How do you know he didn't interview Sloane, Ganter, or Gricar? I'm not doubting that...I'm don't think he interviewed those individuals either... but I'm curious whether you're just surmising or if you're stating that as fact?
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
How do you know he didn't interview Sloane, Ganter, or Gricar? I'm not doubting that...I'm don't think he interviewed those individuals either... but I'm curious whether you're just surmising or if you're stating that as fact?
Of all your asinine posts CR, this takes the cake. Why not post your name here since you have so much insight. Tell you what, I'll take a look at the docs myself and make some judgments since I am actually qualified to do so. And yes, I know most of the lawyers from Freeh's group who worked on this. And no, they were not qualified to do this investigation.
Very true. Many of us pointed out this problem from the start when the 'ground rules' of the review were released.
How can you possibly review a situation from 10 years prior and draw any 'reasonable conclusions' (or "opinions"- it apparently changes whether Freeh is in front of press cameras or a deposition camera/ judge.....but I digress
) when you do not talk to anyone directly involved in the matter? He refused to interview Paterno (and then IIRC lied and said Paterno wouldn't talk to him.......which should have immediately caused everyone to question his motives and whether he truly was an 'honest broker' in his report). IIRC he only interviewed Spanier at the last second because Spanny was calling him out in the press for refusing to talk to him.
Very true. Many of us pointed out this problem from the start when the 'ground rules' of the review were released.
How can you possibly review a situation from 10 years prior and draw any 'reasonable conclusions' (or "opinions"- it apparently changes whether Freeh is in front of press cameras or a deposition camera/ judge.....but I digress
you know, Freeh could have been intellectually honest and qualified his report by saying this was based on incomplete interviews, and that without being able to interview the principals of the case, they could not form a more comprehensive conclusion
but he did not do that, because he is as ethically vacuous as CRudHummer
Wow. That is quite a statement. Care to expound on this?
He would have been one to talk to, as he worked for PSU.
Yep. He could have said we reviewed what we could but Curley and Schultz weren't talking on advice from lawyers and the PA Attorney General office pretty much demanded that we not talk to anyone who really knew anything (MM, his father, Harmon, etc) so there are still questions. No one would have taken fault with that as it would have been honest.
Of course, that's one of the major failures of the report and Freeh's investigation. When you're not supposed to factor in outside influences, you're essentially treating PSU as a black box and just looking at the internal factors. PSU reported things to CYS/DPW and to TSM? Don't care - we didn't look at TSM, CYS/DPW. So if PSU did report things and those organizations failed - doesn't matter. That's all out of scope. So its almost like PSU didn't report anything from Freeh's point of view - because there was nobody to report it to.
"Mr. Freeh, are you aware that Penn State DID, in fact, report the incident to multiple sources outside of PSU??" --- "No, our scope was to look at just what PSU did, so those agencies don't really exist in our mind, therefore, no report was made." See? If you have a mandate to ignore every single organization outside of Penn State, of COURSE there was a cover-up and Penn State didn't report things! That information never made it outside of the "black box" that is Penn State - because they never bothered to look at where the information went. It might as well have just wound up in a trash can per Freeh's interpretation.
Hell, Curley could have gone straight to the Centre County DA and demanded an investigation, and there might have been actual documentation, but if that had happened and you presented that evidence to Freeh, he would have just said "out of scope - never happened. Penn State never reported it."
Also don't know if he is characterizing MM's "conjecture" that MM relayed to JVP during their conversation where JVP has already stated that MM was not very coherent in the relaying of his story (e.g., when asked to describe what he ACTUALLY saw, MM would consistently state that he did not actually EYEWITNESS a sexual act - didn't see anything below the parties' upper bodies who were in the shower - and then would invariably say that he didn't actually know how to describe what he saw but THOUGHT it was wrong and inappropriate "whatever it was".). It is beyond absurd for the prosecution and the OG BOT "false narrative" supporting boot-lickers to claim that this is JVP describing and giving an accounting of what MM told him he saw and "eyewitnessed" - completely disingenuous for them to claim this especially the dirtbag, @sshole "esquires" among them.
Freeh could have very easily spoken with both Tom Harmon and Wendell Courtney.
