ADVERTISEMENT

Judge grants access for experts to assist in Freeh report review

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,960
4,805
1
Lori Falce of the CDT has the story that Anthony Lubrano reported at the Upon Further Review event a few weeks ago.

Two more people will be getting a look at the Freeh report documents.

Bedford County Senior Judge Daniel Howsare has ordered that an attorney and a database administrator can be enlisted to help some Penn State trustees with the documents related to the university-commissioned review of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal by former FBI director Louis Freeh.

Alumni-elected trustees Ted Brown, Barbara Doran, Bob Jubelirer, Anthony Lubrano, Ryan McCombie, Bill Oldsey and Alice Pope petitioned the court last year to allow them access to the documents after the board of trustees leadership and administration balked due to concerns about privacy and assurances of confidentiality.

The alumni-elected trustees, who have questioned the report’s conclusions, say it is their fiduciary responsibility to review the investigation, which cost the university $8.1 million.

Howsare granted their request to review the documents but maintained strict confidentiality.

This month, Howsare granted another request, allowing attorney Lawrence Schultz and database administrator Mary Waldman to assist in the task.

According to court documents, part of the need stems from the software used to arrange the information, which is described as “cumbersome to navigate.”

The alumni-elected trustees told the court that Schultz and Waldman offered their services as experts at no cost.

Schultz is a 1980 graduate of Penn State who ran for trustee this year. Waldman is a 1983 graduate.

Both signed acknowledgments of understanding that all information was to be kept confidential and discussed only with the relevant trustees and counsel.


http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/board-of-trustees/article86811457.html
 
Wow and this board knew about this how long ago? Lori is really on top of things! Could be the next Sara Ganim!

Did any other media outlet beat the CDT with the scoop? The first I heard anything was at the Upon Further Review Event on June 11 around 2:15. Since then, I have not heard any confirmation from traditional news outlets.

 
The is no comparison between the 2. Ms. Falce 's "scandal" coverage is typically excellent.
Agreed. Lori could run journalistic circles around Ganim every day of the week with her hands tied behind her back! IMHO it's highly uncalled for for anyone to make that comparison!

I'm thinking she was on vacation and is catching up because yesterday she put out that other article with news from over a month ago. (That one was really bad, most one-sided one I've ever seen and I was quite surprised).
 
Wow and this board knew about this how long ago? Lori is really on top of things! Could be the next Sara Ganim!
Not surprisingly, the University opposed the Petition to add Larry and Mary on the grounds of confidentiality.

The University really wants to keep all of that from the light of day. They are fighting very hard to keep it all buried and as few eyes as possible on that information. Less chance of it leaking out over time. There must be something in there that is obviously going to show the University and some people in a very bad light. Would love to know what you and the rest have seen/read at this point but obviously you cannot disclose at this point all of it. Just keep pushing forward and know many of us stand with you.
 
Not surprisingly, the University opposed the Petition to add Larry and Mary on the grounds of confidentiality.
The University really wants to keep all of that from the light of day. They are fighting very hard to keep it all buried and as few eyes as possible on that information. Less chance of it leaking out over time. There must be something in there that is obviously going to show the University and some people in a very bad light. Would love to know what you and the rest have seen/read at this point but obviously you cannot disclose at this point all of it. Just keep pushing forward and know many of us stand with you.

The biggest "tell" was the exorbitant V9 (aka John Doe D) settlement as soon as the judge ruled his attys could have unfettered access to all the same materials. V9's case was the least related to PSU of all the ones heard at trial.

(Watch someone totally misconstrue this) Just to repeat, least related to PSU of those heard at trial. His complaint for the abuse which continued WHILE CORBETT's OAG delayed investigating, is with the State and the Second Mile, who both had obligations to protect him via a safety plan and OAG supervision over the charities under its umbrella.

