS or a very dim view of humanity to make this argument.
the first rule of any conspiracy is to involve as many outsiders as you can, especially if you are not absolutely certain they will do exactly what you suspect they might.
the second rule, of course, is never to tell your only witness to keep his mouth shut
As expected.......the circle jerk from TOS has begun to take root. Don't try and debate with it......it only gives it encouragement.
Its hard to believe that this butt pirate (mdahmus) is an alum. He is either a paid sham or very, very gullible/stupid. I am not trying to defend anyone here but man, mdahmus, u just take the cake. There is a reason why no other alumni are accepting this report.. but are trying their best to expose this joke of a report for what it is. The only so called 'alumni' who are trying to 'move-on' and completely accept the report are those exact same arse clowns who have something to hide. Mdahmus, you clearly don't care for the truth.. you clearly dont care for your alma mater.. and you sure as hell don't care for those children. Please take your act somewhere else, its getting old.
P.S - If you actually care for the truth.. then start your own research just like the Paterno's et al, Ray and all the other alumni who are putting in their own hard earned money to contribute in some way or the other to get to the truth. If not, then GTFO... For some reason, I have a feeling you are not going to do it.
Also, aside from telling the world, Joe had an iron-clad plan to cover up for sandusky considering that Drs. McQueary and Dranov, two people Joe was not close to, had heard from Mike McQueary 12 hours before Joe learned about the incident.
It's been said that dumbass makes a living trolling on the interwebs. I guess that's just his thing. That and maybe he has his head firmly planted up the old-guard trustees' asses. (Would he have to take that stupid hat off first?)
dumbass comes off as someone who would support upward state.
I doubt it. He was smarmy in college and had an "I think I'm the smartest guy in the room" way about him, but he's taken it to the extreme on the interwebs. I see some resemblance in behavior, but he wasn't such a tool in college. We also didn't have the interwebs back then.
Freeh only grudgingly agreed to interview Spanier at the 11th hour? Is this accurate? I know it happened late, but recall it was Spanier who refused to speak to Freeh until late. Spanier was even suing Penn State to try to get access to the emails before speaking to Freeh.
"113. Prior to meeting with Freeh, Dr. Spanier originally thought that Freeh and FSS had been retained to conduct what he believed and expected to be a good faith and independent investigation of the Sandusky scandal. Having nothing to hide and quite anxious to help to the investigation, Dr. Spanier and his attorneys reached out to Freeh’s investigative team, and Dr. Spanier was quite eager to be interviewed as part of the investigation. Freeh and his investigators delayed interviewing Dr. Spanier, saying he would be the last person to be interviewed."
http://freehreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1-Complaint-in-Spanier-v.-Freeh-and-Penn-State.pdf
No, you're completely wrong here. Freeh doesn't have the power to bring criminal charges. The state does, and did. You can say he 'accused people of criminal conduct' all you want, but that's not relevant - OJ's civil trial did that in the exact same way, and still used the preponderance of evidence standard (and note that Freeh's report isn't even a civil trial - I just said the standard could be no higher than a civil trial).
That doesn't change the fact that Spanier didn't want to talk to Freeh originally - the original poster is right. Spanier's team is spinning like a top in this paragraph; that's not how it actually went down.
Most of the PSU alums I know on the internet from the old days have given up on arguing with you guys, but definitely do not believe you're doing good work here. I'm frustrated that they don't argue back, because I think y'all's capacity to misinform people is greater than they think it is, but I'm far from alone.
The fact you say I'm wrong makes me feel good about what I wrote. I never said Freeh had the power to bring criminal charges but he did publicly accuse people of engaging in criminal conduct based on slim email evidence. That is relevant and I find it funny how you simply dismiss facts which don't suit you. Hey, are you Louis Freeh?? And if you know anything about the OJ trial you should also know there was more evidence than just a couple emails. It's weird how on one hand you point out Freeh doesn't have the power to bring criminal charges and that his report isn't even a civil trial. One the other hand you ramble on about standards of proof which only apply to criminal charges and civil trials. Freeh wasn't bound by any standard of proof and he took full advantage of that to arrive at his "reasonable conclusions". The evidence supporting those conclusions was so thin someone else could have used Freeh's "evidence" and interpreted it in a totally different way which could also have been considered reasonable.
what is wrong? Spanier contacted Freeh in April 2012 and said he would speak with him only with the condition that he reviews retrieved emails in advance. Spanier subsequently sued PSU in May 2012
Have to admit my recollection is a little fuzzy on this, but why would Spanier sue prior to release of Freeh report?
Ramble. Ha. Look at the paragraph above.
The point is y'all are trying to establish 'reasonable doubt' by attacking things like the formatting of emails. That's ridiculous and absurd. Freeh was not asked to produce a criminal case for a court of law. Whether or not you think he should have, that's not what he was tasked to do, and it's not what any other BOT in the world would have tasked him to do either.
He was tasked to investigate "what happened at our school" and he did just that. Complaining that he didn't investigate any hypothetical failures at CYS is likewise bullshit. He wasn't asked to do that, and had no power to anyways.
He was suing PSU to get access to the emails recovered. Said it would help him refresh his memory and properly prepare for the interview. PSU would not release the emails to Spanier, as directed by the OAG because of its continuing investigation
You wrote:
" I know it happened late, but recall it was Spanier who refused to speak to Freeh until late."
That's not correct.
Fact: the emails don't say anything about McQueary reporting a child being molested
Fact: the emails don't say anything about covering up anything
Fact: the emails don't contradict any c/s/s testimony about the events of 2001
Reasonable conclusion: Louis Freeh is full of shit
If you're going to be interviewed about the content of an email message you wrote a decade earlier is it unreasonable to ask to read the email message?
Ok, Spanier finally agreed to speak to Freeh without the condition of access and review of the emails. That was sometime after May 2012
I'm not trying to establish reasonable doubt for anything and I've never mentioned email formatting or CYS. I've never claimed Freeh was hired to produce a criminal case but the fact remains he publicly accused people of criminal conduct. Why the hell would he do that if that wasn't his job?? Maybe because his job was to deflect blame from the people who hired him??
You and Lundy are correct. Spanier wanted to see those emails before he talked to Freeh. Coordination.
Spanier DID NOT "refuse" to talk to Freeh. He ASKED to talk to Freeh. He quite rightly wanted to see the email messages they were going to discuss.
It is just completely dishonest to claim that Spainier "refused" to talk to Freeh.
Wasn't Dranov Joe's doctor? Didn't he sign Joe's death certificate?
Also, aside from telling the world, Joe had an iron-clad plan to cover up for sandusky considering that Drs. McQueary and Dranov, two people Joe was not close to, had heard from Mike McQueary 12 hours before Joe learned about the incident.
He agreed to talk to Freeh IF he was given the emails. The agreement originally was conditional so it's not dishonest to say he refused to talk to Freeh.
Not its not unreasonable. I am simply responding to the original post that said Freeh grudgingly agreed to interview Spanier at the 11th hour after the report was written. Spanier could have spoken to him sooner, but required access to the emails. Ultimately, Spanier agreed to be interviewed without access to the emails. But, that was very late.
Freeh could and should have investigated and reported on BoT and PSU admin conflicts of interest with the Second Mile, if he were doing an honest report. He didn't. Do the math why. Your support of Freeh is comical.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Update on top target set to announce soon (5:30)- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Potentially good news on three 2025 prospects.....
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-