As the underwriters of the Freeh Fallacy, PSU could very well have waived ACP to allow Freeh to speak with Courtney, and - of course - as a PSU employee, Harmon could have been made readily available.
Here are two people who we KNOW spoke directly with Schultz (at least) and would/could/should be able to directly address the substance of those conversations - conversations that would be critical components in any "cover up" scenario.
Maybe Freeh DID speak to these folks - we will probably never know.......but one thing we sure as hell know - if these conversations yielded any evidence in support of his conclusions, it surely was never revealed.
Given Freeh's "reasonable conclusions" that:
" [There was] total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State [CSS and Paterno]"
"It is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts"
Perhaps he might have presented some evidence to support his "reasonable conclusions" .......... Just like Fina, Beemer and the "Slam Dunk Team", Freeh apparently keeps all his solid evidence locked up in a subterranean bunker - never to see the light of day
It is the same old tired circle-jerkers who pretend to be oblivious to these (and scores of additional) basic parameters - - - and, obviously, it has been clear for quite some time that those circle-jerkers aren't worth the time to have "pretend debates".
They would all do society a favor by sucking on a tailpipe for a few minutes.
As the underwriters of the Freeh Fallacy, PSU could very well have waived ACP to allow Freeh to speak with Courtney, and - of course - as a PSU employee, Harmon could have been made readily available.
Here are two people who we KNOW spoke directly with Schultz (at least) and would/could/should be able to directly address the substance of those conversations - conversations that would be critical components in any "cover up" scenario.
Maybe Freeh DID speak to these folks - we will probably never know.......but one thing we sure as hell know - if these conversations yielded any evidence in support of his conclusions, it surely was never revealed.
Given Freeh's "reasonable conclusions" that:
" [There was] total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State [CSS and Paterno]"
"It is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts"
Perhaps he might have presented some evidence to support his "reasonable conclusions" .......... Just like Fina, Beemer and the "Slam Dunk Team", Freeh apparently keeps all his solid evidence locked up in a subterranean bunker - never to see the light of day
It is the same old tired circle-jerkers who pretend to be oblivious to these (and scores of additional) basic parameters - - - and, obviously, it has been clear for quite some time that those circle-jerkers aren't worth the time to have "pretend debates".
They would all do society a favor by sucking on a tailpipe for a few minutes.
Last edited:
Yep, completely agree. I have believed since day 1 that Courtney is the key to understanding this entire incident. Freeh included a copy of his invoice to PSU for his research on the issue. Surely there must be a written work product that Freeh has viewed and if there is, why is it not included in the report? The only rational reason is because it does not support the narrative. And if there is no report, as you suggest, just waive the privilege and talk to him. IMHO there is no pure reason for Freeh failing to make public whatever Courtney knows.
My guess is that C/S told Courtney about horseplay and that Courtney made a soft recommendation about how to handle the situation.
I doubt seriously that C/S told Courtney about something more serious. If so, Courtney would have recommended that this be reported to the authorities asap. It would be really bad if Courtney made a more aggressive recommendation and C/S decided to ignore him. If that was the case, all the BOT would have to do is share this in confidence with someone like Lubrano and he would instruct the other alumni elected trustees to back off.
Come on, if Wendell Courtney made an "aggressive recommendation" that C/S/S failed to follow-through upon, it would have been in Freeh's Report - not only would it have been in Freeh's Report it would have been pasted in bold in giant size letters in the header and footer of every page! Not only that, but the information would have been provided to the OAG who the corrupt OG BOT was conspiring with (Corbett was a member of the BOT at the time the Presentment and Indictments came out in November 2011 for pete's sake). The probability that Wendell Courtney recommended something that C/S/S (Curley and Schultz were reporting their proposed actions to Spanier at the time) "failed" to carry out is a limit function approaching zero.
BINGO!!!!!
On so MANY fronts, the idea that Schultz shared ANYTHING even remotely close to "We have a report of sexual assault on a child" with Courtney is absolutely freaking ludicrous.
If anything within 1,000 miles of that had occurred, we most certainly would have heard it trumpeted from the mountaintops by the likes of Freeh, Fina, Beemer and the whole Hee-Haw gang.