There must be some pretty stinky bad things about OTHER people (not the 4 defamed ones) in those databases. All the millions spent trying to hide it does not make any sense otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Not surprisingly, the University opposed the Petition to add Larry and Mary on the grounds of confidentiality.
Oh that rascally Mr. Dunham and his stall tactic.
CmNMGj0WgAEOKeL.jpg
 
Would have really liked to have Ray Blehar as one of the two reviewing the documents...he's already contributed substantially and probably knows the details better than anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: therod and Mary QBA
Would have really liked to have Ray Blehar as one of the two reviewing the documents...he's already contributed substantially and probably knows the details better than anyone.
I think his role is already right where he wants and needs it to be. I can't elaborate further but I will say his focus on getting the Child Welfare System issues addressed is possibly the most important project of this multifaceted fight for the truth.
 
The biggest "tell" was the exorbitant V9 (aka John Doe D) settlement as soon as the judge ruled his attys could have unfettered access to all the same materials. V9's case was the least related to PSU of all the ones heard at trial.

(Watch someone totally misconstrue this) Just to repeat, least related to PSU of those heard at trial. His complaint for the abuse which continued WHILE CORBETT's OAG delayed investigating, is with the State and the Second Mile, who both had obligations to protect him via a safety plan and OAG supervision over the charities under its umbrella.

There must be some pretty stinky bad things about OTHER people (not the 4 defamed ones) in those databases. All the millions spent trying to hide it does not make any sense otherwise.

In no way do I dispute what you conjecture Nellie. I would add that the Misanthropes have spent a fortune to protect those trustees(past and present), their "friends" and relatives who spoke to the investigators. I would wager that if and when we find out "who said what" there will be a reaction coming from alumni that will register on the Richter Scale."
 
I think his role is already right where he wants and needs it to be. I can't elaborate further but I will say his focus on getting the Child Welfare System issues addressed is possibly the most important project of this multifaceted fight for the truth.
The "cause" is better having Ray willing and able to share what he has discovered. If part of this project, he would be silenced.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Lori could run journalistic circles around Ganim every day of the week with her hands tied behind her back! IMHO it's highly uncalled for for anyone to make that comparison!

I'm thinking she was on vacation and is catching up because yesterday she put out that other article with news from over a month ago. (That one was really bad, most one-sided one I've ever seen and I was quite surprised).
If you remember, Sara Ganim almost put out an article talking about how JVP was praised by the OAG on how he handled the initial (2001) information and the GJ process. Then magically someone "leaked" information to Sara which led to JVP's crucifixion and her (cough, cough) Pulitzer. Lori Falce just wrote an article about the 1971 and 1976 claims without mentioning that the testimony was NOT under oath and was all 2nd/3rd hand. Add that to the month old news she is now reporting and the simple fact that she is a "journalist" makes me suspicious of what she might next produce should she receive any "leaked" information.

I hope you are correct and she is a rare "journalist" with integrity, but fool me once ...
 
Question. They can review the Freeh documents under a rule of confidentiality. This may be a stupid question. But I am not a lawyer or an expert in court rulings..... So if these guys discover things while reviewing and studying the Freeh documents, does 'confidentiality' mean that they can not make their findings public? If this team can not expose what they find, then what good will come from their investigation into the documents? Would this not be like saying 'you can buy a lottery ticket .... but you can not claim the prize should you win' ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgar
Question. They can review the Freeh documents under a rule of confidentiality. This may be a stupid question. But I am not a lawyer or an expert in court rulings..... So if these guys discover things while reviewing and studying the Freeh documents, does 'confidentiality' mean that they can not make their findings public? If this team can not expose what they find, then what good will come from their investigation into the documents? Would this not be like saying 'you can buy a lottery ticket .... but you can not claim the prize should you win' ?
Mr. @lubrano has mentioned on a few occasions that if the alumni group were to uncover information of significance, then they would petition the judge to revisit the gag order.
 
Mr. @lubrano has mentioned on a few occasions that if the alumni group were to uncover information of significance, then they would petition the judge to revisit the gag order.

They would most likely win too, since the law states trustees may release info as they see fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT