and nothing pleases CDW more than this. even if it isn't fair or just or true
NCAA to subpoena Clemente, Berlin, and Thornburgh's firm
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
and nothing pleases CDW more than this. even if it isn't fair or just or true
I'm not sure why the Paternos would call him. You understand that cause of action is the damage that the NCAA (& Penn State) caused to the Paterno estate, right?
What would Berlin have to say about that?
Was there something that I said that was not true? I never said that I was done, I think those were your words.
I think that you're wrong. I think that when people see the correspondence between certain individuals who actively sought to ruin Paterno's reputation, their opinions will change. This is precisely why certain people are fighting the disclosure of documents. If those documents supported what Freeh said, there is no way that the university would be spending thousands (millions?) of dollars to keep them hidden.
Yeah, well. You fly that test balloon all you want. However, his testimony will be that he sees nothing in JVP's character that would indicate that JVP would find anything ordinary or nice about it, or that he would try to defend or hide it. I suspect that Wick & Co. will have no trouble making that point.
The selection of Dr. Berlin would have been carefully considered, don't you think? Perhaps a trap has been laid, and sprung.
Lol. Anyone want to lay odds on who the jury believes? I must say, your knowledge of this guy and one of his papers (even if you have to resort to misrepresentations) is both curious and amusing.
Fair enough, I could very well be wrong. However, I don't think that many people will be interested in revising their opinions. While I don't doubt the importance that many people here place on the outcome, it just isn't big news to most outside the PSU faithful.
I will say, I think the NCAA's best strategy is to lay the blame at the feet of the bot. Given the bot's actions, they may very well succeed. That would be bad news for PSU unfortunately. That said, the NCAA better hope they're squeaky clean in this, and what has come out so far is definitely not promising for them.
In litigation, you need to depose everyone who you expect the other side to call as a witness, regardless whether the testimony that is adverse to your case. The Deposition does not usually see the light of day in a trial unless the witness changes his or her testimony or is not available to testify in trial. The party against whom the deponent is testifying uses the deposition to find out exactly what the other side's witnesses are going to say when they testify at the trial and to find weaknesses in their testimony. At trial, the party against whom the witness is testifying will usually cherry pick portions of the deposition testimony they helps their case and ask only ask the witness questions that will elicit the responses they liked in the deposition. If the witness changes his or her testimony, out comes the deposition and the next question will be why did they answer the question differently at deposition.
'98 emails and '01 emails? can you specify exactly which ones indicate that Joe knew JS was a pedophile at the time? JVP's testimony and statements to police were in 2011.
Last edited:
Yes, the 98 and 01 e-mails. You know, the ones that were carefully cherry-picked and taken out of context. You know, the ones that were presented as exhibits out of, what, a few million that Freeh claimed that he went through?
I'm sure there are no other e-mails written by Schultz or Curley that might shed additional context onto the conversations. Possibly other e-mails between Wendell and Schultz that might shed additional information. Don't know - since The BoT and Freeh apparently won't release those source materials to anybody.
Cherry-picking is pretty unethical in my line of work. At the very least it shows incompetence, and the very best it shows malfeasance.
When you are litigating a civil case, both parties want to depose all people who they believe will be testifying against them prior to trial. The rules in cross examining a hostile witness in trial is that you only ask questions that you know the answer to and these questions usually only require a "yes" or "no" answer. The only way you know the answer is if you depose the witness before trial. The deposition will not see the light of day at trial unless the witness changes testimony or is unavailable to testify. It is probably malpractice if counsel does not take the testimony of all witnesses who are going to provide adverse testimony. They need to determine determine any weaknesses in the testimony before trial, not at trial.
I think that it will be big news if the CEO of a major US company and a former governor are implicated.
even the cherry picked ones don't show what CDW is claiming
Oh FFS, what EXACTLY do you think you are going to "debunk?" This is a civil trial about the damage that the NCAA did to the Paterno estate, and that damage was originally inflicted months BEFORE Berlin wrote anything about Paterno.
Paterno v NCAA is going to look at questions like the following (among others):
1) Did the NCAA (Jule Roe, Mark Emmert, Don Remy) push Freeh towards certain conclusions (knowing that there wasn't evidence to support those conclusions)?