It is not even worthy of debate (except among the circle-jerkers)
What that DOESN'T prove (conclusively) one way or another, is whether or not a reasonable report of CSA ever reached Schultz......but that's a whole 'nuther story.
But, the fact that the folks who have created and perpetrated the ridiculous BS narrative of ..... "CSA Predator Enabled by Administrators, due to concerns over Reputation of the Football Program".....have fought tooth and nail to ignore and obfuscate any evidence that conflicts with their fallacy?
That is VERY telling.
boom. you're exactly correct.
the title of Courtney's folder was something like "suspected child abuse", which fits the narrative
if the contents were as salacious, Penn State sure as sh*t would have waived ACP to leak the details to the public
That is a good point, however if the goal was PSU issues only it is impossible, not difficult, impossible, to do that if you don't talk to Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Harmon, Courtney, MM, Mr Mc., and Dr D. These were the only people who "supposedly" were aware of what was going on in real time. Now if the scope was to role back to 98 to get some texture to how things got handled then all of the aforementioned make sense.
As far as I know the only thing freeh included in his report to support this absurd contention was some speculation by a TSM lawyer....that's right...a TSM lawyer. What an absolute farce. He found ZERO notes, emails, etc. that showed the admins were worried about bad pub for the football program.
As many others have pointed out, it's a complete non-sequitur to suggest that turning in a suspected pedo (who didn't even work for the freaking school anymore) would result in bad pub, if anything it would be good pub--PSU does things the right way, etc.
And yet the media gobbled it up hook line and sinker b/c it was juicy story that would get clicks....smh
it was a damn lie and Freeh knew it. and all the asshattery by CR and his ilk cannot change that fact.
Courtney's lawyer didn't want him to speak to Freeh. OAG told Freeh not to speak with Harmon. In fact, I'm not sure Freeh spoke to anyone involved in the 1998 situation other than Schreffler, and possibly Lauro.
Yeah, I remember the Harmon part. Courtney lawyering up was well, so lawyerly. I guess I don't blame him for that
Had Schultz told Courtney of CSA, why would he have then turned around and told Spanier it was "inappropriate"? Why would Curley have told JR it was horseplay?
The only explanation, and the email exchange supports this, is that no CSA was reported to them by Mike. Nothing else makes sense.
What I suspect the gist of Schultz's conversation with Courtney had to do with was what options were available to them to rescind Jerry's guest privileges, given that his retirement package included a 5 year agreement to allow Jerry to bring TSM kids to the facilities.
Jerry being alone with kids in the facilities, specifically the shower, was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Schultz's notes indicate he was well aware of the dangers of a he said/he said scenario, as just the accusation was enough to make PSU "vulnerable".
Specifically, Schultz wrote:
1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d
Notice he said "avoid". Are you kidding me? Do you really think he would have used that word had CSA been reported to him?
But the key word here is "alone". Schultz wasn't even saying Jerry should never, under any circumstances, bring kids around. His legitimate concern was that Jerry refrain from doing so alone.
I know it has been widely speculated that there was a degree of Anti Paterno sentiment to the actions of the NCAA, Big Ten and other groups. People resented that Joe had a saintly image and was never shy about expressing his opinions about what might improve college football. But the reality is that this false narrative had the advantage of an anti-football bias. There may be 100,000 fans at Beaver Stadium but there are many times that number exemplified by Peetz and Erickson who stew with resentment over the attention football attracts. Anyone who has played or coached the game at the high school level or above has experienced a degree of this anti football bias. When in high school, I had teachers who openly expressed their disdain for athletics and football in particular. In college, I learned that it was wise to keep the fact that I was on the team from certain professors.
As A young coach, I would half jokingly tell my players that the world is divided into two categories: Football Players and those who wish they could be! I avoided hanging out in the faculty lounge, since there were always remarks about athletes. I am not pretending that there may not be some basis for this bias, but in large part it is just petty jealousy.
As A young coach, I would half jokingly tell my players that the world is divided into two categories: Football Players and those who wish they could be! I avoided hanging out in the faculty lounge, since there were always remarks about athletes. I am not pretending that there may not be some basis for this bias, but in large part it is just petty jealousy.
The problem with this theory, though, is that IF PSU waived its attorney-client privilege they could include Courtney's advice to Shultz, which PSU paid for. They really don't need to speak with Courtney. And as others have pointed out, if Courtney's advice was even remotely supportive of going to the authorities you can bet that would have been a very key point in the Freeh Report. Let's face it, if Courtney's advice to PSU was "you must report this to the authorities" then that is the biggest smoking gun in the entire case.
Now, on the contrary, suppose Courtney's advice suggested "this is in essence the exact same allegation as 1998, even weaker since we don't have a "victim"; since that matter was fully investigated and such a fact pattern was determined not to be abuse, we have no basis to report anything." That too would be a smoking gun that point right back to the State.
Correct me if I'm wrong but freeh didn't need to speak to Courtney to find out what Schultz told him. All PSU had to do was waive ACP (similar to what they did with baldwin so she could sandbag CSS) so freeh could see Courtney's records/notes re: 2001. And that never happened, or perhaps it did and that info is in the source files but since it is exculpatory freeh didn't use it.
I think we can all agree that one of the reasons the OGBOT has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent even their fellow trustees from getting unredacted access to the source files is they will find EXCULPATORY info in there and can then prove that freeh had a biased/predetermined report because he never mentioned or considered the exculpatory notes, emails, interviews, etc. to form his "reasonable conclusions".
Of course--I was only speaking to those mentioned in the post I was commenting on.
EVERY SINGLE person downstream of Schultz/Curley either clearly stated and/or acted congruent with them having been informed of something akin to "horseplay" (for lack of a better term)
Every one - Spanier, Harmon, Raykovitz, Heim, Courtney etc.
(Of course, this doesn't exonerate the 2nd Mile folks - Raykovitz and Heim - since in their position they are MANDATED to initiate further actions even IF the reports to them were EXACTLY as Heim relayed them......but that's a whole 'nuther issue)
Based on all of the evidence presented to date - even taken in the most convoluted and twisted manner - the idea that anything downstream of Curley/Schultz in 2001 was relayed as some type of sexual assault, is - frankly - incredulous......based on everyone's actions and testimonies.
Barring some definitive "double-secret prosecutor's file" evidence to the contrary - a file that has heretofore remained hermetically sealed - it is not even worthy of discussion.
With that, the concept of some sort of "PSU Football Cover-up, designed to maintain the image of the program", and the entire media-firestorm narrative, goes out the window.
Gone.
Done.
The determination as to whether or not Curley/Schultz failed to relay a report of "sexual assault" ...... that is another issue entirely.......and one which - it would seem - will NEVER be adjudicated in a courtroom (which - given the extensive track record of the Fina Boys - should come as a surprise to absolutely no one)
yes but here's the crazy exception that defies logic that supports the insane narrative of bottom feeders like CR . . .
their belief is that C/S/S were told of sexual assault, and that Curley decided to soft play it to Raykovitz (under Joe's orders) in order to protect the football team. they had decided NOT TO report it to CYS/DPW. or the UPPD. under Joe's orders. to protect the football program.
but for some absolutely idiotic reason STILL opted to inform Raykovitz, only Curley undersold it???
you have to be a special kind of stupid to think that makes any sense. and we all know that CR is special.
yes but here's the crazy exception that defies logic that supports the insane narrative of bottom feeders like CR . . .
their belief is that C/S/S were told of sexual assault, and that Curley decided to soft play it to Raykovitz (under Joe's orders) in order to protect the football team. they had decided NOT TO report it to CYS/DPW. or the UPPD. under Joe's orders. to protect the football program.
but for some absolutely idiotic reason STILL opted to inform Raykovitz, only Curley undersold it???
you have to be a special kind of stupid to think that makes any sense. and we all know that CR is special.
