What should they have done?
- Thread starter RentechCEO
- Start date
No, it's not an emphatic statement because literally right after saying that Joe says "I'm not sure exactly what it was". This is why people are saying the way it's transcribed makes no sense because Joe contradicts himself from one sentence to another. It would make more sense if there was a question mark after that sentance or if "it was" is changed to "was it", etc...
I'm not throwing pieces out because they're inconvenient, I'm throwing them out because those statements were couched in equivocation. Did you even read my post before responding? You can't possibly be this slow...Joe then goes on to say:
I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster
The above is the only part of Joe's testimony where he said he "knew" something. Everything else is speculation and equivocation.
WTF are you even talking about? That's not what I'm saying at all. I said the only thing Joe was sure about was that MM was upset after seeing a late night inappropriate shower between JS and a kid. How is an inappropriate shower that made someone upset calling someone a pedo?
You have lost your marbles..
That's just bullshit.
That statement was full of wiggle room. You are being seriously dishonest.
One concrete piece of evidence is the email from Frazier to Omar McNeill touting a particulary loathsome magazine article about Penn State football. I don't have time to find it right now but I think that it was Sports Illustrated and it just absolutely ripped Joe Paterno. The message was clear: I'm paying you and I agree with this article.
There's a reason the university is fighting discovery tooth-and-nail. If they didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't be spending so much money to hide it. And if the Paternos had anything to hide, they sure as heck wouldn't be pursuing this case.
Don't worry though, the truth will out. And when it does I hope you'll be back to admit that we were right.
There's a reason the university is fighting discovery tooth-and-nail. If they didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't be spending so much money to hide it. And if the Paternos had anything to hide, they sure as heck wouldn't be pursuing this case.
Don't worry though, the truth will out. And when it does I hope you'll be back to admit that we were right.
I don't think I said you were wrong just asked where you got the evidence that the BOT and or NCAA/B1G told Freeh what to write or unduly influenced the investigation. I went to Blehar's site and read some emails he obtained but they don't show that at least that I can see. I looked at an email from Frazier to McNeill but all that was on it was a link. The link didn't take me anywhere. There was another email that appeared to be inhouse and not to Freeh that mentioned a story from ESPN about worshipping icons.
No, Curley was in charge of the facility. And his boss, Schultz, was in charge of the university's physical plant.
From what I have read, and I could be wrong, is that issue appears to be the confidentiality of those who were interviewed.
well . . . confidentiality of the BoT members who said a lot of the incriminating things to Freeh . . .
I think the confidentiality of all who were interviewed. I understand their concerns especially if they are employees of PSU. As an outsider who has observed this for a few years I would not want to be someone who worked for PSU and lived in State College said something negative about the school/culture/Paterno etc and have my name out there.
yeah that wasn't it. a lot of employees complained about the heavy handed Freeh interviews, fearing for their jobs.
Blehar did a nice breakdown of the Freeh report, about 40% came from BoT member interviews. they don't want anyone to read the nasty sh*t they planned behind the scened
participants were promised confidentiality, not anonymity. If Freeh relied on certain comments from people who may not be in a position to know certain things, had an axe to grind, or an agenda then that is important to know. Additionally, it is important to know what exculpatory evidence was omitted. The fact that the old guard BOT has shown zero interest in scrutinizing the report and yet has paid out millions and suffered millions in damage, is more than a little concerning. Will be interesting if PMA can get access or get Freeh under oath.
Last edited:
Why people don't get this is amazing. People's careers were ruined, legacies were destroyed and a great University paid out substantial sums of money based on this piece of crap report that was underpinned by these anonymous interviews. In this country you get to face your accuser. Confidential yes. Anonymous...absolutely not. That is ludicrous.
Not to mention the fact all of those still accused were never interviewed by those conducting the report. I mean god forbid you actually ask them their side of the story as to what occurred. It's pretty easy to smear anyone or accuse anyone if they are omitted from the report. That in itself kind of invalidates the whole report. I can write a report based on people on this site about NOLECEO and let them blast away without every talking to him. It doesn't make it all true, it just gives you one very lopsided side of a story.
RentatrollCEO's thinly veiled act wore thin on me a good while ago.
Omar O'Neill testified that they weren't promised confidentiality, and were warned about being cautious about what they said.
IIRC Mr. Mcneill also stated under oath that one of the purposes of the Freeh Report was to protect the trustees in the event of a wrongful termination lawsuit.
I find this to be very interesting indeed.
I find this to be very interesting indeed.
Well, I
Didn't Spanier talk to Freeh? I know Curley and Schultz refused. Joe was pretty sick then IIRC. Should Freeh not have published the report or waited till the trials were over?
Presumably Paterno. But what is interesting to me is that the stated purpose of this "independent investigation" was to establish the facts of the situation.
So must it be true that Mr. Frasier, Mr. Freeh, and Mr. Mcneill just sat around hoping that the "completely independent" facts they uncovered were going to support the termination.
Because that makes sense and is reasonable.
There's no point in arguing what Freeh should or should not have done.
Freeh did exactly what Frazier and Tomalis told him to do.
The Jerry Sandusky mess with Second Mile was public knowledge years earlier. The BOT should have planned for this blowing up in their face. They did not. The BOT should never have dropped the mess on Paterno's legacy because he was not involved and tried to get the University to block Sandusky's access to University assets and buildings. Firing Joe and our President guaranteed that the dogs would be forcing a negative narration. The BOT failed totally with whatever type of Disaster Plan or Business Continuity Plan they may have had...they did not have one...
And the dogs weren't forcing a negative narration before Joe was fired? I feel very confident that whatever narration there was would have been much more negative had Joe not at a minimum been suspended, which in his case would have been career ending no matter what ended up happening down the line.
Yeah he spoke to Spanier 3-4 days before the document was delivered so it was pretty much written already. Joe offered to speak to them and never got a call. It's kind of obvious now why no such follow up occurred by Freeh's team. If you say you are delivering a comprehensive report and you're paid MILLIONS of dollars to be accurate, you damn sure wait until you can talk to all parties involved. What hard date had to be set that was more important than the clear and absolute truth?
Rush to judgements very often fail and this whole thing was a modern day witch hunt due to the sick and twisted crimes Jerry committed. When the leading national expert on abuse states Jerry is in the top 1% of all predators and was a master at grooming those around him...it should kind of make you think that maybe he didn't get caught for so long for a reason. Burning down the village is never the answer, but it's surely is a great knee jerk reaction at the time.
He should have issued at most a preliminary report with no conclusions and issued a statement that it was IMPOSSIBLE to issue a thorough or conclusive report at that juncture given the severe limitations of the "investigation". Instead he drew damning conclusions that were impossible to draw with any certainty and held a press conference where he grandstanded about how many documents they reviewed and how many (anonymous) people they interviewed. Complete bullshit.
RentechCEO said: ↑
Well, I
Didn't Spanier talk to Freeh? I know Curley and Schultz refused. Joe was pretty sick then IIRC. Should Freeh not have published the report or waited till the trials were over?
Spanier spoke to Freeh after the report was 99.9% written. Where did you see Curley and Schultz refused to talk to Freeh? Joe wanted to talk to Freeh but Freeh didn't get around to it and Freeh actually lied and said Joe didn't want to talk to him. Freeh could have published his report and indicated with incomplete information, no reasonable conclusion can be concluded. Once complete information comes out though the trials, we can more thoroughly complete our findings.
Well, I
Didn't Spanier talk to Freeh? I know Curley and Schultz refused. Joe was pretty sick then IIRC. Should Freeh not have published the report or waited till the trials were over?
Spanier spoke to Freeh after the report was 99.9% written. Where did you see Curley and Schultz refused to talk to Freeh? Joe wanted to talk to Freeh but Freeh didn't get around to it and Freeh actually lied and said Joe didn't want to talk to him. Freeh could have published his report and indicated with incomplete information, no reasonable conclusion can be concluded. Once complete information comes out though the trials, we can more thoroughly complete our findings.
So, he should have said basically I can't determine anything and waited for the trials to conclude? Or should the BOT have even done an investigation until after the trials?
But Freeh did talk to him. Page 12 of the Freeh Report said that Curley, Schultz and Courtney refused to be interviewed. Freeh said that he believed that Joe wanted to talk to him at the press conference he held in July 2012. However, when the Paterno report came out then Freeh said that Joe made enough time before he died to talk to his biographer (Posnanski) and Sallie Jenkins but not for him. Which was a true statement.
You seriously need to ask that? Of course Paterno was willing to talk to Freeh. Hell, Paterno turned over a bunch of his own personal materials to him. Stuff that he was in no way obligated to give to Freeh.
Louis Freeh lied when people started questioning the veracity of his "conclusions." That tells you everything you need to know about him.
1. If Louis Freeh had any integrity he would have acknowledged that he didn't have sufficient evidence to draw any conclusions. But Louis Freeh has no integrity.
2. The board didn't want an "investigation." It wanted a stenographer who would "conclude" that they were justified in sacking Paterno. Freeh happily obliged and collected his $8.5 million.
For someone who started this thread asking some "honest questions" you sure are debating alot?
