Trustees walked out on Lubrano today

[coveydidnt]

I believe the problem here for some was a lack of communication not that every step needs to be accounted and published here. I believe some thought the review of materials had been over for awhile now and nothing stated publically. When in fact they are still reviewing the materials.

The utter lack of transparency IS the issue. The A9 claim to seek truth & transparency.

They should be reporting status to us regularly. This does not need to violate secrecy or gags.

They have a process they are following for their review, I hope.

They should be able to tell us what the process is.

They should be able to track & report status on this process, for example:

Week 64: Reviewed items 3400-3450 out of 3 milliion. 4 items were of particular relevance.

Week 65: Reviewed items 3451 through 3455. No relevant items found.

That there is no ETA that they can offer is kind of a hint that they aren't doing much at all. They should be able to tell us that much.

 

[lionlurker]

It doesn't matter. There are no bombshells.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

The utter lack of transparency IS the issue. The A9 claim to seek truth & transparency.

They should be reporting status to us regularly. This does not need to violate secrecy or gags.

They have a process they are following for their review, I hope.

They should be able to tell us what the process is.

They should be able to track & report status on this process, for example:

Week 64: Reviewed items 3400-3450 out of 3 milliion. 4 items were of particular relevance.

Week 65: Reviewed items 3451 through 3455. No relevant items found.

That there is no ETA that they can offer is kind of a hint that they aren't doing much at all. They should be able to tell us that much.

Perhaps your strategy, as outlined, would represent a violation of the rules set forth when they "won" the right to review the Freeh material via lawsuit. That would render their work "useless". Then again, perhaps, that is what you would like to see?

 

[coveydidnt]

Perhaps your strategy, as outlined, would represent a violation of the rules set forth when they "won" the right to review the Freeh material via lawsuit. That would render their work "useless". Then again, perhaps, that is what you would like to see?

Possibly, although if reporting progress was a violation then I suppose they'd be able to say that.

Of course, if the real reason they wanted access to the materials was to identify the people who were interviewed and what they said (for whatever reason), they have their access, and have done so by now.

 

[didier]

If there's something erroneous in the Freeh Report, especially if it happens to involve Spanier, shouldn't it be brought to light ASAP so as to help his appeal?

 

[PennSt8er]

I don't believe there's even a review going on.

I know FOR A FACT there has been a very active review.

 

[PennSt8er]

The utter lack of transparency IS the issue. The A9 claim to seek truth & transparency.

They should be reporting status to us regularly. This does not need to violate secrecy or gags.

They have a process they are following for their review, I hope.

They should be able to tell us what the process is.

They should be able to track & report status on this process, for example:

Week 64: Reviewed items 3400-3450 out of 3 milliion. 4 items were of particular relevance.

Week 65: Reviewed items 3451 through 3455. No relevant items found.

That there is no ETA that they can offer is kind of a hint that they aren't doing much at all. They should be able to tell us that much.

This would be helpful for sure. But these are people who are volunteer trustees and who all have other issues going on in life. Most still work and some have real family or issues to deal with. Of course, one can say that "you shouldn't sign up for the job if you don't have the bandwidth." However, it's incredibly difficult from the outside to understand how much timesuck there is and you can never anticipate life and career flareups. If the A9 had sufficient legal support funding they could hire a crackpot forensics group to do this work. But my guess is that they don't. So this is all on their own time. Reporting back to this board is a luxury.

 

[lubrano]

One simply can not "know for a fact" that a review is "very active", since "very active" is a subjective term.
That said, it really doesn't matter. Not one bit.

What one can state as a fact - because it simply is an undeniable, unopposed, non-subjective fact - is that in the 20 months since being granted access, not a single member of the review team has uttered a single public word with respect to any characteristic of the results, indications, or findings that have been uncovered or supported or refuted through the work of their "review".

That is a fact.


They are also not prevented, forbidden, or impeded in any way from issuing such updates/reports.


That is also a fact.

It is also a fact that while the review team has been in process, two Penn State administrators pled guilty to endangering the welfare of children, and another has been found guilty of the same.
Since the chief "conclusion" of the Freeh Report was that Penn State folks willfully turned their backs on the safety of children - and since then, two high-ranking Penn State administrators have confessed to that behavior (and are now in prison) - the opportunity for any impactful review/debunk of the Freeh Report, and the Freeh report's primary conclusions, is dead and buried.

I suppose one can look at the corpse, and imagine it as a vibrant, kinetic body.
But wishing it so doesn't make it so.

Clueless Barry.

By the way, the files were made available in late February 2016. So much for your "facts."

But here's a fact: I am not giving anyone a opportunity to suggest that I/we violated the Court Order. Too much at stake.

Some here want a data dump at every turn. More than anyone involved in the review, I can appreciate that perspective. But the cause of truth is not furthered by such short-term satisfaction.

 

[Omar81]

Clueless Barry.

By the way, the files were made available in late February 2016. So much for your "facts."

But here's a fact: I am not giving anyone a opportunity to suggest that I/we violated the Court Order. Too much at stake.

Some here want a data dump at every turn. More than anyone involved in the review, I can appreciate that perspective. But the cause of truth is not furthered by such short-term satisfaction.

So it's 18 months, not 20. That is certainly a factual error, but hardly a material one. It's more than 10 months since September 17 -- when all we heard was crickets.
I appreciate the painstaking, methodical approach, but nearly six years in total have passed, and 1.5 years since the files have been made available. I'm not sure that "short-term" is applicable here, and believe there is ample middle ground between (a) hearing nothing and (b) "a data dump at every turn."

 

[didier]

Clueless Barry.

By the way, the files were made available in late February 2016. So much for your "facts."

But here's a fact: I am not giving anyone a opportunity to suggest that I/we violated the Court Order. Too much at stake.

Some here want a data dump at every turn. More than anyone involved in the review, I can appreciate that perspective. But the cause of truth is not furthered by such short-term satisfaction.

The suggestion of occasional progress reports on the amount and type of material examined made by CoveyDidn't above seems reasonable. It wouldn't involve disclosure of the contents of that material but would give everyone here some idea of a timeline. Would that violate the court order?

 

[BobPSU92]

MEASURE. TWICE. CUT. ONCE.

 

[Obliviax]

I care about the information. The truth has value all its own.

Waiting for more than a couple years for a "green light"?

Who is withholding the "green light"?

It is tough to understand how it can take so long to review the Freeh review and associated documents.

In legal matters, you simply cannot disclose things until it is time to do so. If you speak of matters out of turn you a) give the opponent time b) confuse the issues and c) open yourself up to several types of lawsuits. On these, we've seen the press cycle and how it works. These guys can speak the truth and get sued with several crank lawsuits that make the front page of every newspaper in the nation. When they are dropped, nobody hears of them.

This war is a legal war. But the war is won or lost on the PR battlefield.

 

[nits74]

So it's 18 months, not 20. That is certainly a factual error, but hardly a material one. It's more than 10 months since September 17 -- when all we heard was crickets.
I appreciate the painstaking, methodical approach, but nearly six years in total have passed, and 1.5 years since the files have been made available. I'm not sure that "short-term" is applicable here, and believe there is ample middle ground between (a) hearing nothing and (b) "a data dump at every turn."

Well said. And exactly what, at this point, is the long term gain? Sorry, but way, way too late at this point. No way this should have taken this long.

 

[tobakkorudy]

Is Poole "still a good man"?

 

[Nitt1300]

But the war is won or lost on the PR battlefield.

If that's true (and I think it is) then the war was lost years ago.

Let's assume that the review not only raises questions about Freeh's conclusions (as it no doubt will) but actually is able to disprove all of them (unlikely, but let's play along for a bit). Do you think that will get national media play? Would it change the minds of those who have already made their minds up? I very much doubt it- the rest of the country has long since moved on to the next big thing- whatever that is.

You can convince people in this country of most anything, as long as it's not the truth.

 

[Obliviax]

If that's true (and I think it is) then the war was lost years ago.

