I'll echo PennSt8er's comments. And consider that the report has already been exposed by anyone who has taken the time to read it.
List your best theories about what the BoT is hiding in the Freeh files
- Thread starter PennSt8er
- Start date
I'll echo PennSt8er's comments. And consider that the report has already been exposed by anyone who has taken the time to read it.
It will show what I've said all along. The conclusions were based on cherry-picked information. That they talked to ~N people, 98% had nothing bad to say about Paterno & Curley, 2% did and those 2% were BoT members - and Freeh threw out the 98% and put the 2% into his report. That, and the BoT was directing Freeh what to write and to steer the narrative to keep the info off of TSM and on PSU football. That the NCAA sanctions were put there to continue the narrative that this was all a PSU football scandal. That there was collusion going on between Freeh, The BoT, Fina and the PA OAG and the NCAA.
Being that Penn State is a public entity....should these documents be readily available to the public?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Clearly nothing is being hidden. If it were, Lubrano and the dissidents would not have been given access to the documents that constitute Freeh's work product which formed the basis of his report. All Anthony and his cohorts need to do is sign the confidentiality agreement which thus far they have refused to do. http://www.centredaily.com/2014/12/01/4487021_masser-grants-alumni-trustees.html?rh=1
Last edited:
Impossible. CR doesn't wear the pants in his family. He's the family pet that does only as he is told.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
CR, CDW.....and the last line of defense for the FuhrerBunker:
Pitiful.
LOL! Predictably, the old gas bag shows up right on cue with no counter argument (because there is none) and a photo from his Michael's scrapbook. Thanks for contributing.
Last edited:
This isn't a theory about what might be hidden in the Freeh documents, but just an interesting analysis of the Freeh Report and interviews conducted in the last two and a half months prior to the release of the report:
-----
Item #9 from Spanier's defamation suit against Freeh alleges that the Freeh Report was largely complete by the time Spanier was interviewed.
http://freehreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1-Complaint-in-Spanier-v.-Freeh-and-Penn-State.pdf
"9. Freeh and FSS's defamation of Dr. Spanier was done with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Freeh and FSS reached their predetermined “findings” and “conclusions” regarding Dr. Spanier long before their “investigation” was concluded — and long before relevant evidence had been considered. Freeh and FSS's preconceived outcome for the report is evidenced by the fact that their 267-page report was drafted and largely finalized before Freeh even interviewed Dr. Spanier. "
-----
The end notes in the Freeh Report identify dates of interviews. It's interesting how few interviews occurred in the two and a half months prior to the release of the Freeh Report. It is also somewhat impressive how frequently Spanier's interview was cited in the Freeh Report considering he was interviewed just six days before the report was issued.
In May, there were just 4 dates when interviews were conducted. There was one citation from May 1st about general statements from witnesses that Joe Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew “everything that was going on.” There were 10 citations from May 3, 9 and 16 which were all from BOT members about the May 2011 BOT meeting, that Spanier was terminated without cause, and that most trustees agreed that Paterno's termination was not handled well.
Note - on May 5th, Ken Frazier wrote an email acknowledging that Freeh was wrapping up the investigative phase. https://doc-0g-9s-docs.googleuserco...9887038&hash=44i5j84l6j3c9ut785bdl82qb20t524l
In June, there were only 2 dates when interviews were conducted. On June 1st, a survey was completed of all PSU police from Feb 2001 [all except Harmon; Freeh didn't interview the police chief] and none were aware of 2001 incident. On June 12, someone was interviewed who provided the dates when Schultz was Senior Vice President - Finance and Business and when he retired, when Al Horvath held that position, and when Schultz came out of retirement to resume that position.
In July, there were 4 interview dates. On July 2nd, "Janitor B" from the 2000 Victim 8 incident was interviewed by Freeh. On July 3rd, someone confirmed Paterno's handwriting on a note (Exhibit 3F). On July 6th, Spanier was interviewed - and there were 31 separate citations from this interview in the Freeh Report - which was released just 6 days later on July 12th.
But Spanier's was not the last interview. He may certainly have been the last scheduled interview, because on July 9th, Baldwin was interviewed (again) and provided 2 rebuttals to statements by Spanier regarding his interview before his grand jury appearance.
-----
Interview Date - End Note(s), Description:
7/9/2012 - 182, 183 (p.53, both are Baldwin rebuttal to Spanier; 182 - "Cynthia Baldwin, who was then General Counsel, confirmed to the Special Investigative Counsel that Spanier was asked about the 1998 event in the interview before the Grand Jury appearance."; 183 - "According to Baldwin, after the interview, Spanier said the interview “was no big deal” and he was “quite comfortable” going before the Grand Jury.")
7/6/2012 - 4, 148, 168, 169, 180, 305, 322-327, 360, 376, 434, 441-443, 472, 479, 480, 487-490, 518, 653-657 (31 separate citations to Spanier's interview in report which was released just 6 days after this interview)
7/3/2012 - 206 (p.58, someone confirming JVP handwriting on a note)
7/2/2012 - 237, 239-250 (p.65, 237 relates JS trial testimony re janitor in 2000; 239-250 relates more JS trial testimony & extra details from "Janitor B" who was interviewed by Freeh)
6/12/2012 - 17, 18, 19 (dates when Schultz held office of VP Business finance, then Horvath's dates, then when Schultz came out of retirement)
6/1/2012 - 662 (completed survey of all PSU police from Feb 2001[except Harmon] and none were aware of 2001 incident)
5/16/2012 - 533, 538 (533, p.94, BOT members interviewed re 11/9/11 mtg & clear consensus was to terminate Spanier without cause; 538, p.95, Some BOT members said Paterno could not continue to function as coach in the current environment and had become a distraction)
5/9/2012 - 550 (p.96, Most of the Trustees agreed that the Board did not properly handle the termination of Paterno)
5/3/2012 - 450-452, 454, 455, 467, 568 (p.88-89, 101, all these end notes are BOT members re the May 2011 mtg & briefings from Spanier & Baldwin)
5/1/2012 - 167 (p.51, Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew “everything that was going on.”)
4/30/2012 - 220 (p.59, A retired Senior Vice President who worked at Penn State for over 32 years similarly said he had never heard of this type of lump sum payment being made to a retiring employee)
4/26/2012 - 112 (p.44, from interview of Officer Schreffler re 1998 incident: "Counselor John Seasock, who had a contract to provide counseling services to CYS, conducted the evaluation.")
{Many more interviews 4/25 and earlier}
-----
Item #9 from Spanier's defamation suit against Freeh alleges that the Freeh Report was largely complete by the time Spanier was interviewed.
http://freehreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1-Complaint-in-Spanier-v.-Freeh-and-Penn-State.pdf
"9. Freeh and FSS's defamation of Dr. Spanier was done with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Freeh and FSS reached their predetermined “findings” and “conclusions” regarding Dr. Spanier long before their “investigation” was concluded — and long before relevant evidence had been considered. Freeh and FSS's preconceived outcome for the report is evidenced by the fact that their 267-page report was drafted and largely finalized before Freeh even interviewed Dr. Spanier. "
-----
The end notes in the Freeh Report identify dates of interviews. It's interesting how few interviews occurred in the two and a half months prior to the release of the Freeh Report. It is also somewhat impressive how frequently Spanier's interview was cited in the Freeh Report considering he was interviewed just six days before the report was issued.
In May, there were just 4 dates when interviews were conducted. There was one citation from May 1st about general statements from witnesses that Joe Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew “everything that was going on.” There were 10 citations from May 3, 9 and 16 which were all from BOT members about the May 2011 BOT meeting, that Spanier was terminated without cause, and that most trustees agreed that Paterno's termination was not handled well.
Note - on May 5th, Ken Frazier wrote an email acknowledging that Freeh was wrapping up the investigative phase. https://doc-0g-9s-docs.googleuserco...9887038&hash=44i5j84l6j3c9ut785bdl82qb20t524l
In June, there were only 2 dates when interviews were conducted. On June 1st, a survey was completed of all PSU police from Feb 2001 [all except Harmon; Freeh didn't interview the police chief] and none were aware of 2001 incident. On June 12, someone was interviewed who provided the dates when Schultz was Senior Vice President - Finance and Business and when he retired, when Al Horvath held that position, and when Schultz came out of retirement to resume that position.
In July, there were 4 interview dates. On July 2nd, "Janitor B" from the 2000 Victim 8 incident was interviewed by Freeh. On July 3rd, someone confirmed Paterno's handwriting on a note (Exhibit 3F). On July 6th, Spanier was interviewed - and there were 31 separate citations from this interview in the Freeh Report - which was released just 6 days later on July 12th.
But Spanier's was not the last interview. He may certainly have been the last scheduled interview, because on July 9th, Baldwin was interviewed (again) and provided 2 rebuttals to statements by Spanier regarding his interview before his grand jury appearance.
-----
Interview Date - End Note(s), Description:
7/9/2012 - 182, 183 (p.53, both are Baldwin rebuttal to Spanier; 182 - "Cynthia Baldwin, who was then General Counsel, confirmed to the Special Investigative Counsel that Spanier was asked about the 1998 event in the interview before the Grand Jury appearance."; 183 - "According to Baldwin, after the interview, Spanier said the interview “was no big deal” and he was “quite comfortable” going before the Grand Jury.")
7/6/2012 - 4, 148, 168, 169, 180, 305, 322-327, 360, 376, 434, 441-443, 472, 479, 480, 487-490, 518, 653-657 (31 separate citations to Spanier's interview in report which was released just 6 days after this interview)
7/3/2012 - 206 (p.58, someone confirming JVP handwriting on a note)
7/2/2012 - 237, 239-250 (p.65, 237 relates JS trial testimony re janitor in 2000; 239-250 relates more JS trial testimony & extra details from "Janitor B" who was interviewed by Freeh)
6/12/2012 - 17, 18, 19 (dates when Schultz held office of VP Business finance, then Horvath's dates, then when Schultz came out of retirement)
6/1/2012 - 662 (completed survey of all PSU police from Feb 2001[except Harmon] and none were aware of 2001 incident)
5/16/2012 - 533, 538 (533, p.94, BOT members interviewed re 11/9/11 mtg & clear consensus was to terminate Spanier without cause; 538, p.95, Some BOT members said Paterno could not continue to function as coach in the current environment and had become a distraction)
5/9/2012 - 550 (p.96, Most of the Trustees agreed that the Board did not properly handle the termination of Paterno)
5/3/2012 - 450-452, 454, 455, 467, 568 (p.88-89, 101, all these end notes are BOT members re the May 2011 mtg & briefings from Spanier & Baldwin)
5/1/2012 - 167 (p.51, Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew “everything that was going on.”)
4/30/2012 - 220 (p.59, A retired Senior Vice President who worked at Penn State for over 32 years similarly said he had never heard of this type of lump sum payment being made to a retiring employee)
4/26/2012 - 112 (p.44, from interview of Officer Schreffler re 1998 incident: "Counselor John Seasock, who had a contract to provide counseling services to CYS, conducted the evaluation.")
{Many more interviews 4/25 and earlier}
I'm certain the officials at the NCAA (and the Big Ten) signed confidentiality agreements.
http://articles.philly.com/2014-11-...on-inn-donald-remy-ncaa-president-mark-emmert
Omar McNeill has stated that no one was promised "confidentiality".
a survey was completed of all PSU police from Feb 2001 [all except Harmon; Freeh didn't interview the police chief]
to me, this is the WTF moment, Harmon is the key to all of this. They probably didn't interview him, as I believe, he was the one in 2001 that was to either 1) call CPW and didn't do it or called CPW but cant document that call. (I think CPW is the right agency) I think that's what being hidden, the fact that an outside agency was contacted, PSU did not drop the ball, but the State of PA did. The BOT had so much hate for JVP, they found a way to get rid of him. They also found out they shouldn't have, and they probably shouldn't have settled any of the cases.
to me, this is the WTF moment, Harmon is the key to all of this. They probably didn't interview him, as I believe, he was the one in 2001 that was to either 1) call CPW and didn't do it or called CPW but cant document that call. (I think CPW is the right agency) I think that's what being hidden, the fact that an outside agency was contacted, PSU did not drop the ball, but the State of PA did. The BOT had so much hate for JVP, they found a way to get rid of him. They also found out they shouldn't have, and they probably shouldn't have settled any of the cases.
What is being hidden at the very least is the identity of who was interviewed and who was not. I personally don't need to know who the interviewees were, but those whose reputations were harmed and anyone who is doing a credible review of the Freeh Report does need to know. In this country you get to face and defend yourself against your accuser. Got it dipshit?
You nailed it. And this is -- IMHO -- the evil "genius" of the Freeh Report. It was clearly designed to make specific accusations that were then "protected" from scrutiny. Fortunately the courts will have the last word on this.