And Creepy#66 and the OGBOT Misanthropes expect us to believe that THEY acted in the best interests of AND to protect Penn State
Downstream up-to-and-including the Corbett convened SWIGJ - as clearly demonstrated by the following IMMUTABLE FACTS. IMMUTABLE FACTS which point to a rogue OAG turned Governor / PSU Board Member shamelessly and almost certainly ILLEGALY attempting to twist and MISREPRESENT these IMMUTABLE FACTS:
Mike McQueary ONLY testified to one PA SWIGJ and it was the 30th PA SWIGJ in 2010, not the 33rd PA SWIGJ as the OAG attempts to represent in their Presentment of the 33rd SWIGJ which is the one which forwarded a recommendation for indictments!
Think about the implications of this - the 30th SWIGJ was still being run by OAG Corbett. There is no possible way that the 30th SWIGJ ever HEARD the alleged testimony of Mike McQueary contained in the 33rd SWIGJ's Presentment (e.g., Mike McQueary EYEWITNESSED anal rape, sodomy, etc, etc., etc...) - we know this FACTUALLY for two very clear reasons:
- The 30th PA SWIGJ did NOT produce indictments or the recommendation of indictments! How is it even remotely possible that the 30th PA SWIGJ heard what is laid out and characterized in the 33rd PA SWIGJ Presentment as to Mike McQueary's testimony to the Grand Jury relative to what he, Mike McQueary, EYEWITNESSED and SAW and would testify to under oath in a PA Court of Law relative to the indictment for this count and not forward a recommendation for an indictment for this count??? Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that the 30th PA SWIGJ would not have forwarded a Presentment and recommendation for an Indictment if this is fair characterization of the testimony they heard - ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!!!
- We know it is not what the 30th PA SWIGJ heard - the SWIGJ that MM actually testified to,not the 33rd SWIGJ - BECAUSE A MEMBER OF THAT SWIGJ characterized MM's statements as the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE, that he COULD NOT testify to EYEWITNESSING a sexual act and sexual assault - see the first citation above with direct quotes from a member of the 30th SWIGJ, Grand Juror Stan Bolton, who describes testimony from Mike McQueary which is the POLAR OPPOSITE of the representations that the OAG made in the 33rd SWIGJ Presentment regarding Mike McQueary's testimony, especially in regards to whether he could testify to EYEWITNESSING a sex act and sexual assualt!
yes but here's the crazy exception that defies logic that supports the insane narrative of bottom feeders like CR . . .
their belief is that C/S/S were told of sexual assault, and that Curley decided to soft play it to Raykovitz (under Joe's orders) in order to protect the football team. they had decided NOT TO report it to CYS/DPW. or the UPPD. under Joe's orders. to protect the football program.
but for some absolutely idiotic reason STILL opted to inform Raykovitz, only Curley undersold it???
you have to be a special kind of stupid to think that makes any sense. and we all know that CR is special.
You have Jonnie Jacobs and his Penn Live idiot crowd of Brian, mbe/Judas/Andrea, and the total clown CrapstainReilly that subscribe to this utter bullshit.
You have Jonnie Jacobs and his Penn Live idiot crowd of Brian, mbe/Judas/Andrea, and the total clown CrapstainReilly that subscribe to this utter bullshit.
On a more sophisticated level the analogy is the familiar tale of the young volunteer fireman. He sets a fire so he can be a hero fighting the blaze. The OGBOT were lepers after Joe died. They needed to make it look like they saved football and the university. They needed Freeh's name recognition and OPINION. They even created the Death Penalty Myth so as to make them appear as our SAVIORS.
Not only that, no one was qualified to make the recommended changes. Who was their higher ed SME? Hopefully, it was someone other than Barbara Mather.
Do you have proof that MM did not testify for the 33rd SWIGJ? I haven't seen this in an official document and it would be eye opening to have proof that he did NOT testify.
I'm pretty sure that is correct. Just as the GJ that indicted GS and TC never heard or saw them either,
Last edited:
Perhaps because it never occurred to him the degree to which those five words in his GJ testimony would be lifted from context and exploited by your kind? He wasn't corrupt so he didn't really think about the world the way you do. It likely never occurred to him that there was anything in his testimony that needed correcting. It's clear he was from the context he was stating it in a questioning manner to convey the lack of certainty and that he was just trying to help. It's likely he never saw your kind coming. He had a certain naivete to him about cats like you.
Last edited:
