You'll never guess what independent conclusion Louis Freeh came to on June 26, 2012

[odshowtime]

I'll say one thing, I'm glad this was leaked because it deserved to be after all the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional nonsense we've had to put up with.

While the A9 report is not loaded with bombshells, it's given us enough ammo to maybe win an argument here and there, which is a blessing these days.

 

[SUPERTODD]

Right. They already knew the "what" that they were obligated by the task force to disclose in their final report (that there was CSA and the PSU people didn't do enough to stop it), but they needed to find a "why"... why would Joe Paterno, of all people, cover up such a crime when he had no history of doing anything even remotely like that? They never found the why; in fact, they found just the opposite - Joe did not, would not, and no one with any credibility supported that theory (they used Tripony's nonsense as the supporting details). So, they needed to create one out of thin air.
The "what" didn't exist either, but was rather just assumed thanks to the severe mismanagement of the crisis by the BOT.

Will there be any effort by an unbiased journalist to really dive into this? I doubt it. But at least people like me - a gen-u-wine Joe B. Ott - now knows for certain that what we thought we knew all along was correct..... there was no wrongdoing by JVP or even by C/S/S. And even when bad people were trying to make the general public agree with their 'conclusion', they could find no evidence to support it! And they cannot argue the facts that were disclosed by this review doc, they can only complain about the fact that it was disclosed.

That particular creature no longer exists in this country if it ever did. No profit in it and AT LEAST half the country believe the ends justify the means when it comes to what is true and not.

 

[richmin3]

The reason was..........his firm was capable of doing the investigation thoroughly and independently and Freeh was not, especially, since he had to sub out most of the work to Pepper Hamilton. How Freeh ........convinced Frazer to give him 8M to provide the needed results ........remains a mystery.

This.....Can you say Kickback.

 

[ApexLion]

Doesn't this all come down to the simple fact that Ken Frazier is a villain who was out to protect his own ass?

He’s the closest thing to the devil I’ve ever met. Let me correct that. I never met him. I listened to him via phone conference during litigation. He’s the devil.

 

[JmmyW]

Freeh seemed to indicate in his rebuttal that the suit was dropped. Further to this rebuttal, he would just say that the statement was earlier in the investigation and then the emails were found on the cover-up among CSS and Paterno.

The Spanier suit was dropped. But it could be resumed if he’s successful with his appeal. On your other comment...

From the A7 report, top of p.37:

The emails discussing planned responses to the 2001 report of Sandusky showering with a child were not definitive in terms of demonstrating what exactly Penn State officials understood about the incident. Freeh investigators acknowledged this; in an entry in the work diary, they ask, "What evidence that they knew it was more than horseplay?"​

From Freeh's rebuttal, p.3:

We also understand that the deniers have leaked select draft pages of the Freeh Report, allegedly supporting the finding that an investigator did not agree with Report's conclusions. While we have not reviewed the alleged support for this claim, we have seen a leak of a document from early March 2012, where an investigator noted that there was yet “no smoking gun to indicate [a] cover-up.” This statement made in early March 2012 is fully understandable, as our team had not found the critical “smoking gun” evidence of the 2001 email trove among Schultz, Curley and Spanier until several weeks later, when we discovered the email chain where Spanier agreed to not report Sandusky to the child protective agency, as the “The only downside for us is if the message isn't ‘heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”​

My assessment:

Freeh lied.
They had the emails already, including the one he quoted.​

 

[nittany119]

The reason was..........his firm was capable of doing the investigation thoroughly and independently and Freeh was not, especially, since he had to sub out most of the work to Pepper Hamilton. How Freeh ........convinced Frazer to give him 8M to provide the needed results ........remains a mystery.

Maybe he kicked back a portion of it to Frazier.

 

[indynittany]

The Spanier suit was dropped. But it could be resumed if he’s successful with his appeal. On your other comment...

From the A7 report, top of p.37:

The emails discussing planned responses to the 2001 report of Sandusky showering with a child were not definitive in terms of demonstrating what exactly Penn State officials understood about the incident. Freeh investigators acknowledged this; in an entry in the work diary, they ask, "What evidence that they knew it was more than horseplay?"​

From Freeh's rebuttal, p.3:

We also understand that the deniers have leaked select draft pages of the Freeh Report, allegedly supporting the finding that an investigator did not agree with Report's conclusions. While we have not reviewed the alleged support for this claim, we have seen a leak of a document from early March 2012, where an investigator noted that there was yet “no smoking gun to indicate [a] cover-up.” This statement made in early March 2012 is fully understandable, as our team had not found the critical “smoking gun” evidence of the 2001 email trove among Schultz, Curley and Spanier until several weeks later, when we discovered the email chain where Spanier agreed to not report Sandusky to the child protective agency, as the “The only downside for us is if the message isn't ‘heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”​

My assessment:

Freeh lied.
They had the emails already, including the one he quoted.​

Spanier's email is exculpatory. He's concerned that they will be vulnerable should a subsequent incident occur. And that's the "only downside" on his radar. Therefore, they couldn't possibly have been concerned that a boy had actually been abused. He would have been the elephant in the room. Yet, V2 is not even referenced in any of the notes or emails.

 

[91Joe95]

Freeh seemed to indicate in his rebuttal that the suit was dropped. Further to this rebuttal, he would just say that the statement was earlier in the investigation and then the emails were found on the cover-up among CSS and Paterno.

It's a good thing he thoroughly documented his timeline of events.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

He had to use extra small handwriting.

He's got small hands...

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

It was an outright lie. I like the $4.09 idea and I will be using it.

I'm quite a cheap @ss. I send $0.01 along with a note to donate it to the BOT Buffet fund.

 

[Zenophile]

My assessment:
Freeh lied

In fairness he is *really* good at it.

 

[Zenophile]

Seems we should know Friday (2/22) whether the board will be revisiting this issue. Are you planning attend @stormingnorm?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Seems we should know Friday (2/22) whether the board will be revisiting this issue. Are you planning attend @stormingnorm?

Is it on the agenda?

 

[Pardlion]

Seems we should know Friday (2/22) whether the board will be revisiting this issue. Are you planning attend @stormingnorm?

The BOT is not capable of addressing this issue, because in order to do so, they would have to say that they F'ed up.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

I also hear that there is a previously unnoticed handwritten marginalia stating "I, Louis Freeh, certify that I am a penis."

Others that have seen the narcissist's scribbled note believe it says "impotent (sic) dickwad".

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

If there is any significant discussion, it will most likely be on Thursday (the 21st). I expect to be "Live-TWITTERING" - for folks who use that crazy forum…. though there is always the outside shot that "someone will say something" on Friday (aside from the bloviations of the likes of Barron), but that would be rare.

I'm not expecting any discussion, but I will be there Th/Fri to observe some other topics.... and will certainly post any information on Freeh-related stuff (should it arise).

 

[RussianEagle]

Yes, and here's another line by Louis that somehow got no media attention:

View embedded media

This Freeh Report should have completely exonerated Joe Paterno's role in this whole mess. But the powers that be needed their scapegoat and now we're trying to climb out of a half billion dollars worth of damage to the university.

The report went outside the University to CYS caseworker Jack Raykovitz who informed TSM director Bruce Heim who decided to bury the report.

Or because they knew the boy was Allan Myers, who was like a son to Sandusky and a couple years later would have Sandusky stand in for his absent father at his Senior night football game, and therefore the whole thing was a non-issue.

 

[RussianEagle]

Spanier's email is exculpatory. He's concerned that they will be vulnerable should a subsequent incident occur. And that's the "only downside" on his radar. Therefore, they couldn't possibly have been concerned that a boy had actually been abused. He would have been the elephant in the room. Yet, V2 is not even referenced in any of the notes or emails.

Very true. Also no concern whatsoever that McQueary would go to the police on his own.

 

[RussianEagle]

I'll say one thing, I'm glad this was leaked because it deserved to be after all the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional nonsense we've had to put up with.

While the A9 report is not loaded with bombshells, it's given us enough ammo to maybe win an argument here and there, which is a blessing these days.

The A9 report seems to greatly resemble what John Ziegler was saying....... back in 2012!

Maybe give them a couple years and then they’ll have the balls to say the truth!

 

[indynittany]

Very true. Also no concern whatsoever that McQueary would go to the police on his own.

McQueary was used.

What kind of cover up would it be without the cooperation of the victim?

In the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' reality that exists around this issue, C/S/S were crucified for not seeking out V2, when the only reason to seek him out would have been to secure his silence. If they thought Sandusky might have harmed him, they would have called in the professionals and backed away.

 

[ouirpsu]

There is an editorial in the York Dispatch entitled "New report by Paterno's supporters only serves to harm Penn State's reputation" that sounds like it was written by Louis Freeh with input from Frank Fina, Mark Emmert and the OG BOT. Totally pissed me off: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/...o-supporters-only-serves-harm-psu/2906225002/

 

[ApexLion]

There is an editorial in the York Dispatch entitled "New report by Paterno's supporters only serves to harm Penn State's reputation" that sounds like it was written by Louis Freeh with input from Frank Fina, Mark Emmert and the OG BOT. Totally pissed me off: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/...o-supporters-only-serves-harm-psu/2906225002/

There's really two issues when reports within or about organizations come out: 1) public perception and 2) solving the issue within the organization.

Most Penn State alums at this point should not give a sht about 1. Our BOT did a no. 2 on the university we care about and we want to know the facts. Public perception means little, especially since public perception was bought long ago. No doubt that article was planted by someone opposed to the creators of the report. Just a continuation of what we have experienced so far.

Issue 2 remains although we are getting closer with a public repudiation of Freeh.

 

[sluggo72]

There is an editorial in the York Dispatch entitled "New report by Paterno's supporters only serves to harm Penn State's reputation" that sounds like it was written by Louis Freeh with input from Frank Fina, Mark Emmert and the OG BOT. Totally pissed me off: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/...o-supporters-only-serves-harm-psu/2906225002/

I'd love to see the comments by the readers of the editorial

 

[PSU2UNC]

There is an editorial in the York Dispatch entitled "New report by Paterno's supporters only serves to harm Penn State's reputation" that sounds like it was written by Louis Freeh with input from Frank Fina, Mark Emmert and the OG BOT. Totally pissed me off: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/...o-supporters-only-serves-harm-psu/2906225002/

Wow, that's ridiculous and certainly deserves a letter to the editor. Eff them.

 

[pandaczar12]

McQueary was used.

What kind of cover up would it be without the cooperation of the victim?

In the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' reality that exists around this issue, C/S/S were crucified for not seeking out V2, when the only reason to seek him out would have been to secure his silence. If they thought Sandusky might have harmed him, they would have called in the professionals and backed away.

All the trolls that say "why didn't they seek out the victim" now to prove a cover-up would be saying: "they were obviously trying to cover it up, why else would they seek out the victim?"

 

[RussianEagle]

There is an editorial in the York Dispatch entitled "New report by Paterno's supporters only serves to harm Penn State's reputation" that sounds like it was written by Louis Freeh with input from Frank Fina, Mark Emmert and the OG BOT. Totally pissed me off: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/...o-supporters-only-serves-harm-psu/2906225002/

Quite ironically, I think I lot of Penn Staters now see our self-flagellation in the aftermath of Sandusky’s arrest as our biggest source of school pride.

 

[ouirpsu]

I'd love to see the comments by the readers of the editorial

There are three comments:

• The author never read the Freeh report, let alone this one. His opinion is worthless!
• This opinion piece doesn’t even address the new info. Just the same old misquotes.
• The author is clearly a deluded Penn State hater with no personal powers of reasoning.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

View embedded media

That video clip should be everyone's FIRST rebuttal when they get the "Sandusky jazz" from opposing viewpoints. First say that the BOT was corrupt and they will ask you to prove it. Here is the proof...

 

[PearlSUJam]

There is an editorial in the York Dispatch entitled "New report by Paterno's supporters only serves to harm Penn State's reputation" that sounds like it was written by Louis Freeh with input from Frank Fina, Mark Emmert and the OG BOT. Totally pissed me off: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/...o-supporters-only-serves-harm-psu/2906225002/

What stands out to me is the closer the news outlets are to Harrisburg, the worse the stories are about this saga. Coincidence?

Here in NEPA, I feel like I'm in a different country with the news coverage concerning all of this. Why is that?

 

[mcgunns]

All the trolls that say "why didn't they seek out the victim" now to prove a cover-up would be saying: "they were obviously trying to cover it up, why else would they seek out the victim?"

Why is it not reasonable to expect an investigation similar to the one done in like 1998 when Sandusky basically admitted guilt over the phone?

 

[marshall23]

Why is it not reasonable to expect an investigation similar to the one done in like 1998 when Sandusky basically admitted guilt over the phone?

That's a new one.......never heard that before!

 

[denniskembala]

The Spanier suit was dropped. But it could be resumed if he’s successful with his appeal. On your other comment...

From the A7 report, top of p.37:

The emails discussing planned responses to the 2001 report of Sandusky showering with a child were not definitive in terms of demonstrating what exactly Penn State officials understood about the incident. Freeh investigators acknowledged this; in an entry in the work diary, they ask, "What evidence that they knew it was more than horseplay?"​

From Freeh's rebuttal, p.3:

We also understand that the deniers have leaked select draft pages of the Freeh Report, allegedly supporting the finding that an investigator did not agree with Report's conclusions. While we have not reviewed the alleged support for this claim, we have seen a leak of a document from early March 2012, where an investigator noted that there was yet “no smoking gun to indicate [a] cover-up.” This statement made in early March 2012 is fully understandable, as our team had not found the critical “smoking gun” evidence of the 2001 email trove among Schultz, Curley and Spanier until several weeks later, when we discovered the email chain where Spanier agreed to not report Sandusky to the child protective agency, as the “The only downside for us is if the message isn't ‘heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”​

My assessment:

Freeh lied.
They had the emails already, including the one he quoted.​

Freeh was a well known bag of shit and liar far before our BoT and their horsecrap of engaging the clown to parrot their fairytales.

 

[mcgunns]

That's a new one.......never heard that before!

whats the answer though

 

[marshall23]

whats the answer though

The answer is that what you wrote never happened.