I think this is all you'll find in all the Freeh materials. There were some BoT members and Erickson interviewed. I'd bet you'll find inflammatory statements from them not based in fact (they'd be openly challenged if made public). Other than that I'd bet 99.99% of Freeh info is nothing to write home about.
The push about how people were promised confidentiality likely comes from BoT member promises to each other when giving statements. The average employee wasn't promised anything. They were required to interview- at threat of losing their jobs if they refused- and were not allowed a copy of their testimony (standard) or to have a lawyer present when questioned (standard). Instead their testimony was turned over to the AG office (while being denied legal representation). Still can't believe people didn't throw a fit over that.
Last edited:
Seems like a good avenue for further investigation would be to determine exactly why Schultz was brought out of retirement, as opposed to making a new hire. And, what the various opinions of various people might have been regarding that decision.
I imagine that Surma et al were positively livid at the support for the Paterno family the day of the funeral and the corresponding lack of support for their own idiotic actions. They looked like complete assholes for what they had done to a dying man. I think that made them determined to smear Paterno's legacy, and the Freeh Report was the vehicle to do that. It will be very interesting to see board correspondence from that time period (Jan-Feb 2012). We know from his book that even that snake Lanny Davis tried to get them to change course and they refused.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Irrelevant! The Board and Administration has the right to ask for it now based on the reasons articulated in the university's answer to the dissident's petition. I suggest you read it if you haven't already done so: http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/PSU_Memorandum_In_Opposition.pdf
I suggest that you and your friends stop lying about "promises" of confidentiality that were NEVER MADE.
False, the alum reps have publicly stated that they have no problem with signing confidentiality agreements, however what they do have a problem with is not having access to the UNREDACTED freeh source materials.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Lying? To who?
From Mc'Neils deposition:
Page 147:
Certainly the team itself was all instructed that the investigation was to remain confidential, that the attorney-client privilege applied. Those who were members of the team actually signed documents attesting to the fact that they understood and would maintain confidentiality. We communicated that as appropriate to witnesses that were interviewed.
Page148:
Certainly to anyone that was an employee of the university we provided the typical Upjohn warnings, if you will, for those who are familiar with those, essentially letting them know that the investigation was being conducted at the request of the university under the privilege that the university had the right to maintain or waive at any time and, therefore, they were to act accordingly.
Q. To the best of your knowledge, did anybody from the university ever authorize the Freeh firm or the Freeh Group to waive the attorney-client privilege?
A. They certainly permitted us to make the report public. But beyond that, no.
Q. To the best of your knowledge, did the Freeh firm ever waive the protections of the attorney work product doctrine?
A. No.
End of testimony
In internal investigations UpJohn warnings are required. What it does is put the interviewee on notice that only the corporation can waive the A/C privilege and not the interviewee. Except for the limited purpose of releasing of the report, PSU has not waived its A/C privilege and doesn't intend to do so thereby keeping confidentiality of the interviewee intact.
Upjohn held that each case must be evaluated on its own facts to determine whether application of attorney-client privilege would further the underlying purpose of the privilege, which is to encourage candid communications between client and counsel for the purpose of rendering legal advice. Specifically, the court emphasized that the privilege applies when “the communications concerned matters within the scope of the employees’ corporate duties, and the employees themselves were sufficiently aware that they were being questioned in order that the corporation could obtain legal advice.
How about let's just try to convict 3 innocent men and destroy the reputation of a dead guy based on some legal mumbo jumbo. Is that what passes for justice these days?
Is that what keep things humming at the country clubs?
Is that what keep things humming at the country clubs?
PSU doesn't need to waive ACP for it's own BOT members to see the "privileged" information. Since the SITF doesn't exist anymore the PSU BOT is Freeh's client. The A/C privilege you speak of only applies to people OUTSIDE of the PSU BOT (anyone who is NOT freeh's client), anyone who is a member of the PSU BOT has the right to see unredacted freeh source docs, etc. since, well, they are the clients. You are essentially saying that ACP applies to the client themselves which is preposterous.
That's like me hiring a lawyer to depose someone then when I ask them to see the deposition they say, no you can't due to ACP. Uhh...what??
LOL CR66 playing pretend lawyer again.
Aside from all of this nonsense being completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.....great job CR!!
Keep on goose-stepping boy!
Comic relief at its finest...thanks Mr CR66.
