Not being snarky. Did it ever happen, or conclude? We kept getting all of these cryptic postings about how useful this was going to be. Did I miss a post that the whole thing got canceled, or is there something yet to come?
Whatever happened to the Freeh files review by Lubrano et al?
- Thread starter lionlurker
- Start date
About the only thing Peetz was right about in saying it'll all be forgotten
Going on 5 years waiting for the "smoking gun." I remember way back Tom McAndrew referencing something coming out. I was hoping there was something there, but years have passed...just not seeing it coming to fruition.
I posted a "day count" earlier this week (somewhere in the mid 500s now - - - - about three times as long as it took Louie to write his novel)
As I've been saying all along - an "A9" review of the " Freeh File" is as useless as a eunuch
Gigilo
Who's gonna' do the work? To "unmask" the Freeh Report?
Bob Jubelirer? LMAO
Barb Doran? LMAO
Bill Oldsey, Rob Tribeck, Alice Pope, Ryan McCumbie, Ted Brown????????
LMAO etc etc etc
Seriously?
These folks are as kinetic as a dead turtle.
THEY are gonna' get together and pull a Woodward and Bernstein?
For five f**king years that's all these f**ks have hung their hats on. "By God!! We are suing for the Freeh Documents...... and then, By God!! We are working on the Freeh Review!!!"
What a crock of horse manure.
It's been their "tried and true" line of bullshit they all sell to the folks they ask to vote for them (with a few 409 chants thrown in)
They couldn't combine efforts to change a flat tire - - - and anyone would expect them to NOT completely monkey-hump this task?
Alice Pope mentioned in the PS4RS video interview that she kind of took on a leadership role in reviewing the Freeh Report. She mentioned that it was a lot of material to cover.
I stated at the time that there were a number of facts that had not been disclosed in the articles that appeared in 2011 and early 2012. While a few of those things have come into the public sphere, for the most part they have not.
The review of the Freeh Report source material by the alumni trustees is likely to expose quite a few things about the process Freeh and his team followed. I suspect that it will also bring to light some facts about the saga that have not been in the public, though that's my suspicion, as I have no info as to what the trustees have discovered.
I never alluded to, or in any way indicated, that there were "smoking guns" waiting to be exposed. Only time will tell if they exist, or if they make it into the public sphere.
That's certainly a factor.
What they ever expected to accomplish - - - if they indeed EVER REALLY DID expect to accomplish anything - - - - is kinda' hard to fathom.
Al Lord and a small fraction of the $300,000,000 he pulled out of SallieMae could have been put to much better use - hiring some folks who actually had 1/2 a clue as to what they were doing, and the ability to do it.
Let alone having folks who didn't spend five years proving (over and over again) that they were abysmal governance failures as the "sponsors" of the so-called Freeh File Review.
Yep. Kinda' disconcerting.
Yea honestly I don't care any more. At one time I was "all in" now ...what ever.
My life has become more important. Sorry.
the battle was lost years ago- the narrative is set and nothing will ever change it now
My boss is admittedly a "periodic sage".......some even refer to her as an "idiot savant". Her gift is her gift.
At the very least I'd be interested in knowing why Freeh referenced page 18 of the 1998 police report in two different ways, as if there are two different page 18s.
Also would be interested in knowing why the DOE, in reviewing the Freeh files, references an evening meeting on May 4, 1998 between Spanier, Schultz and Curley.
And the DOE suggests Harmon changed the title to "Administrative Information" because Schultz told him to.
Also would be interested in knowing why the DOE, in reviewing the Freeh files, references an evening meeting on May 4, 1998 between Spanier, Schultz and Curley.
And the DOE suggests Harmon changed the title to "Administrative Information" because Schultz told him to.
Last edited:
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...andal-Freeh-report-finds/stories/201207120421
The above article is from July 12, 2012, and I highly recommend giving it a read. Since the release of the Freeh report, It has been THE document of record regarding the scandal and will remain so long as it is unchallenged.
The above article is from July 12, 2012, and I highly recommend giving it a read. Since the release of the Freeh report, It has been THE document of record regarding the scandal and will remain so long as it is unchallenged.
Last edited:
Tom, when do you think you can let us in on the facts that haven't come to light yet? What is the statute of limitations for your silence? At some point, having facts remain hidden after all this time only serves to help the bad guys.
Maybe we can help them out by coming up with a master list of questions that need answering.
Am I remembering correctly that Tom said that, from what he knew, certain people would end up looking worse eventually and others would look better?
all those cryptic posts from tom and lubrano meant nothiing...Shocking!!!
I guess we'll have to wait for Al Pacino's movie to come out to learn the truth.
If I was part of the review team, I would *absolutely* want my findings to be widely available as a potential reference for the team responsible for the JVP production. Or at the very least, as a counterpoint to it upon release.I guess we'll have to wait for Al Pacino's movie to come out to learn the truth.
I was told - more than once, by more than one of the "A9":
"The Freeh Report is EVERYTHING"
"Reviewing the Freeh Report is all that matters"
"The Freeh File review will clear up everything
"[And I am sure I am not the only one they tried to feed that crap to].
And then watched a "Group of 9" fail, abdicate and generally "screw the pooch" with every task for which they are responsible.
And now, 1 1/2 years into their critical "review"?
Crickets?
A "report" being composed by a Psych Professor? (because most of the rest of them couldn't be bothered)
Shocking
Last edited:
I don't know the extent of the court's ruling about the release of the information. I don't know if the release is contingent on mutual agreement, on a timing factor, on what they find that may change the parameters.... or if they will never be allowed to release the findings except for internal consumption of the BOT, per the court ruling, as ridiculous as that even sounds.
I wonder if at some point, one or a few or all of the A9 will simply say 'screw it, we are releasing the findings regardless', and 'ask forgiveness' later, if the findings are worth it to their (our) cause. I don't know what the penalty would be for challenging the court order in that manner, though, although I assume the worst.
All just conjecture / wishful thinking, of course. Maybe Larry or Anthony will clear up some of the details that I've no doubt forgotten regarding the release of information.
I wonder if at some point, one or a few or all of the A9 will simply say 'screw it, we are releasing the findings regardless', and 'ask forgiveness' later, if the findings are worth it to their (our) cause. I don't know what the penalty would be for challenging the court order in that manner, though, although I assume the worst.
All just conjecture / wishful thinking, of course. Maybe Larry or Anthony will clear up some of the details that I've no doubt forgotten regarding the release of information.
The Court placed restrictions wrt when and where specific "confidential" and "PII type" information can be discussed/disseminated.
There is NOTHING to prevent any of the TTEEs from saying (assuming this is what they found):
"In our ongoing review of the relevant documents, the following is clear:
Not only are Louis Freeh's conclusions unsupported by the facts, but the facts support entirely different conclusions.
No where in the documented evidence is there any support to his conclusions that officials at Penn State conspired to protect a Pedophile in order to "protect" Penn State Football.
The facts, indeed, support the conclusion that the entire commissioning of the Freeh Report was undertaken in order to obfuscate and protect the actions of members of the BOT, their friends and cohorts, and powerful political entitities.
We look forward to the opportunity to make these documents and facts fully available to The Penn State community and to the public."
NOTHING prevents such a statement.
Anyone who professes differently is simply a liar.
Anyone who believes differently is a dupe.
What we are likely to get - after 2 or more years on the job - is something along the lines of:
"Blah blah blah....... Jim Clemente....... blah blah blah ....... Missed Opportunity to Protect Children ....... blah blah blah"
i.e. shit that we've all known since forever, and shit that no one cared about the first 1,000 times it was proffered.
You could make a lot of money giving 10-1 odds on that assumption.
Meanwhile - the situation vav PSU "Leadership" gets worse every passing month.
Super!!!!!!
There is NOTHING to prevent any of the TTEEs from saying (assuming this is what they found):
"In our ongoing review of the relevant documents, the following is clear:
Not only are Louis Freeh's conclusions unsupported by the facts, but the facts support entirely different conclusions.
No where in the documented evidence is there any support to his conclusions that officials at Penn State conspired to protect a Pedophile in order to "protect" Penn State Football.
The facts, indeed, support the conclusion that the entire commissioning of the Freeh Report was undertaken in order to obfuscate and protect the actions of members of the BOT, their friends and cohorts, and powerful political entitities.
We look forward to the opportunity to make these documents and facts fully available to The Penn State community and to the public."
NOTHING prevents such a statement.
Anyone who professes differently is simply a liar.
Anyone who believes differently is a dupe.
What we are likely to get - after 2 or more years on the job - is something along the lines of:
"Blah blah blah....... Jim Clemente....... blah blah blah ....... Missed Opportunity to Protect Children ....... blah blah blah"
i.e. shit that we've all known since forever, and shit that no one cared about the first 1,000 times it was proffered.
You could make a lot of money giving 10-1 odds on that assumption.
Meanwhile - the situation vav PSU "Leadership" gets worse every passing month.