2) Did the NCAA deny Paterno rights that were due to him under the NCAA bylaws?
3) Did certain NCAA officials act with personal malice against Paterno?
etc
etc
None of this has anything to do with Berlin's report.
The NCAA's sole purpose in subpoenaing these people is to incur costs and PITA.
Maybe he's aware of emails other than the vague emails in the Freeh report that possibly reference Joe, and are possibly about Sandusky. None of which were sent or received by Joe. Yet were used as concrete evidence by the disgraced former FBI director in his report which has been universally discredited.
Just curious Aoshiro, I have been following this controversy and am curious as to the motivations of the NCAA/BOT to harm Paterno/PSU.
1) I read some of the documents that the Corman suit brought out and found no smoking gun that Emmert et al told Freeh what to write or even encouraged his conclusions. What did I miss there or do you think more will come out.
2) What rights under the Bylaws was Paterno due and other than take away his wins (which PSU agreed to) what did the NCAA do to Paterno.
3) Why would any NCAA officials act with malice towards Paterno? To what end?
From what I have seen the Paterno's have a long hill to climb but tell me what I am missing.
This is honest inquiry.
But....apparently compelling to that large Alabama/Minnesota Half Breed" demographic.
You think the '98 emails aren't evidence that Paterno had put on notice that Sandusky had accused of child molestation. You think a police/DA/DPW investigation into one of his coaches didn't cause Paterno to find out what the hell was going on.
And remember Curley's email in '01 in which Curley "I would plan to tell him [Sandusky] we are aware of the first situtation."
And remember, Paterno testified that after speaking with McQueary, a day later he calls Curley and says "We got a problem."
That doesn't sound like a guy who was surprised by McQueary's allegations.
And, finally, McQueary testified that Paterno slumped in his chair and said "sorry you had to see that" after hearing the allegations. How come he didn't get in McQueary's face and accuse him of being a liar?
None of the 1998 or 2001 emails that we have seen show that Joe knew JS was a pedophile at that time. We also don't know what JVP was told related to the 1998 incident. What we do know is that Curley, Schultz and Spanier were told that nothing criminal ocurred.
You are also referencing testimony and statements from 2011 and not anything from 1998 or 2001 that shows what Joe actually knew at the time.
From Paterno's testimony after McQueary told him he saw Sandusky in a shower fondling a young boy:
"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."
Okay, so McQueary just had to tell Paterno that he saw Sandusky in a shower molesting a youngster and Paterno knew that Sandusky was taking some kind of inappropriate action with the kid.
Doesn't that seem really odd to you? I would think Paterno's reaction would be to tell McQueary to get the hell out of his house. If he's got something to say, go tell the cops but Jerry Sandusky loves kids. "I've known him for almost forty years, there's no way he could be a child molester, etc." At a minimum, he'd question McQueary to make sure he really saw what he said he saw.
But that's not what happened. He just accepted what McQueary said.
According to Paterno.
Your implication seems to be that if the Paternos paid this guy "a ton of money" then his opinion is biased in their favor. Using your own logic, since the BoT paid Freeh "a ton of money" then his opinion must obviously be biased in favor of the BoT. Thanks for clarifying.
Actually, I think that logic applies best to Clement and Thornburgh was thought the Freeh report was great when it was first released, but changed their minds after getting paid a pile of dough.
First off, I have lots of questions about JVP's testimony and statements in 2011 about his recollection of events. Especially, given his mental state. We still don't know exactly what Mike reported to JVP and his reaction. But it doesn't seem odd to me at all that JVP would take a report seriously from a valued employee of some alleged inappropritate activity. JVP certainly may have questioned Mike's report about what was occurring given JS' reputation of helping kids for so many years. But, JVP did the responsible and moral thing and still reported to more senior people at PSU to look into it.
Last edited:
cdw could be biggest idiot on the planet, but while I think he is an idiot, I don't believe that he believes everything he posts. Rather, I believe he gets off on posting the same tired, inaccurate drivel because he knows he will get a rise out of people and thereby derail a thread. We are on Page 3 of this thread, and instead of discussing the significance of the real thread subject (the content of the firstr post), most of the posts are in response to him or are between the rest of us about him.