Let's assume that the review not only raises questions about Freeh's conclusions (as it no doubt will) but actually is able to disprove all of them (unlikely, but let's play along for a bit). Do you think that will get national media play? Would it change the minds of those who have already made their minds up? I very much doubt it- the rest of the country has long since moved on to the next big thing- whatever that is.

You can convince people in this country of most anything, as long as it's not the truth.

I don't disagree. But if you assume the war is lost, why do anything at all? Just accept our overlords will and be happy getting drunk at home games and watching away games on TV.

I feel like there will be a time when the press is not so invested in the narrative. The article last week gave me hope; the writer asked a bunch of questions about Freeh, the NCAA and the BOT (knowing the answers but not daring to speak them lest be labeled a pedo enabler, I suppose). But time will allow the narrative to be challenged down the road. One hopes for a "Hillsborough moment" at some point in the future (when we are all dead!).

 

[Nitt1300]

I don't disagree. But if you assume the war is lost, why do anything at all? Just accept our overlords will and be happy getting drunk at home games and watching away games on TV.

I feel like there will be a time when the press is not so invested in the narrative. The article last week gave me hope; the writer asked a bunch of questions about Freeh, the NCAA and the BOT (knowing the answers but not daring to speak them lest be labeled a pedo enabler, I suppose). But time will allow the narrative to be challenged down the road. One hopes for a "Hillsborough moment" at some point in the future (when we are all dead!).

I guess where I'm at is I'm fine with people wanting to fight as long as they want- I'm just not holding out any hope that it will matter. I'm satisfied that the narrative that Freeh sold is a lie, and that what the public thinks is what the public thinks.

 

[justnitts]

"what the public thinks is what the public wants to think".

 

[Nitt1300]

"what the public thinks is what the public wants to think".

as Carlin said “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

The suggestion of occasional progress reports on the amount and type of material examined made by CoveyDidn't above seems reasonable. It wouldn't involve disclosure of the contents of that material but would give everyone here some idea of a timeline. Would that violate the court order?

Seems to me that reporting a 1 line, quantifiable status periodically to PS4RS would be reasonable.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Who the hell is Valerie Detweiler? Or more like who the hell does she think she is? Ag trustee at her first meeting walking out while another trustee is speaking.

Is she showing her fealty to Massa Ira with the bowing and scraping act? Trying to be the badass of Martinsburg? Seriously, sister, marrying a guy with a New Holland tractor dealership don't make you all that.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I don't speak for @demlion, but I have spoken with him. And he won't be addressing this subject until he gets the green light to do so.

I don't doubt either Anthony Lubrano's or Dem's good intentions with respect to righting the wrongs done to Joe, but remaining silent for such a long time while (at least in Anthony's case) cryptically suggesting that there are other facts to come out that have held them back from speaking forthrightly seems counterproductive. Meanwhile, it abandons the field to people like Lubert and Dambly to create and/or perpetuate their own harmful narrative.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I don't doubt either Anthony Lubrano's or Dem's good intentions with respect to righting the wrongs done to Joe, but remaining silent for such a long time while (at least in Anthony's case) cryptically suggesting that there are other facts to come out that have held them back from speaking forthrightly seems counterproductive. Meanwhile, it abandons the field to people like Lubert and Dambly to create and/or perpetuate their own harmful narrative.

You seem to have misrepresented things. I don't believe Lubrano has ever indicated that his lack of speaking about anything he's discovered in the review has caused him to hold back from speaking about the review. His lack of public or private disclosure is due to the terms imposed on he and the other alumni trustee plaintiffs by the judge that ordered PSU and Freeh's organizations to release their data.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Tom: I certainly did not intend to misrepresent anything. As I said in my prior post, I appreciate Anthony Lubrano's considerable efforts, and have no doubt of his and Dem's good intentions with respect to correcting a false and damaging narrative. Perhaps I did not articulate myself clearly enough.

Anthony himself noted that his posts here have been cryptic, and they have suggested that he has more information that he cannot impart. Given the amount of time that has passed, and that much of the litigation (the C/S/S criminal cases, except for Spanier's appeal, and the Paternos' lawsuit) has been resolved, you have to wonder when, if ever, that information will see the light of day. If the only way for the A9 to get access to the Freeh Report (and its accompanying data) was to covenant that they will NEVER disclose any of it, or their conclusions, then you have to wonder whether the information is worth much of anything.

 

[nits74]

Tom: I certainly did not intend to misrepresent anything. As I said in my prior post, I appreciate Anthony Lubrano's considerable efforts, and have no doubt of his of Dem's good intentions with respect to correcting a false and damaging narrative. Perhaps I did not articulate myself clearly enough.

But Anthony himself noted that his posts here have been cryptic, and they have suggested that he has more information that he cannot impart. Given the amount of time that has passed, and that much of the litigation (the C/S/S criminal cases, except for Spanier's appeal, and the Paternos' lawsuit) has been resolved, you have to wonder when, if ever, that information will see the light of day. If the only way for the A9 to get access to the Freeh Report (and its accompanying data) was to covenant that they will NEVER disclose any of it, or their conclusions, then you have to wonder whether the information is worth much of anything.

You misrepresented nothing, and everything in your post is on the money. This smokescreen we've been fed is nothing but B.S.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

--The majority purposefully and deceitfully informed the public that Freeh interviewees had been promised confidentiality. Untrue. Freeh investigators explained to each interviewee their confidentiality could not be promised!!!

Was this true only as far as Freeh's interviews went? I can see them being told that at the time- as a threat that if they didn't "cooperate" someone who could make their lives hell would be told.

But is this true now? Are you bound by some agreement to maintain confidentiality of those interviewed?

I would love for some of those people to speak out and let us know exactly how those interviews played out.

 

[lubrano]

Was this true only as far as Freeh's interviews went? I can see them being told that at the time- as a threat that if they didn't "cooperate" someone who could make their lives hell would be told.

But is this true now? Are you bound by some agreement to maintain confidentiality of those interviewed?

I would love for some of those people to speak out and let us know exactly how those interviews played out.

Interviewers are free to discuss their interviews. Unfortunately, the interviewers do not have access to their interview summaries except through litigation. They were not provided copies for verification purposes.

 

[Zenophile]

Interviewers are free to discuss their interviews. Unfortunately, the interviewers do not have access to their interview summaries except through litigation. They were not provided copies for verification purposes.

Interesting. Were interviewees at least permitted to view and verify that the notes of the interviewer were indicative of the information provided?

And, of course, if this is a question that's better left unanswered for the moment, I certainly understand.

 

[ForesterGump]

Jay Paterno wrote in his Legacy book about the interview with the Freeh Commission. He was not allowed to bring counsel. He was not allowed to tape the interview. They said they were not taping the interview. He was also denied copies of the notes. They said that the information was privileged information and property of the client. He was also told the client was the BOT.

 

[tobakkorudy]

Jay Paterno wrote in his Legacy book about the interview with the Freeh Commission. He was not allowed to bring counsel. He was not allowed to tape the interview. They said they were not taping the interview. He was also denied copies of the notes. They said that the information was privileged information and property of the client. He was also told the client was the BOT.

Yes they were given the perfunctory warning.

 

[Nitt1300]

Yes they were given the perfunctory warning.

and at a time when many people probably thought that there was some integrity on the BOT

 

[kgilbert78]

Jay Paterno wrote in his Legacy book about the interview with the Freeh Commission. He was not allowed to bring counsel. He was not allowed to tape the interview. They said they were not taping the interview. He was also denied copies of the notes. They said that the information was privileged information and property of the client. He was also told the client was the BOT.

I'd like to think I'd have told them where to go--and left. But I know there were many, many folks fearful for their jobs, and I'm not sure I would have not done the same in their shoes. It's easy to be brave outside of a situation.

And I have a feeling what they did was illegal. Not to allow counsel or a record boggles the mind.

 

[lubrano]

I'm just wondering out loud...

Is it possible that Freeh intentionally didn't transcribe the interviews so that he could control the narrative?

The fact that interviewees were not allowed to review the notes taken by Freeh during the interviews is highly suspect if you are truly conducting an independent investigation whose stated goal is to find the truth...at least according to the Special Investigative Task Force Chair Ken Frazier.

 

[tobakkorudy]

I'm just wondering out loud...

Is it possible that Freeh intentionally didn't transcribe the interviews so that he could control the narrative?

The fact that interviewees were not allowed to review the notes taken by Freeh during the interviews is highly suspect if you are truly conducting an independent investigation whose stated goal is to find the truth...at least according to the Special Investigative Task Force Chair Ken Frazier.

There is a name for the warning they were given, maybe JmmyW can recall it.

 

[bwifan]

I'm just wondering out loud...

Is it possible that Freeh intentionally didn't transcribe the interviews so that he could control the narrative?

The fact that interviewees were not allowed to review the notes taken by Freeh during the interviews is highly suspect if you are truly conducting an independent investigation whose stated goal is to find the truth...at least according to the Special Investigative Task Force Chair Ken Frazier.

Absolutely ... take selective notes while
Omitting certain things in case the notes need to be made public ... you now have the situation Joe and many others were in ... who is going to recall the exact facts and words
they told Freeh 5+ years ago ....

 

[ForesterGump]

What is more troubling is that you have quotes from someone that was interviewed, but you don't necessarily know what the question was. You also have no way of knowing voice inflection. An interviewee's question can easily become a statement or an admission. There's no way to challenge the outcome.

 

[Nitt1300]

Louis Freeh Investigative Report Questionnaire



How much money do you have for us?

Describe the problem that you want to go away-

Who would you like to be blamed? *

What phony “corrective action” do you want to be recommended?





*would you like us to destroy this person’s reputation, or simply make them look incompetent?

 

[WeR0206]

It may not be as soon as we'd like, but freeh's house of cards is going to come crashing down sooner or later. I doubt the media will cover it though. Freeh is a deep state spook so he knows how to game the system.

 

[pandaczar12]

I'm just wondering out loud...

Is it possible that Freeh intentionally didn't transcribe the interviews so that he could control the narrative?

The fact that interviewees were not allowed to review the notes taken by Freeh during the interviews is highly suspect if you are truly conducting an independent investigation whose stated goal is to find the truth...at least according to the Special Investigative Task Force Chair Ken Frazier.

Mr Lubrano,

See the link about the upcoming Paterno movie. They are not relying on facts, or even the outcome of criminal trials. They are relying only on the Freeh report, which we know is complete garbage. Which is a reason many are anxious for the outcome of the review of the Freeh Report. This movie will only further cement the false narrative. Is there nothing PSU can do to prevent this hatchet job?

 

[roswelllion]

Please expound on your thought about how it would be better to have had no review of the Freeh materials.

My thought is that they are bound by the court to not divulge details that fall under atty-client privilege. I could be wrong. There have been whispers on here that there is plenty of material to be found that destroys the Freeh 'opinion'. I (and probably most here) want those whispers to become shouts, of course, and made very public. If they can do that, great.

On the other hand, if the material confirms or supports Freeh's opinion, I believe the 'other' BOTers would have no issue with allowing all that material to be released, unless some of it touches them, of course. I want to know all that, as well. I also think that anything in that vein would have been included in the Freeh report, so my guess is that confirmation material is not to be found.

Still many unanswered questions beyond that, but 5 years running, and people paying dearly for all this.... let's take an action toward reuniting the PSU community with complete facts and truths and then a 'move on' mantra will make more sense. Had JVP's career ended normally, I believe we all would have moved on soon after, and as a mostly united group.

I think the A9 is working behind the scenes on being able to release the information found in some way or another, but I don't know the ins and outs of that.

I'm trying to stay engaged enough to make sure that something that has always been very important to me, i.e. my love affair with all things Penn State, remains that way to the fullest extent possible. It's becoming more and more of a challenge, thanks in part to the very people I depend on to help ensure that.

Do you still make a list for Santa?