Forum: The Rubber Room - Serious disease and death wishes =automatic ban. No blatant socially taboo racist insults, no obscenely gross pics and ABSOLUTELY NO HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY.

Thread: Freeh Report

  1. #1 Freeh Report 
    RX Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    315
    I just finished reading the Freeh Report. If you have read the the 144 page report I would like to see your reaction on Paterno. I can understand why his family is upset.

    Although he could have done more because of his status and am surprised that he was included in this report. The Penn State administration fucked up by not reporting this to child welfare.(obvious especially in hindsight).

    I have been teaching in a Pennsylvania high school for 13 years. I was always told that I must report any abuse or suspected abuse to a counselor, social worker or administration or I could lose my job.(Similar to Clery Act) I was told once I reported this to one of these people that I have met my obligation. I also could lose my job if I did not follow chain of command and called child welfare myself.

    I know that I am not Joe Paterno and I do not have the power that he had but to me it seems that he told his administration what McQueery reported to him. When he reported to Tim Curley, the AD and Paterno's boss he met his obligation under the Clery Act.

    As Paterno said he regretted that he did not do more. Morally he should have done more but I still find it hard to believe that he was knowingly protecting a pedofile. From 1966 until 2011 we have been told how he stressed honor and integrity and doing things the right way. Protecting a pedofile, one of if not the worst crime imaginable, would make you the scum of the earth and almost as bad as the perpetrator. Unfortunately we may never know what Paterno knew unless he kept files or wrote a journal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    RX Wizard YourAllAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by winningstreak View Post
    I still find it hard to believe that he was knowingly protecting a pedofile.
    Paterno knew in 1998 that Sandusky was under investigation for child molestation. That's made clear in the Freeh report, where references are made to Paterno wanting to know the disposition of the investigation. Already knowing this, Paterno was then informed in 2001 about Sandusky being caught raping a child in the football showers. The Freeh report makes it clear that the original plan was to bring in child welfare authorities until a request from "Joe" not to do so. Even after all that Paterno still allowed Sandusky to bring children to Penn State facilities.

    That's about as clear a case of covering up as you're likely to find.

    The Paterno family is desperately trying to convince themselves otherwise, and that's, in a way, understandable. They don't want to believe that the patriarch who seemed so upstanding was, in fact, a giant POS who valued winning football games over even the welfare of children. But that's exactly who he was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    RX Senior C.P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    next door to you
    Posts
    8,130
    ^^^ this.....GREAT POST
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    RX Local GoSooners's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    BarrySwitzerland
    Posts
    28,688
    I think the problem with Paterno is the timeline (13 years) and the repeated offenses by Sandusky after he was reported. Common sense says if the first person you tell continues to not do anything about a pedophile who is blantantly breaking the law, you find somebody who will. Child rape is the next step down from murder. And offenders are punished as such. PSU is lucky they are getting to play football this year. The Death Penalty was definitely on the table according to Emmert.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    RX Senior StopDrop&LOL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,833
    I understand if the "crime" a person is committing is harmless, you want to get the person help before going to authorities, but when you talk about a young child being raped and pimped out to penn state donors that is just gross! That you take to the authorities immediately! I don't care if its your grandma or uncle joe! The fact that it happened repeatedly meant that sandusky felt secure. He knew paterno and others would turn a blind eye, so their image and that of penn state's wouldn't be tarnished, all for securing wins and raking in more money from donors which in turn had a direct effect on their performance on the field. Just glad sandusky is behind bars and getting what he deserves. He will be released to the general population one day. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a bounty on his head already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    THE MACALLAN heynow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    On my sofa
    Posts
    1,143
    Winningstreak...to answer your question, Child Welfare was contacted in 1998 and elected to do nothing. I guess it is alright to shower with and grope young boys. It seems to me that if some other people did their jobs in 1998 we wouldn't be at this point right now. The below is copy and pasted from an article that has been proven factual.

    In 1998, the Penn State campus police and local law enforcement authorities investigated an allegation that Jerry Sandusky, then a prominent coach with the university’s football team, had engaged in inappropriate and perhaps sexual conduct with a boy in the football facility’s showers. A lengthy police report was generated, state prosecutors said. The boy was interviewed. A second potential victim was identified. Child welfare authorities were brought in. Sandusky confessed to showering with one or both of the children. The local district attorney was given material to consider prosecution. In the end, no prosecution was undertaken. The child welfare agency did not take action. And, according to prosecutors, the commander of the university’s campus police force told his detective, Ronald Schreffler, to close the case.

    “Sandusky admitted showering naked with Victim 6, admitted to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admitted that it was wrong,” said the report issued last weekend by the Pennsylvania attorney general. “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said that he would not.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    The fraud that is the Freeh report

    http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/01/b...ngling-of.html
    Many people, like media blowhard Keith Olbermann and disgruntled class action lawyer, Michael Boni , are still clinging to the myth that Louis Freeh's credentials are impeccable and he conducted a legitimate investigation at Penn State. I suspect few have ever read the full Freeh Report and are unaware of the reports glaring inaccuracies. A prime example is Freeh's mangling of the janitor's testimony, which revealed just how shoddy and lazy his PSU investigation and report really was.


    By
    Ray Blehar


    At his press conference on July 12, 2012, Louis Freeh called the incident witnessed by the janitor as "the most horrific rape" that was described in the Sandusky case.

    Apparently, the former FBI Director, with impeccable credentials, decided the trial verdicts were irrelevant to his press conference remarks and his report.

    Many who continue to criticize PSU would likely be surprised to learn the most incendiary charge in the case -- that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky anally raping a boy -- resulted in a not guilty verdict. Just as importantly, there was not a single victim who credibly accused Sandusky of attempting to rape them while they were on the campus. Obviously, if there were no credible allegations of rapes, there weren't any rape convictions.

    So how did Freeh come up with his wild claim of a "horrific rape" in the janitor incident?

    Simply put, Louis Freeh appears to be a pathological liar (see here also).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    RX Local GoSooners's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    BarrySwitzerland
    Posts
    28,688
    Quote Originally Posted by brucefan View Post
    The fraud that is the Freeh report

    http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/01/b...ngling-of.html
    Many people, like media blowhard Keith Olbermann and disgruntled class action lawyer, Michael Boni , are still clinging to the myth that Louis Freeh's credentials are impeccable and he conducted a legitimate investigation at Penn State. I suspect few have ever read the full Freeh Report and are unaware of the reports glaring inaccuracies. A prime example is Freeh's mangling of the janitor's testimony, which revealed just how shoddy and lazy his PSU investigation and report really was.


    By
    Ray Blehar


    At his press conference on July 12, 2012, Louis Freeh called the incident witnessed by the janitor as "the most horrific rape" that was described in the Sandusky case.

    Apparently, the former FBI Director, with impeccable credentials, decided the trial verdicts were irrelevant to his press conference remarks and his report.

    Many who continue to criticize PSU would likely be surprised to learn the most incendiary charge in the case -- that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky anally raping a boy -- resulted in a not guilty verdict. Just as importantly, there was not a single victim who credibly accused Sandusky of attempting to rape them while they were on the campus. Obviously, if there were no credible allegations of rapes, there weren't any rape convictions.

    So how did Freeh come up with his wild claim of a "horrific rape" in the janitor incident?

    Simply put, Louis Freeh appears to be a pathological liar (see here also).
    When Sandusky gets out of jail maybe you can invite him over to babysit the kids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    RX Wizard bukis 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    columbus,oh
    Posts
    5,621
    Quote Originally Posted by brucefan View Post
    The fraud that is the Freeh report

    http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/01/b...ngling-of.html
    Many people, like media blowhard Keith Olbermann and disgruntled class action lawyer, Michael Boni , are still clinging to the myth that Louis Freeh's credentials are impeccable and he conducted a legitimate investigation at Penn State. I suspect few have ever read the full Freeh Report and are unaware of the reports glaring inaccuracies. A prime example is Freeh's mangling of the janitor's testimony, which revealed just how shoddy and lazy his PSU investigation and report really was.


    By
    Ray Blehar


    At his press conference on July 12, 2012, Louis Freeh called the incident witnessed by the janitor as "the most horrific rape" that was described in the Sandusky case.

    Apparently, the former FBI Director, with impeccable credentials, decided the trial verdicts were irrelevant to his press conference remarks and his report.

    Many who continue to criticize PSU would likely be surprised to learn the most incendiary charge in the case -- that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky anally raping a boy -- resulted in a not guilty verdict. Just as importantly, there was not a single victim who credibly accused Sandusky of attempting to rape them while they were on the campus. Obviously, if there were no credible allegations of rapes, there weren't any rape convictions.

    So how did Freeh come up with his wild claim of a "horrific rape" in the janitor incident?

    Simply put, Louis Freeh appears to be a pathological liar (see here also).
    I believe omg is in favor of having child rapists on the street. People at Psu knew and had previous info Sandusky was a molester. Jopa who basically ran the university was one of these people. They all did nothing including Jopa. Omg will keep defending him. I bet he'd have a different opinion of Jopa if it was his kid that got raped. What loser defends people who knowingly allow a child molester on campus and continue to run a child organization program. Omg is that loser
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    You guys Keep posting nonsense with no facts to back it up. Hey, it's a free country and you have a right to remain ignorant . The truth will come out over time .

    Costas tonight
    http://youtu.be/F27Wg71GJzQ


    Review of the Freeh Report. http://paterno.com/Resources/Docs/TH...T_2-7-2013.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    LOOOOOONG OVERDUE

    Ex-Penn State President Spanier sues Freeh, PSU, law firm
    Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/i...16VAf7EwdE1.99


    Debunking Louis Freeh’s Penn State Report
    http://freehreport.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    7,916
    Meanwhile, another sex scandal at the great Penn State University breaks....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    RX Senior RunLeeRun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    3,548
    Great timing on the bump. Their isnt a big enough mirror to do them any good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    RX Wizard
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Roll Tide
    Posts
    12,922
    Tired old stuff for me.....

    Come on guys........spring practice....lot's of CFB news that may give the forum an angle for winning a dollar.

    Win or lose last season...it's over. Really looking forward to a productive and informative lead up to the 2015 season.