XenForo has a very effective ignore feature. If everyone would put him on their ignore list, then he would get no responses to his bullshit and he would give up. His posts only have value, to him, if people engage him. Engaging his tired crap again and again is pointless. Put him on your ignore list and forget about him.
CDW doesn't ever take into account that Mike likely coached an old confused guy into saying what he said.
^former Second Mile board member for sure.
Yeah dude... a bunch of stupid wealthy and politically connected people are very actively involved in a charity that was allegedly used as a grooming ground for a pedophile (or pedophiles), and you don't think people are invested in this enough to cover their own asses? Talk about your f*cking head in the sand.
And as for posting misinformation on internet forums, as someone who worked for a marketing/consulting firm, I can tell you it's a very real thing. A big business. Hell, the Bagwell emails revealed that the BoT was (via a PR firm) was monitoring online sentiment. And not just articles being posted. Tweets and comments here and on various other PSU sites were being monitored for sentiment. That's the MO for these firms. First, they monitor the stuff, then they come up with a way to try to "change the sentiment", which very often includes hiring people to post things to try to sway opinion or change sentiment.
And for the record, I'm not accusing anyone here of being a hired commenter. But to completely discount it and say that it doesn't happen is absurd, especially when you allege people aren't "invested" in this enough to care what's posted here. If they're not "invested" enough in it, then why the hell did they dish out millions to a PR firm to monitor what was said here and on other PSU sites? Get a clue dude.
1) IIRC there was a meeting between the Freeh team and an NCAA rep, discussing what the NCAA would need to see in order to issue sanctions (hint hint clue clue)
2) not sure I get the gist of this question, but even the NCAA admitted they had no basis to sanction Penn State, they were hoping the BoT would be too embarrassed to fight back given the nature of Sandusky's crimes.
3) there are several theories here. If you read the NCAA emails from the Corman suit, you'd see they were really not concerned one bit about "the kids". they were concerned about PR and kicking Penn State hard enough to make themselves look like they were relevant. My belief is that vacating the wins originated from within the PSU BOT from people who disliked paterno and the football program (Surma, Peetz, Frasier, Erickson) and all the NCAA needed was for someone like Freeh to clear that path
IN RE #3, consider this . . . the NCAA's stated reason for "settling" the Corman lawsuit and restoring the wins was because they did not want to hold up the $60 million earmarked for "the kids"
If they honestly believed that Paterno covered up for a known pedophile, do you think they would have restored the wins?? More to the point, even Judge Covey told the NCAA if they were that concerned about "the kids", they had hundreds of millions of dollars they could spend on the issue without screwing with PSU's money.
Well done, HumbleBuckeye. You made two great points, and in a very direct way. This seems obvious to many here who have followed this closely, but other visitors remain clueless or just don't care to understand.
The fact that you are new poster with 2 posts and numbers after your name, trying to rain on this parade, actually does fill me with confidence. You guys don't bother to debunk unless something is viewed as a true threat.
I don't know much about the law, but I do know a lot about how new posters with numbers after their names work around here, after 3 years.
There are plenty of paid posters around here, and most of them are pond scum.
So, you say there is an email where the NCAA basically tells Freeh what to write? Wow, that is quite a smoking gun. Is there a copy of that somewhere link perhaps?
Well, Aoshiro said the suit would claim that Joe was denied his rights under NCAA bylaws and I was wondering what those rights were since the wins IIRC belong to the school and not just Joe. Did they suspend Joe from future jobs? Did they sanction him personally?
When you say concern for the kids, wasn't Freeh's charge to find out who knew what about the scandal at PSU (not the Second Mile, DPW etc) and when they knew it? I thought his charge was to find out whether somebody at PSU screwed up. Why did these BOT members hate the football program and Paterno who brought great benefit to the school. Did they think Paterno was too powerful. Did he ignore them or piss them off by not retiring? I don't get why they would deliberately just trash their own school for no reason. What was the naute of the hate?