Pitiful.....just pitiful.
MORE pitiful that he could possibly not realize the inanity of his own drivel, or that he does realize it and has lowered himself to such depths in service to his masters?
For those that want a refresher on the executive summary, count how many instances it tries to sell the idea that the trustees knew nothing about it.
I also like how pronounced and immediately they come out in the summary with their scapegoats....the four most powerful people
https://web.uncg.edu/cha/bot/2012-2013/Mar_6-7_2013/Presentations/Freeh Report Executive Summary 2 13.pdf
I also like how pronounced and immediately they come out in the summary with their scapegoats....
the four most powerful peoplehttps://web.uncg.edu/cha/bot/2012-2013/Mar_6-7_2013/Presentations/Freeh Report Executive Summary 2 13.pdf
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
It's none of the trustees business who gave the interview only what was said and so long as what they said doesn't point to who the interviewee might be. Knowing who was interviewed isn't necessary to form a judgement as to the efficacy of the information for deciding whether the conclusions Freeh arrived at are valid.
Look, wanting unredacted documents is nothing more than an attempt by certain trustees to identify employees and other persons who might have given damaging information to the Freeh team so it can be used against them for political and sinister purposes. That's what this is about.
LOL "argue with CR66?"
To borrow a phrase.......That would be like shooting road kill. Cruel, pointless, and a waste of ammo.
Better to pity him.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Right on cue. The Bloviator returns. You so wish you were me and on the winning team. Instead, you're just you and on the hoping and praying team.
All of your responses are laughably weak! Guess what? The people who gave damaging information to freeh LIED or were disgruntled. That is the reason they don't wan't anyone to expose them, not some supposed sinister plot of the "evil" alum elected trustees. If you told the truth in your freeh interview there'd be no reason to be fearful of it getting exposed. However if you hired freeh then told him untruthful statements and then freeh used those untruthful statements as the foundation of his report, I can see a VERY good reason why you wouldn't want that to get exposed.....
Since the trustees were the client of freeh, it's every bit their business to see the unredacted source files whether you and your masters like it or not. So you're actually saying that a statement from a janitor (who has ZERO connection to the Athletic Dept.) or a disgruntled former employee (Triponey) about PSU's athletic culture is just as valid as high level AD employees/coaches, etc?? Really??
Knowing who was interviewed is ESSENTIAL to determining whether or not those people were biased and therefore whether or not you should give their comments any consideration. See Vicky Triponey or even some trustees themselves (Surma, Frazier, Peetz, Erickson, etc.) for perfect examples of this. Freeh should have given very little weight to what disgruntled former employees or the people who decided to throw Joe and CSS under the bus before facts/due process had to say about ANYTHING let alone Joe and the supposed athletics first culture at PSU.
Good point. Who asked Schultz to come out of retirement? Was Baldwin consulted? And if he was part of a cover-up, why didn't he then get rid of all the old "secret file" notes he had in his office?
Here's a timeline I put together awhile ago:
And here is another timeline starting in late March 2012. There are quite a few tweets that follow this one that extend this timeline, which are also worth a look.
The fact that they were given the Upjohn warning is prima facie evidence that they were not promised confidentiality, because the Upjohn warning is specifically a warning that the attorneys have no obligation to the interviewee to keep what they are saying confidential.
That is just ridiculous. So if Bernie McCue told the Freeh people something it should have the same weight as what someone in the Athletic Dept told them?
You are just plain nuts if you believe that.
Their ties to the second mile as well as all the connections to the heavy hitters from Jersey, New York and Philadelphia.
"Look, wanting unredacted documents is nothing more than an attempt by certain trustees to identify employees and other persons who might have given damaging information to the Freeh team so it can be used against them for political and sinister purposes. That's what this is about."[/QUOTE]
Can you elaborate on that? Political and sinister purposes? That just seems like a real stretch. But willing to hear further explanation.
Can you elaborate on that? Political and sinister purposes? That just seems like a real stretch. But willing to hear further explanation.
it is funny how CaRnes66 talks about political and sinister motives
when his boy Kenny/Merck got an extremely generous settlement from the state of PA over the Vioxx lawsuit after Kenny did the bidding of Corbett with the SITF/Freeh Report
when his boy Kenny/Merck got an extremely generous settlement from the state of PA over the Vioxx lawsuit after Kenny did the bidding of Corbett with the SITF/Freeh Report