    Guessing most here agree........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    RX Local GoSooners's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    BarrySwitzerland
    Posts
    28,688
    Quote Originally Posted by CoachCB View Post
    Meanwhile, another sex scandal at the great Penn State University breaks....
    I'm just glad the scandal involved posting pictures of naked women and not children. At least their moving in the right direction...Ha!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    Good stuff here

    Great piece and here is how it starts

    "What if everything you thought you knew about the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal wasn't true?"
    ( no shit )


    Special Agent Who Investigated Spanier Blows Up Case
    http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/spec...anier.html?m=1
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    Well, know we know they knew it was fraud as well

    http://www.framingpaterno.com/exclus...ed-last-moment


    Documents indicating that Louis Freeh’s own team did not believe that the highly influential conclusions of the “Freeh Report” were supported by legitimate evidence. As seen here, even one of his own employees wrote "NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!" over the very first paragraph of the Freeh Group's internal work product about the supposed "Penn State Football Culture" causing the "cover up
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    Friday, November 9

    What is Barron hiding? It's called fraud

    The A7's comprehensive review of the Freeh Report will expose the fraud perpetrated by the inner circle of the PSU BOT, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, and the NCAA


    By
    Ray Blehar
    November 9, 2018, 7:10 AM EST


    For two prior football home game weekends, former Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustee (BOT) member Anthony Lubrano ran full page advertisements in the Centre Daily Times (CDT) asking PSU President Eric Barron to make public the findings of an exhaustive review of the Freeh Report that was conducted by seven of the alumni elected trustees (a.k.a., the A7).


    Just to make sure Barron didn’t somehow overlook his first request in the CDT, Lubrano also used a banner plane to get his message out, asking point blank: “Pres. Barron What Are You Hiding? Release the Report.”












    What is Barron hiding?


    In January 2015, President Barron provided a glimpse into his review of the Freeh Report and it confirmed that the report was not credible.


    “I'm not a fan of the report....Freeh steered everything as if he was a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case. Barron added that the report "very clearly paints a picture about every student, every faculty member, every staff member and every alum. And it's absurd. It's unwarranted. So from my viewpoint the Freeh report is not useful to make decisions."


    The last line of that passage is likely why we haven’t heard more of Barron’s review of the report. Barron’s statement that it wasn’t useful to make decisions flies in the face of the Trustees and administrators at the top of the University who threw away hundreds of millions of dollars based on Freeh’s faulty conclusions.


    To be clear, former President Rodney Erickson, Ken Frazier, and others weren’t bedazzled by Freeh’s bullshit or bullied by the NCAA into agreeing to draconian sanctions. They were in on this fraud from the start.


    It's not a stretch at all to call what happened a fraud. Here is the definition from Merriam Webster and, in my opinion, it fits Louis Freeh and his investigation perfectly.


    1a: DECEIT, TRICKERY specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
    b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
    2a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTER
    also : one who defrauds : CHEAT
    one that is not what it seems or is represented to be



    Barron, like Erickson before him, serves at the pleasure of the controlling majority of the PSU BOT. The decision to not release the A7's report appears to be nothing more than a cover-up of a multi-million dollar fraud.




    Sham investigation


    In November 2011, the PSU BOT publicly announced that FSS, headed by former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director, Louis Freeh, was hired to conduct an independent investigation and review into the alleged crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky which occurred on the PSU campus.


    For well over two years, Old Main and the inner circle of the PSU BOT misled the public about the independence of the investigation


    In 2014, emails and documents obtained by PSU Alumnus Ryan Bagwell and from the McCord/Corman case proved Freeh’s investigation was not independent in the least and was conjoined with the criminal investigation of the PA OAG, as well as investigations by the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference.


    But the bigger story here, so far mostly overlooked by the media, is that those documents also exposed that Louis Freeh/FSS wanted to be an investigative arm of the NCAA.





    While FSS was hired for the purpose of justifying the removals of former PSU President Graham Spanier and former legendary football coach, Joseph Paterno, the opportunity presented itself for FSS to use the PSU investigation as an audition of sorts, in an attempt to become an investigative arm of the NCAA.


    FSS welcomed input from the NCAA on how to proceed with its investigation of PSU officials. Similarly, emails and other documents show that then PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin was provided drafts of documents that were under attorney-client work product (privileged information) to the NCAA for its review.


    In short, everyone involved was collaborating with the NCAA from the beginning to “railroad” PSU officials. According to its Engagement Letter, FSS was directed to conclude that PSU officials were enabling Sandusky’s crimes on campus.


    FSS was a relatively new firm at the time it took on the PSU investigation and was looking to make a big splash to grow its business. The inner circle of the PSU BOT was willing to help make that happen. Emails and documents revealed that much time and effort was spent on developing the public relations strategy that would promote Freeh's work and destroy the University’s reputation -- while making “heroes” of certain BOT members.


    Make no mistake, the evidence in this case shows that the Freeh and the NCAA press conferences were done to promote the self-interests of the parties involved, not to serve the best interests of the public or prevent the abuse of children.




    The Freeh Report’s deceptions & unsupported conclusions


    The Freeh Report was/is a study in deception.


    The sensational conclusions in the report’s Executive Summary were actually refuted by the information in the body of the report and by the scant evidence included in the report's appendices. Its 267 pages in volume gave the report the appearance of thoroughness, but much of the report was simply repackaging and repetition of investigative information conducted by the PA Attorney General. Many of its so-called findings were not findings at all, but merely statements of fact that provided no supporting evidence for its conclusions.


    What the 267 pages accomplished, however, was to deter most people from diving into the details and, instead, work under the assumption that the details supported the key findings – which they didn’t.


    Most people wouldn’t do the deep dive, but most assuredly, some would. Freeh had a plan to prevent that.


    As evidence shows, there was a choreographed computer glitch to prevent the media from actually reading the Freeh Report prior to his grandstanding press conference in July 2012. Instead, the media was provided with his press conference transcript (that contained conclusions that were not contained in the Freeh Report).








    Without the benefit of reading the report, the media simply took Freeh’s statements that condemned PSU officials and the PSU community as valuing football over the welfare of children at face value (among other conclusions) and reported them as fact.


    Later that day, PSU’s former President, Rodney Erickson, and former Trustees Kenneth Frazier and Karen Peetz, publicly praised the Freeh investigation, even though none of them had thoroughly reviewed it. Their unapproved public statements were viewed by the NCAA as approval of the Freeh Report.


    Even though Erickson, Frazier, and Peetz knew that the PSU BOT didn't approve the Freeh Report, Erickson went on the record that he accepted it for the purposes of penalizing the football program (even though he knew, and the NCAA knew, the program had committed no NCAA violations).


    The NCAA was equally derelict in failing to review the report.


    NCAA Counsel, Don Remy, alleged that the NCAA's review of the Freeh Report wasn't necessary because PSU had reviewed and approved it.


    Emails and documents also confirmed the NCAA Executive Committee chairman, Ed Ray, did not read the Freeh Report. Instead, Ray advised the NCAA should take action based on his reading of an ESPN column written by Rick Reilly – and the vitriolic comments of Reilly's readers.


    NCAA President Mark Emmert, who purportedly read the report three times but failed to notice that many of the evidence exhibits were missing, also (initially) defended the Freeh Report as more thorough than anything his investigators could have done.


    Years later, as a defendant in a civil lawsuit and facing discovery that would fully expose the maneuvering that led to illegitimate sanctions against PSU, the NCAA backed off and called its enforcement action an “experiment.” After doing so, it restored football scholarships, repealed the ban on post-season play, and restored Coach Paterno’s victory record, while keeping some other sanctions in place.


    If there was any evidence at all that Joe Paterno actually put the football program over the welfare of children, the NCAA would have kept in place the sanction of vacating 111 wins, as it did the $60 million in fines, but it didn’t.




    Also, after years of publicly defending the Freeh Report as if it were one of his own children, former Trustee Kenneth Frazier’s December 2015 deposition revealed that he believed the findings “weren’t as irrefutable as some people think they are.”


    In the Spanier case, Freeh alleged that 23 of
    his conclusions were opinions, not facts.
    As surprising as Frazier’s reversal was, it paled in comparison to those made by Louis Freeh.


    In May 2016, the former FBI Director argued that 23 of his conclusions about Spanier and other PSU officials were merely opinions. Some of the most damning conclusions that drove public outrage were among those 23, including that Spanier and other PSU officials: exhibited a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims", exhibited a "striking lack of empathy", and "failed to adequately report and respond to the actions of a serial sexual predator."


    As the evidence shows, those who vehemently defended the Freeh Report’s fraudulent conclusions, including Louis Freeh himself, were forced to back down once they were before a court of law and had to offer more than media talking points.
    https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2018/11/...w1fWR8AvhkxBq8
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    J R Snedden (@JRSnedden)
    2/11/19, 6:34 PM
    "The Report Penn State Doesn’t Want You To See” (Part 1) pic.twitter.com/nFBEH2tH4a



    Monday, February 11, 2019

    Penn State Cover Up Ends With Leak Of Louis Freeh's Top-Secret Report Card; He Flunked And Penn State Wants Their $8.3 Million Back












    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    hursday, February 14

    Freeh: No Evidence of Protecting "JP or the Football Program"

    The alumni-elected trustees report confirmed that Freeh and his team knew their findings were on shaky ground -- but they chose to align with the prevailing narrative instead of following the evidence

    By
    Ray Blehar
    February 14, 2019, 11:40 AM EST

    After WJAC's report on leaked alumni-elected trustees critique of the Freeh Report, the true "deniers" quickly appeared on the scene to denounce and criticize the report.

    Mark Dambly and Eric Barron stated the report merely reflects the opinions of its authors, while Louis Freeh's statement accused the authors of "blindly disregarding the incontrovertible facts."

    Given the speed of the response from key "denier" Freeh, it was obvious he responded without reading the alumni report. In fact, his rebuttal states he hadn't obtained a copy of it.

    As it turns out, Freeh will be surprised to learn he is the alumni report's star witness.

    No Evidence of Protecting "JP or the Football Program"

    Page 29 of the alumni report refers to a late June 2012 discussion of the draft Freeh Report, where Freeh commented:

    "I understand -- there is a stronger case to be made for "protecting the university" than JP or the 'Football Program' -- which is never really articulated in any of the evidence I've seen."