Super!!!!!!
Last edited:
I wasn't done yet. See above.Thanks, bjf... your insightful, clear response has answered all my questions.
(Of course, this is far from the first time the issue HAS been addressed
Maybe you were "absent" that day?)Got any more questions?
Last edited:
Thanks, bjf... your insightful, clear response has answered my questions.
We'll make an effective communicator out of you yet! (I kid, I kid).
Larry or Anthony or Tom - please feel free to expound on the above as you deem appropriate.
I look forward to them releasing the findings at some point relatively soon, then, as I am naively confident that the findings will support a far different narrative than Freeh's report did.
As far as I know, Judge Howsare's order from 11/19/2015 still governs where and when the A9 can discuss any privileged or confidential information they uncover in their review of the Freeh files. Also, I suspect there was very little that wasn't marked privileged or confidential.
http://www.psu.edu/ur/newsdocuments/Court_Decision_Nov_19.pdf
Paragraph 4 is the key part of that order:
4. The Petitioner Trustees may discuss the information marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PRIVILEGED" only in a privileged executive session of the board or in communications with the University's legal counsel. Outside of a privileged executive session of the Board or in communication with the University's legal counsel, any discussion or disclosure to any one by Petitioner Trustees, except their present counsel, of the information marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PRIVILEGED" is expressly prohibited.
One exception are individuals that assisted the A9 but were required to sign confidentiality agreements and be bound by this order.
I recall some discussion on what might happen if the A9 uncovered evidence of crimes, and that they would take that to Judge Howsare. That could be one avenue for making information public.
However, it was the University's attorney Joseph O'Dea that outlined perhaps the most likely avenue for release of the A9's review - by vote of the board.
O'Dea said the following during oral arguments on 9/8/2015, at p.45:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/k8jncrtxte4vgpl/AACOMrYsFYVuctYdU0Gm740ta?dl=0
If they, in their good judgment, believe that something should be made public, that we ought to know the names, the name of that person, we don't agree, that ought to be made public, they want to make that judgment individually, that's not their judgment to make. They need to take that issue to the Board to discuss it with their fellow board members. And if their board members agree, then that's what the University does. But if they don't, they must comply with the practices and respective decisions of the University.
As I see it, it will be an uphill battle to get the A9's review of Freeh materials released publicly. The most likely avenue will be by vote of the BOT. I think the first challenge for the A9 is getting time during board meetings to present a summary of their findings. The second challenge is arguing why it must be made public & securing enough other trustee votes to do so.
True.
The following two points are also "True":
1 - They will likely NEVER (not in any of our lifetimes) "secure enough Trustee votes to do so"........
Unless they are completely ignorant and naïve....they have to know that.
and
2 - It doesn't matter.
_____________
NONE of the stuff laid out by Howsare prevents THIS :
(And "THIS" is the first step necessary if the "Freeh File Review" is to have ANY impact)
How quickly we forget ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/penn-state-freeh-report/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf )
Among many of Freeh's statements and "conclusions" where:
"The Special Investigative Task Force operated with total independence"
"The witnesses interviewed were cooperative and forthright"
"No party attempted to influence the findings of the report"
"...(Penn State) empowered Sandusky to attract potential victims...the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims"
"...no one warned about his (Sandusky) behavior..."
"In order to avoid bad publicity, .....failure to protect child victims"
"(PSU) Granted license to groom and target victims"
Etc etc......I could list a hundred similar Freeh statements and "conclusions" from his report.
Now:
Either the documents prove/support those statement and conclusions....or they don't
If.....by some incredible chance, they don't
.....there is NOTHING to prevent any of the Trustees from saying so (as I outlined above).And we already know - from information gathered from OUTSIDE of the sacred "Freeh File Review" (certainly NOT from the efforts of the oh-so-critical review itself) - that many of those statements and "conclusions" are pure bullshit.
And yet......here we sit, 1 1/2 years later.....crickets.
NOTHING prevents the A9 from addressing these issues.
NOTHING.
One would have to ask - if they are curious at all - WHY????
The best place to look for "clues" would be to examine their "performance" in their role as "Stewards for the University".......and that data is shudderingly frightful.
Meanwhile, the cows have left the barn, been slaughtered, and the carcasses set out to rot.
And - you can bet dollars to donuts - whenever we do get a "report", it will be the same old tired, meaningless, blatherings (Clemente, Missed Opportunities, blah blah blah) we have heard for years.
Impact? "Dead cat bounce".
Last edited:
