Spanier's lawsuit --- a few questions

[michnittlion]

I've read through the whole complaint, a few questions (apologies if these have been addressed in other threads):


1. Spanier was interviewed by Freeh on Friday 6-July-2012. 6 days prior to the Report's release. Is the fact that Spanier was interviewed on that particular date a new fact? (I don't think I've heard that 6-July date before) The length of time between interview and release is incredibly incredibly short, especially given Freeh's findings as regards to Spanier. That is really striking to me.


2. Spanier also claims that the Freeh Group delibrately made him the last person to be interviewed. However, it seems like a claim without anything tangible that accompanies it. Is there something tangible to back up his claim, did I miss something?


3. Just how many Second Mile members did Freeh ever interview? He never even interviewed Raykovitz?!?!?! Really?!?!?! I could have sworn I had heard Raykovitz was on the list of people interviewed.


----------------


Overall, pretty strong complaint it looks like, Spanier does seem to have his ducks in a row. This one will be interesting for sure. Credit to Spanier for putting his balls on the line, and actually suing Freeh directly.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Regarding Spanier being the last interviewed the following statements are made in the filing:



"Freeh and his investigators delayed interviewing Dr. Spanier, saying he would be the last person to be interviewed." (page 45)



"Eventually, one of Freeh's investigators informed Dr. Spanier that he would be the last witness interviewed for the investigation - and that Dr. Spanier's interview would be conducted sometime in late July 2012, a month or more prior to the then-expected release date of Freeh's Report." (pg 47)

 

[Zenophile]

Regarding the date of the interview,

I distinctly recall that it was so "11th hour" that rumors of the report's imminent release were already in heavy circulation. I (obviously) have no idea if it was done intentionally though.

 

[michnittlion]

Yeah I know what the complaint says, but is there an e-mail

phone call record, et cetera ....... something tangible that actually backs up that claim? That's my question?


If there IS something tangible; a narrative of "Freeh deliberately waited til the very end to interview me, then when that interview happened, he didn't even want to listen and then released the report 6 days later" is a VERY powerful narrative. But you need something tangible.

 

[Obliviax]

Originally posted by michnittlion:
I've read through the whole complaint, a few questions (apologies if these have been addressed in other threads):


1. Spanier was interviewed by Freeh on Friday 6-July-2012. 6 days prior to the Report's release. Is the fact that Spanier was interviewed on that particular date a new fact? (I don't think I've heard that 6-July date before) The length of time between interview and release is incredibly incredibly short, especially given Freeh's findings as regards to Spanier. That is really striking to me. Agreed. If you've ever done a document of this scope with this many people, it takes weeks to get the final wordsmithing and sign-offs completed. The insinuation supports Spanier's theory that the report findings, and perhaps the report itself, was done long before the Spanier interview took place.


2. Spanier also claims that the Freeh Group delibrately made him the last person to be interviewed. However, it seems like a claim without anything tangible that accompanies it. Is there something tangible to back up his claim, did I miss something? I am not sure if there is tangible evidence...but at some point, when you line up all of the "coincidental" happenings, coincidence becomes circumstantial evidence that is irrefutable. I feel like the length of Spanier's charges (130 some pages) is making that argument with hundreds of "coincidents". Spanier was a key player, why interview the secretary of the part time janitor for the library when you've got the president of the university to talk to? It doesn't make sense.


3. Just how many Second Mile members did Freeh ever interview? He never even interviewed Raykovitz?!?!?! Really?!?!?! I could have sworn I had heard Raykovitz was on the list of people interviewed. Yeah, and add to that Joe, MM, JS, Curley, Schutlz, etc. that were never interviewed, yet clear conclusions can be drawn. More evidence of a sham report.


----------------


Overall, pretty strong complaint it looks like, Spanier does seem to have his ducks in a row. This one will be interesting for sure. Credit to Spanier for putting his balls on the line, and actually suing Freeh directly. After reading it, and I get it, its a legal doc, it is too long. To me, one point really catches my eye: The fact that Freeh tried to ring up Spanier on 1998 when it is clear that due process was completed and charges were never brought. How is Spanier even remotely to blame? There are a handful of irrefutable problems with Freeh and the 157 other ones make the issue a little to confusing and nuanced for the press and general public. Having said that, I am generally pleased with the press' review of the case to this point.

 

[michnittlion]

Here's some fun number crunching

Spanier was mentioned in the report exactly 327 times.

There are 138 hours between 1 PM on Friday 6-July-2012 (assuming the Spanier interview ended then) and 9 AM on Thursday 12-July-2012 (report is rleased to the public).

Assuming Freeh and his group worked 24/7 and did their due diligence given the information in Spanier's information, they would have had to address "2.37 mentions of Spanier" per hour to hit that 9 AM Thursday deadline.

Hmmmm.

I'm in the consulting business, I need to take some time management lessons from Freeh. He's pretty quick.

 

[Zenophile]

Re: Here's some fun number crunching

 

[Obliviax]

interesting....and here's something else.

Freeh Report Released on July 12thPSU Attorney, Gene Marsh, informed of a possible death penalty on morning of July 17th by Remyin five days, the report 267 page report was (supposedly) read, digested and vetted and DP on the tablethe consent decree, a legal document with $100m in penalties and dozens of more millions being committed to civil suits was conceived, written and signed on July 23rd.

That is a $100m plus legal agreement being devised, documented and concluded based on a 267 page document in 11 days.

 

[Pardlion]

Re: interesting....and here's something else.


But the report comes with an executive summary!

 

[psunovaluvr]

Re: interesting....and here's something else.

You know! The executive summary that isn't supported by the body of the report. But not to worry Louis will hold the press conference to explain it all while the report website is down. And in a few days the University will be on the hook for Millions plus additional sanctions. Makes perfect sense.SMH!!

 

[michnittlion]

One does wonder if people were "working backward on a timeline"

The Sandusky verdict was at 11 PM on 22-June-2012.

But football practice is scheduled to begin on 6-August-2012. We played Ohio University on 1-September-2012.

If something has to be done prior to football season, it does necessitate quickness. MUCHO quickness.

Also, another nugget in the lawsuit: Freeh informing Spanier on 2-July-2012 that "be interviewed by Friday, or you lose your chance." So, he only gave Spanier four days (!!!), one of those being a national holiday to boot.

So:

1. Sandusky verdict to "Freeh's interview ultimatum": 1 week, 3 days.
1. Sandusky verdict to actual Spanier interview: 2 weeks
2. Sandusky verdict to Freeh Report release: 2 weeks, 6 days.
3. Sandusky verdict to NCAA sanctions announcement: 4 weeks, 3 days.
4. Sandusky verdict to announcement that Silas Redd (most prominent transfer) was leaving PSU: 5 weeks, 4 days.
5. Sandusky verdict to start of football practice: 6 weeks, 3 days.
6. Sandusky verdict to Ohio/PSU game: 10 weeks, 1 day.

The speed of things, it does sort of sniff at Emmert pressuring Freeh .......... to hell with accuracy, things must be done quickly.

The "narrative" for Spanier to make his case is definitely hinted at --- if he has a few more tangible things to add to it, the narrative becomes the more powerful.
This post was edited on 3/19 1:54 PM by michnittlion

 

[masterbaker65]

Originally posted by michnittlion:
I've read through the whole complaint, a few questions (apologies if these have been addressed in other threads):


1. Spanier was interviewed by Freeh on Friday 6-July-2012. 6 days prior to the Report's release. Is the fact that Spanier was interviewed on that particular date a new fact? (I don't think I've heard that 6-July date before) The length of time between interview and release is incredibly incredibly short, especially given Freeh's findings as regards to Spanier. That is really striking to me.


2. Spanier also claims that the Freeh Group delibrately made him the last person to be interviewed. However, it seems like a claim without anything tangible that accompanies it. Is there something tangible to back up his claim, did I miss something?


3. Just how many Second Mile members did Freeh ever interview? He never even interviewed Raykovitz?!?!?! Really?!?!?! I could have sworn I had heard Raykovitz was on the list of people interviewed.


----------------


Overall, pretty strong complaint it looks like, Spanier does seem to have his ducks in a row. This one will be interesting for sure. Credit to Spanier for putting his balls on the line, and actually suing Freeh directly.

It has been rumored that the Paterno's have someone helping them that worked with Freeh or the NCAA. If true, that could explain some of the claims made my Paterno's and Spainer. Again, just a rumor that has been mentioned on the boards.

 

[Chris92]

By mere "coincidence" Amendola couldn't get a continuance.


It was all such good forune for Freeh to keep the timeline on tack. With 12k pages of documents to review covering a 20 year period, why would Amendola need more time?

 

[Count_von_Count]

+1. AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH!!!!!!!!!

(thunder and lightning)

 

[jjsocrates]

Re: Here's some fun number crunching


Ah. Well, that explains why the Appendix to the report was so sloppy. He was under a time crunch, so he accidentally forgot to re-number all the exhibits in the back. Maybe next time Freeh is hired to frame somebody and is asked to release some exhibits from his report that might not support or might hurt his conclusion, he'll make sure he can count from 1 to 10 without skipping a few numbers.

Damn...I think we keep stealing Count von Count's thunder (literally and metaphorically - that's a Sesame Street joke) here.

Originally posted by michnittlion:
Assuming Freeh and his group worked 24/7 and did their due diligence given the information in Spanier's information, they would have had to address "2.37 mentions of Spanier" per hour to hit that 9 AM Thursday deadline.

I'm in the consulting business, I need to take some time management lessons from Freeh. He's pretty quick.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Re: interesting....and here's something else.

Originally posted by psunovaluvr:

You know! The executive summary that isn't supported by the body of the report.

But not to worry Louis will hold the press conference to explain it all while the report website is down.

And in a few days the University will be on the hook for Millions plus additional sanctions. Makes perfect sense.SMH!!

So shady...

This post was edited on 3/19 4:19 PM by ChiTownLion

 

[bjf1984]

Seriously Mich.....


I know you have commented often on this whole issue....for quite some time...and you mean to say that you were UNAWARE of that stuff?

That was common knowledge years ago.....and discussed at length (to say the least)

LOL



And - good God man - what EVIDENCE do you want that they "intentionally" interviewed Spanier "last" (and for all intents and purposes - after the fact)???

The guy practically had to BEG to be interviewed....and the Freeh boys refused until the damn report was already written.

You think that happened by accident?

 

[kgilbert78]

Re: Seriously Mich.....

He is asking about legal evidence that can be legally proven and will hold up in a court of law. That's a bit different from what we have been discussing here. There are many things in life that one can be pretty sure about that may not meet the standards of legal evidence.

 

[michnittlion]

Thanks, away from the computer there for a few hours ...

You said it ..... Fair or not, if Spanier wants to change the narrative and gain his good name back, he can't win this "on points" He MUST win by knockout. And a knockout only comes with legal evidence that holds up in court.


Hopefully for his sake, Spanier saved some of the correspondence between he and the Freeh Group.

 

[canuckhal]

Re: Seriously Mich.....

All he has to do is depo the Freeh team member who told him he was being last one interviewed. Wouldn't that do it?

 

[bjf1984]

Good gracious.......


Would you expect there to be some signed, notarized letter from Louie stating "I, Louis B Freeh, do hereby attest that I made Graham wait until the report was done before I'd even let any of my boys talk with him."

Further....do you think that is what would be required to have it determined - in a court of law - that Freeh refused to have his team grant Spanier an audience until after the report's conclusions had been determined?


"Res Ipsa Loquitur"......ya' know? I ain't never had me none o' that law skool learnin' and what not....but even an ol' hunky kin' know that much.


Didn't you say onetime that you were a lawyer? (My apologies if I am confusing you with someone else)

If that is what was necessary to "prove" something in a court of law.....nothing would ever be "proven". Good grief.

The facts as laid out in Spanier's filing - unless they can be countered by some STRONG evidence from the other side that would show those statements to be untrue (or at least called into question) - would be well more than enough to have the court rule on exactly what Spanier is contending.

Good grief.......and "res ipsa loquitur" and all that stuff.


I mean....this stuff gets laughable at times.

 

[psu00]

Re: Seriously Mich.....

Yep. And don't forget Freeh (or one of his cronies) saying Paterno refused to be interviewed that was completely untrue. The guy was not an honest broker to anyone who looks at the situation.

 

[michnittlion]

No, I am not a lawyer .... never ever claimed such

of course there won't be a notarized letter.


E-mail correspondence though, something like "Thanks Graham, we'll likely bring you in to be interviewed in a few months, we're busy with other work right now. Will be in touch."


Something tangible, otherwise it's just "he said, she said." In this particular case, Graham would be the plaintiff, so "beyond a reasonable doubt" and all that.

 

[psu00]

Re: No, I am not a lawyer .... never ever claimed such

Yeah but remember the report wasn't supposed to be released until the fall. Suddenly there was an announcement and a release on July 12- months early. If you finally have 1 person who was actually involved in the mess and actually knows something- then you damn well better make sure you interview him properly. To interview him 6 days before the report release (when the report was likely already at the printers being printed for release) is ridiculous. There was no rush here (other than maybe from Emmert).



If I'm Spanny's lawyer- I want to know from the publisher exactly when the report was sent to them.

This post was edited on 3/19 10:49 PM by psu00

 

[PennSt8er]

Re: Seriously Mich.....

Originally posted by canuckhal:
All he has to do is depo the Freeh team member who told him he was being last one interviewed. Wouldn't that do it?

Look at McNeill's deposition. "I don't recall." x about 1 million.

 

[bjf1984]

My apologies.....I wasn't sure.


A good friend once told me one of my boys was destined to become a corporate lawyer.

We had a real nice get together with the family after the wake

.
_______________________________________________________________


Seriously though, these are the types of things that get completely bastardized by the "board lawyers" around here. No one in their right mind would expect there to be (or, in a case this crystal clear, require there to be) some type of documentation outlining the thoughts of Louis and the boys.

Now that I know you are NOT a lawyer.....I should let you know that "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the type of legal jargon the CDWs of the world like to throw around to make 'em sound all edumakated) means - essentially - the facts speak for themselves.

In a case like this - the facts, CLEARLY, speak for themselves.

Its kinda' like if everyone sees me walk up behind you, pull out a handgun, stick it to the back of your head and blow your brains out......the court is going to have no trouble determining that it was my intention to cause you harm.

Even if I never sent out an e-mail saying I intend to do you harm.

The facts as outlined here (unless someone can provide evidence that the facts as outlined in the filing are not indeed true) are more than enough (100 times over) to show exactly what Spanier is contesting.