    As history shows, the (unsupported) finding of a "culture of reverence to the football program" smashed the University's reputation, resulted in sanctioning by the NCAA, and cost PSU hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, legal fees, and settlement claims.

    How did that happen?

    The alumni-elected trustee report shows that former trustee, Ken Frazier, who was overseeing the Freeh investigation as co-chair of the PSU Board of Trustees Special Investigations Task Force, sent a July 23, 2012 ESPN column to the Freeh team that may have had undue influence on shifting the focus to football. The column, written by Howard Bryant, speculated that PSU and others didn't report Sandusky to protect Paterno and the football program.

    Freeh and his team discussed the ESPN column and how it fit with public expectations to put the focus on Paterno and the football program for enabling Sandusky crimes.

    However, there was push back from within the ranks about assigning motivations to the actions of PSU officials "since only the principals truly know" (and they hadn't been interviewed). Another team member added, "I still maintain we should not say anything that we can't support."

    Focus on Scant Evidence, Not Fact Checking

    Apparently, the time frame from the end of the trial (when Bryant's column was published) and the release of the Freeh Report was used to put emphasis on highlighting the scant information to indict Paterno and the football program instead of verifying that the information in the draft report was accurate.

    You know, things like making sure the report accurately reflected what just transpired at the trial.

    At Freeh's press conference in July 2012, he commented that the football culture existed from the top to bottom, citing the janitors "were afraid of being fired for reporting a powerful football coach." And amazingly, Freeh doubled down on the janitor incident in his rebuttal to the alumni report, stating that it demonstrated the culture problem.

    The alumni elected trustees' report simply blows the janitor incident out of the water.

    It reveals that 8 janitors were interviewed by Freeh's team including the three that were present during the incident. All three who were present that night were consistent in that they encouraged Janitor A (Calhoun) to report the incident.

    As it turns out, the Freeh Report's theme "of fear of being fired" relied on a single statement from a janitor -- who was not even present that evening.

    As notpsu.blogspot.com demonstrated, the Freeh Report's version of the janitor incident was not consistent with facts provided during the Sandusky trial.



    Nor were his inflammatory press conference statements regarding it.

    “The janitors, that’s the tone on the bottom. Ok. These are the employees of Penn State who clean the locker rooms in the Lasch building where young boys are being raped. They witness, what is probably, in the report, the most horrific rape, that’s described.”

    The testimony and verdicts from the Sandusky trial were clear that no one was anally raped in the Lasch Building. Moreover, there was no evidence presented at the trial that any victim alleged being subjected to an anal rape on the PSU campus, let alone the football facilities.

    The evidence surrounding the janitor incident exemplifies that it was Freeh who was, and still is, "blindly ignoring" the facts.

    Next: Fact-Checking Freeh's Rebuttal

    Posted by Ray Blehar at Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest




    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by winningstreak View Post
    I just finished reading the Freeh Report. If you have read the the 144 page report I would like to see your reaction on Paterno. I can understand why his family is upset.

    Although he could have done more because of his status and am surprised that he was included in this report. The Penn State administration fucked up by not reporting this to child welfare.(obvious especially in hindsight).

    I have been teaching in a Pennsylvania high school for 13 years. I was always told that I must report any abuse or suspected abuse to a counselor, social worker or administration or I could lose my job.(Similar to Clery Act) I was told once I reported this to one of these people that I have met my obligation. I also could lose my job if I did not follow chain of command and called child welfare myself.

    I know that I am not Joe Paterno and I do not have the power that he had but to me it seems that he told his administration what McQueery reported to him. When he reported to Tim Curley, the AD and Paterno's boss he met his obligation under the Clery Act.

    As Paterno said he regretted that he did not do more. Morally he should have done more but I still find it hard to believe that he was knowingly protecting a pedofile. From 1966 until 2011 we have been told how he stressed honor and integrity and doing things the right way. Protecting a pedofile, one of if not the worst crime imaginable, would make you the scum of the earth and almost as bad as the perpetrator. Unfortunately we may never know what Paterno knew unless he kept files or wrote a journal.
    You didn't believe it then, and you were correct . The Freeh report was a complete work of fiction. Joe Paterno's legacy of success with honor needs to be restored, and the statue put back up on campus.

    Of course the mental gymnastics some people still put themselves thru to try and understand how Jerry, a dufus who couldn't even handle a simple Bob Costas question, suddenly turned into a criminal mastermind able to hide these horrific acts for decades is still kind of silly . The reason is Jerry is innocent .

    Sunday, February 17

    Freeh's Desperate Arguments About the A7 Report



    Louis Freeh's arguments in rebutting the A7 report appear to be the act of a desperate man who will stop at nothing to defend his reputation and the indefensible findings of the Freeh Report.
    By
    Ray Blehar
    February 17, 2019, 10:07 AM EST

    Former FBI Director Louis Freeh's statement regarding the leaked report by the Penn State University's (PSU) alumni-elected trustees (A7) contains arguments that fabricate information, dishonestly characterize or otherwise ignore the evidence on the record, and suspend the law and logic in order to desperately defend his unearned reputation and the dubious findings of the Freeh Report.

    Freeh desperation is also demonstrated by the frequency of ad hominem attacks on those who dare to criticize his report or its findings.

    There is no better example of this than in paragraph 10, where Freeh calls alumni "deniers" for their well-reasoned argument that PSU officials had no reason to suspect that Jerry Sandusky was a serial child molester after he was found not to be a danger to children by child protective services (CPS) and found (by police and the district attorney) not to have committed crimes when he showered with a boy in 1998.

    Shockingly, Freeh's argument in paragraph 11 eliminates
    a citizen's rights to due process rights and contends a person is guilty despite insufficient evidence to support a charge. And further contends that Sandusky was a known pedophile in 1998 despite all evidence to the contrary.




    The entire statement is a shining example of how Freeh's findings were infected with hindsight bias and completed disregarded the legal processes and requirements involved in an investigation of suspected child sexual abuse.


    Centre County Children and Youth Services had the legal responsibility -- and its employees had the requisite training -- to detect child abuse and to protect children in the community from harm, not PSU. Moreover, the local police have the legal responsibility to protect the general public from crimes. Again, neither found sufficient grounds in 1998 to believe that Sandusky was a danger to children or the public and took no action in that regard.
    Freeh's argument about 1998 relies on the removal of the right to due process

    Freeh's attempt to shift blame away from the public servants were paid with tax dollars to provide protection and put the blame on PSU officials was a dishonest act for the sole purpose of creating an output that the media was expecting. The Freeh Source materials obtained by the A7 prove that.

    Despite those well-known facts from 1998, Freeh continued to defend his report's suggestion that PSU officials should have banned Sandusky from the football facilities at the close of that investigation. He illogically wrote:











    The suggestion to ban Sandusky from the facilities in 1998 was a completely unreasonable given that he was employed as the defensive coordinator of the football team and needed access to the football facilities to do his job. Note that the Freeh Report, even with abundant hindsight bias, did not recommend Sandusky be fired over the 1998 investigation and stated that his 1999 retirement was not related to prior year's child abuse investigation.


    Freeh then resorts to fabricating evidence to justify that PSU should have enforced a ban on Sandusky bringing children to bowl games. Testimony from the Sandusky trial confirms that Victim 4 never even alleged he was sexually assaultedwhile at the 1999 Alamo Bowl. In addition, Sandusky was never charged with a crime in the state of Texas -- the location of the Alamo Bowl. Nor was he charged with violating the Mann Act (transporting a person for the purpose of sexual exploitation).

    Not a single fact confirms Freeh's version of events.

    Trial testimony and verdicts confirmed that Sandusky committed his crimes in a variety of locations and that the majority (60 percent) of the victims were not subjected to assaults in the PSU football facilities.

    The fact of the matter is that 90% of offenders, like Sandusky, are acquaintance offenders to not use "lures" to attract victims. Lures are used by offenders who have no prior relationship to the child (i.e., the "stanger danger" offender).

    Freeh's arguments here are completely misguided.


    False Claims About Freeh Report's Use in Court Cases



    Given the former FBI director's dishonesty about the facts of the Sandusky case, it comes as no surprise that he falsely claimed that the Freeh Report findings were used repeatedly in criminal and civil trials. The evidence reveals that his report's findings, at best, supported the Clery Act investigation, but was not used in other cases.
    .







    The truth is that no findings the Freeh Report or even investigative information from his inquiry were used as material evidence in the Sandusky case, the Curley, Schultz and Spanier cases, and the McQueary Whistle blower and defamation cases, and Sandusky's appeal. Read the full analysis here.
    Freeh's also attempts to credit the courts with upholding the Freeh Report in the Paterno lawsuit and Spanier defamationare hollow at best, given both lawsuits were dismissed before a decision was rendered. Freeh claiming the Paterno dismissal as a validation of his report is quite farcical considering that the Corman v. NCAA lawsuit eviscerated nearly all of the sanctions that were based on the Freeh Report. In addition, prior to the dismissal of the Spanier lawsuit, Freeh's attorneys submitted legal motions that 23 statements in the Freeh Report concerning Spanier merely reflected the former FBI director's opinions.


    Freeh is correct however, that his report identified many of the deficiencies in implementing the Clery Act at PSU. However his report's specific finding of an atmosphere of non-compliance by the football program was specious given that noncompliance was campus wide at the time and was a problem in all departments.




    Confusion about Culture

    Freeh's arguments about the PSU culture appear to be almost maniacal, as the first argument in Paragraph 6 is contradicted by the second argument in Paragraph 7.

    In the first instance, Freeh inexplicably argues that the "culture" finding in his report was not unique to PSU and then uses the janitor incident and fear of Paterno as evidence of the culture issue. Not only was the second argument contradictory to the first, but was also completely inaccurate based on the evidence from the Sandusky trial.

    Paragraph 6


    Paragraph 7


    The Commonwealth presented just one janitor as a witness at the Sandusky trial -- not two as the Freeh Report (and this statement) contend. Ronald Petrosky was the lone janitor to testify and none of the quotes above reflect his testimony. As a result, Freeh's best example of the culture of PSU is unsupported by the evidence.


    If none of the testimony in the the latest statement (and on page 65 of the Freeh Report) were part of the Sandusky trial, then it logically follows that a Pennsylvania appellate court did NOTfind that this testimony was properly introduced.

    Is this a case of Freeh being ignorant to the facts or is it a case that he believes he can say anything and get away with it because of his reputation?

    It's the latter.

    Freeh uses his previous employment as a judge and former FBI director, positions of public trust, to fool the public into believing his word can be trusted in the very same manner Sandusky used his reputation as a do-gooder to trick boys into believing he could be trusted as a father figure.

    The results were the same.

    Both groups have literally gotten screwed.
    https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2019/02/freehs-desperate-arguments-about-a7.html?fbclid=IwAR3iDgyD8isybwSug6mpCqLdBU8URZZRQuPgKf0M1eaMirUrcTpVbhUPu2s





    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    Big Trial (@BigTrialBlog)
    2/22/19, 9:45 AM
    Sandusky's Lawyer, Former NCIS Special Agent Snedden To Speak

    FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2019


    Press Conference In Happy Valley

    image: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O9Nj256e_...27.26%2BAM.png
    On Monday at 10 a.m., Al Lindsay, Jerry Sandusky's appeals lawyer, will talk to the media about his reaction to the report of seven Penn State trustees on the "flawed methodology and conclusions" of the Louis Freeh Report.

    "Of course we are gratified that somebody in a position of authority has challenged the Freeh Report, which, of course, we believe was flawed in many ways," Lindsay said in a press release. "I must reluctantly state, however, that there is a significant flaw in the A7 Report. The Report accepts as gospel that Jerry Sandusky actually did these things. So much of what is wrong in the Freeh Report and the A7 response, is that we are operating under that paradigm. Of course, it is our position from day one that Jerry Sandusky is absolutely innocent of the charges and was convicted of the various counts only by a very flawed criminal trial."

    Also appearing with Lindsay will be John Snedden, a former NCIS special agent who conducted a contemporaneous but previously unknown federal investigation on the Penn State campus for six months in 2012 and found no official cover up.

    In the press release, Snedden described previous investigations at Penn State as "politically motivated, agenda-driven, and collusive."

    "What does that previously unknown concurrent and independent federal investigation have to say about this whole mess?" Snedden said in the press release. "Monday at 10 a.m. be there."

    The press conference will be held at The Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, 1357 East College Avenue, State College PA.

    Also appearing at the press conference will be Ralph Cipriano of bigtrial.net. Cipriano will talk about how confidential documents show that the entire board of trustees at Penn State paid out $118 million to 36 alleged victims of Sandusky -- an average of $3.3 million each -- without having those alleged victims questioned by lawyers, forensic psychiatrists or detectives, or subjected to polygraph tests or criminal background checks.

    "Easy money," is how Big Trial has described the payouts at Penn State.

    Lindsay presently has an appeal before the state Supreme Court on Sandusky's behalf filed under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. "Hopefully, we will be granted a new trial," Lindsay said.

    The press conference caps some recent new developments in the so-called Penn State sex scandal. The report done by the trustees on Freeh was recently leaked. The leaking of that report, and perhaps the contents as well, are expected to dominate a meeting of the full board of trustees at Penn State today.

    Meanwhile, former Penn State president Graham Spanier, who was the subject of Snedden's investigation, yesterday lost his appeal to the state Supreme Court of his conviction of one count of endangering the welfare of a child. As a result of the appeal, Spanier may be headed to jail to serve a sentence of two months, followed by two months of home confinement.



    POSTED BY RALPH CIPRIANO AT 9:40 AM



    Read more at
    http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/02/pres...Q4fzSVDw07j.99
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    'This Is Not Going to Go Away.' Sandusky's Attorney Discusses Continued Pursuit of New Trial, Alumni Trustee Report

    by Geoff Rushton on February 25, 2019 3:22 PM





    Click photo for gallery

    Jerry Sandusky's post-conviction attorney said he will continue to pursue a new trial for his client and that if a new one is granted, he believes he will prove Sandusky's innocence.
    Attorney Al Lindsay spoke at a press conference Monday at the Country Inn & Suites in State College, where he was joined by a former federal investigator, a longtime colleague and friend of Sandusky and an investigative journalist.
    The press conference was spurred by a few recent developments. Earlier this month, Pennsylvania Superior Court granted a re-sentencing for Sandusky, but denied his request for a new trial for the former Penn State football assistant coach, who was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison after being convicted in 2012 on 45 counts related to child sexual abuse. Lindsay said he will now petition the state Supreme Court for a new trial, and if that is denied will take it to federal court.
    "Anybody who thinks this thing can be suppressed and suppressed and is going to go away, I have two words for you: dream on," Lindsay said. "This is not going to go away. Thirty years from now there will be books written about this [asking] ‘How did our system go so wrong?’"
    Last week, meanwhile, seven Penn State alumni trustees' review of the Freeh Reportwas leaked and offered a highly critical look at the university-commissioned investigation and conclusions of former FBI director Louis Freeh's team.
    Lindsay praised the report for its insight but said it was flawed because it accepted the premise that Sandusky committed the crimes for which he was convicted. The report, he said, refers to the concept of a "pillar of the community pedophile," who uses his stature to prey on children and dupe other adults.
    "To be that type of pedophile, you have to be a very conniving, secretive person," Lindsay said. "In the report, they state themselves that Jerry Sandusky is like a big kid. Those of us who know Jerry well, the idea that he could keep anything secret is ridiculous. This guy is as open as you could possibly imagine... Too many people know Jerry Sandusky and they’ve been intimidated and cowed and [are] afraid to say this is impossible that he could have committed these crimes."
    The alumni trustees' report said Freeh's team was compromised by collaboration with the state attorney general's office and the NCAA and ignored critical evidence to conclude that former President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, Senior Vice President Gary Schultz and Coach Joe Paterno knew about Sandusky's actions and covered them up.
    The accusations against Paterno and the administrators stemmed from former football assistant Mike McQueary's 2001 report of seeing Sandusky with a boy in a locker room shower. That incident also was a key piece of the prosecution's case against Sandusky. The former administrators said they had not been told of sexual contact, and McQueary has testified that while he believes what he saw was sexual, he did not explicitly describe it as rape, as was stated in a grand jury presentment.
    "We like to say McQueary is the Christmas tree upon which all the ornaments were hung," Lindsay said. "[He] is very, very vulnerable to good cross-examination because there were so many different versions of the McQueary testimony."
    Lindsay criticized Sandusky's trial attorney, Joe Amendola, for numerous alleged missteps, actions which have formed the basis of Sandusky's post-conviction relief appeal. Among those, Lindsay said Amendola handed off cross-examination of McQueary at trial at the last minute to co-counsel Karl Rominger.
    "Karl Rominger had an hour to prepare that cross-examination, the most significant cross-examination maybe in the history of American jurisprudence," Lindsay said. "That’s the kind of ineffective trial counsel Mr. Sandusky had in this case."
    The boy at the center of the shower incident was not identified at trial, but Lindsay has argued throughout appeals that he did come forward and first said nothing happened, then retained a lawyer and received a monetary settlement from the university. Lindsay said both prosecutors and Amendola agreed not to identify him at trial.
    The alumni trustees' report cites former NCIS agent John Snedden's investigation to determine if Spanier should maintain high-level federal security clearance for potential government work. Snedden, who spoke on Monday, found no wrongdoing by Spanier and has been critical of Freeh's investigation as well.
    But, Lindsay said, the alumni trustees report does not note that Snedden's investigation concluded Sandusky had done nothing criminal.
    "There was no cover up. There was no conspiracy," Snedden said. "There was nothing to cover up."
    Snedden said his investigation led him to believe that Freeh's report was pre-determined "to satisfy his clients and handlers," and was used to justify decisions made by the Penn State Board of Trustees.
    "It is abundantly clear now Freeh was not interested in any exculpatory information as it would adversely impact his already written pre-determined conclusions," said Snedden, who also questioned McQueary's credibility as a witness and the political motivations of the attorney general's office and former Gov. Tom Corbett.
    Former Penn State assistant coach Dick Anderson, who worked alongside Sandusky for decades, described his own experience of being interviewed by Freeh's team, which told him the interview would not be recorded and he could not have access to any notes taken. He said he was met with leading statements such as "We hear that Joe Paterno runs everything at this university." Anderson said the perception of Paterno having an outsize or improper influence on university operations was far from the truth.
    Anderson added that while he was not personally threatened or bullied by Freeh investigators, he knew many others who were, some to the point of tears.
    "Louie Freeh was deceptive and dishonest," Anderson said. "He hurt many people and a great institution with a false narrative."
    Investigative reporter Ralph Cipriano, a former Los Angeles Times and Philadelphia Inquirer writer who has covered the Sandusky case in depth on BigTrial.net, said the alumni trustees report "just scratches the surface of the scandal behind the scandal at Penn State."
    That, he said, is the university's payment of $118 million to 36 people who said they were abused by Sandusky. Those claimants were not interviewed, deposed or subjected to background checks, he said.
    Cipriano cited his conversations with a former FBI agent who privately investigated more than 150 abuse cases for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and noted several "red flags" in the Penn State case. He said those included that for the 36 claims of abuse over four decades, there were no contemporaneous complaints, that stories changed frequently and that much-criticized repressed memory therapy seemed to be used to recall the incidents.
    He also said that Sandusky's medical records show multiple ailments and genetic conditions that would make it unlikely Sandusky would be sexually aggressive.
    Cipriano said "we in the media often get sex abuse wrong," and that the Sandusky case has been "a journalistic disaster."
    Lindsay said the case in the media was built on the earliest stories and that he challenges journalists to look into it more closely.
    "This is one heck of a story about how all of this happened," Lindsay said. "My deal is to challenge the media. OK that was a story. You built on a narrative. But we need to start a new narrative, that the whole doggone thing is preposterous. It’s a horror story and it deserves attention." http://www.statecollege.com/news/loc...eport,1479399/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    RX Junior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,479
    3/9/19, 9:34 PM
    Iconic Former College Football Head Coach, Assistant Coach and player: “The Cat is Out of the Bag” Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog: Dick Anderson: 'The Cat Is Out Of The Bag

    http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/the-cat-is-out-of-bag.html

    Dick Anderson: 'The Cat Is Out Of The Bag'




    Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/the-...EZ9Km4DXyxS.99
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •