The latest Penn State related piece at Ralph Cipriano's Big Trial Blog:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/08/easy-money-in-sandusky-case-penn-state.html
http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/08/easy-money-in-sandusky-case-penn-state.html
Cipriano: Easy Money In The Sandusky Case: Penn State Not Minding The Store
- Thread starter RussianEagle
- Start date
I really don't know how the BOT could have screwed up the JS situation more if they tried. Perhaps they did try. It is mind-numbingly stupid.
Last edited:
With leadership like this, what could go wrong?
"I expected facts," she repeated, but stated that instead of facts, the university got "editorializing" from Freeh. As well as a "kind of dramatization," Peetz said, when Freeh faulted the university's football culture for the sex abuse scandal.
Peetz also stated that she had no idea until she read the Freeh Report that the NCAA was relying on it to punish the university.
"Were you aware that they [the NCAA] were using the Freeh Report as a factual basis for the imposition . . . of sanctions?" Engelmyer asked.
"No," Peetz said.
"When did you first find out?" the lawyer asked. "Was it when you read it?"
"Yes," she said.
"I expected facts," she repeated, but stated that instead of facts, the university got "editorializing" from Freeh. As well as a "kind of dramatization," Peetz said, when Freeh faulted the university's football culture for the sex abuse scandal.
Peetz also stated that she had no idea until she read the Freeh Report that the NCAA was relying on it to punish the university.
"Were you aware that they [the NCAA] were using the Freeh Report as a factual basis for the imposition . . . of sanctions?" Engelmyer asked.
"No," Peetz said.
"When did you first find out?" the lawyer asked. "Was it when you read it?"
"Yes," she said.
Last edited:
I dont know how she was not aware of that. I remember reading on this board, that the NCAA requires the school to investigate violations first and report back to the NCAA, and then the NCAA may or may not investigate. And I remember PSU saying to the NCAA that they were hiring Louie and would they take his findings ans their (PSU's ) investigation into what happened, of course the NCAA agreed to that.
As far as the Penn State case was concerned, Rossiter was surprised to hear that apparently not one of the 36 alleged victims supposedly told anyone about the attacks when they allegedly occurred -- a period that spanned nearly four decades.
If a pedophile was running loose for that long, "You would think someone would pick it up," Rossiter said. "Either at school or the parents or a close friend."
If a pedophile was running loose for that long, "You would think someone would pick it up," Rossiter said. "Either at school or the parents or a close friend."
Most of these "victims" are much more deserving of jail time than Jerry Sandusky. Absolute scum of the Earth.
They sleep at night only because they've told themselves it wasn't their lies that put him there. It was all the others - like the lawyers and prosecutors told them.
So Lubert didn't think C/S/S committed any crimes, but had no problem giving out millions who supposedly were victimized because of C/S/S crimes?
Karen Peetz Lie? Kinda like " I really don't even know if there is a Freeh engagement contract"......
At least I forgot about this in 2014
How many firearms or bags of weed has "Trooper Leiter" seen placed at crime scenes over the years I wonder? Hopefully none, but with this mentality, well I sort of doubt it.
While Swisher-Houtz smoked a cigarette outside, the two state troopers talked with Houtz’s lawyer, unaware that the tape-recorder was still running. On tape, the troopers talked about how it had taken months to coax rape details out of Aaron Fisher, "Victim No. 1" in the Sandusky case.
“First, it was, 'Yeah, he would rub my shoulders;' then it took repetition and repetition and finally, we got to the point where he [Fisher] would tell us what happened,” Leiter said. The troopers talked about how they were sure Swisher-Houtz was another rape victim, and they discussed how to get more details out of him.
Andreozzi had a helpful suggestion: “Can we at some point say to him, ‘Listen, we have interviewed other kids and other kids have told us that there was intercourse and that they have admitted this, you know. Is there anything else you want to tell us?’”
“Yep, we do that with all the other kids,” Leiter said.
When Swisher-Houtz returned, Leiter told him, “I just want to let you know you are not the first victim we have spoken to.” The trooper told him about nine adults the police had already interviewed, and said, “It is amazing. If this was a book, you would have been repeating, word for word, pretty much what a lot of people have already told us.”
At that point, the troopers had only interviewed three alleged victims who claimed they’d been abused, and only one – Aaron Fisher – had alleged prolonged abuse.
While Swisher-Houtz smoked a cigarette outside, the two state troopers talked with Houtz’s lawyer, unaware that the tape-recorder was still running. On tape, the troopers talked about how it had taken months to coax rape details out of Aaron Fisher, "Victim No. 1" in the Sandusky case.
“First, it was, 'Yeah, he would rub my shoulders;' then it took repetition and repetition and finally, we got to the point where he [Fisher] would tell us what happened,” Leiter said. The troopers talked about how they were sure Swisher-Houtz was another rape victim, and they discussed how to get more details out of him.
Andreozzi had a helpful suggestion: “Can we at some point say to him, ‘Listen, we have interviewed other kids and other kids have told us that there was intercourse and that they have admitted this, you know. Is there anything else you want to tell us?’”
“Yep, we do that with all the other kids,” Leiter said.
When Swisher-Houtz returned, Leiter told him, “I just want to let you know you are not the first victim we have spoken to.” The trooper told him about nine adults the police had already interviewed, and said, “It is amazing. If this was a book, you would have been repeating, word for word, pretty much what a lot of people have already told us.”
At that point, the troopers had only interviewed three alleged victims who claimed they’d been abused, and only one – Aaron Fisher – had alleged prolonged abuse.
Queuing Stormin' Normin' in 1, 2....
I think they did. I am pretty sure the insurance company, in essence, made that claim and won. But the BOT is pretty much bullet proof. The courts sided with them in sealing a lot of information. At the same time, when PSU signed the consent decree, it was like pouring cement on the grave. Others haven't been able to get beyond having standing. Paternos held off suing PSU, and PSU is the BOT. Can't sue the BOT unless you sue PSU, for the most part.
Wait a minute, Barry, are you saying that Ira didn't deserve his unanimous victory to lead the BOT after doing such a great job with the payouts?
IDK...my guess is that they'd lack "standing" and would be hard pressed to identify any damages to them individually or as a group. Did anybody get a pay cut or fired because they graduated from PSU?
Perhaps the local merchants....but if I recall, the university was exempt. i recall someone using an analogy that the state closing an exit that cost a merchant near that exit money could not sue for some reason or another.
Dayum, Kenny Feinberg earned his fee for putting lipstick on the pig. His law firm did about as close to nothing as there is to vet the veracity of the claims. They did have fairly extensive discussions. over very expensive meals (the tab for which PSU picked up plus a 30% handling fee), about the amounts to be paid, but that was it.
Last edited:
officers typically do...its part of their 'package'. I don't have a golden parachute either. regardless, companies often do this so they can settle before the issue goes to court and becomes public...then the settlement comes in a non-disclosure agreement with substantial penalties.
Either you aren't high enough in the pecking order or you need to re-negotiate your terms of employment if you're not covered by your company's D & O.
Somebody forward Cipriano's article to Roxine. Not that I'd be interested in hearing her opinion but I'm wondering if anything can make me sicker than Ralph's well-researched story and truthful story. Still can't believe they gave a Pulitzer to that girl with the chubby hiney from the Harrisburg Patriot News.
The university hired Ken Feinberg to facilitate settlements with the victims and their attorneys. It was Feinberg who resolved claims in the BP oil spill, and VT massacre among other high profile settlement case and while Feinberg acted as a facilitator, he had no authority to compel any settlement. His methodology for coming up with individual settlement amounts remains a big mystery to outsiders.
PMA Insurance then hired the law firm of Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck to review the claims/settlements and as you might expect, the firm came away with a determination that the settlements were high or extremely high.
Depends what side of the coin you're on in determining whether the settlements were fair or in some cases more than fair.
Where is LaJolla reprimanding Ralph for having the audacity to question the victims?
On Ignore? I assumed everyone likely did that by now.
PSU needed an integrity monitor.....but not in the athletic dept.
Another great blog post from Ralph Capriano. In terms of being able to unwrap some of the lingering questions that surround the Penn State/Sandusky fiasco, Ralph is light years ahead of other reporters who are covering the story in the local/national media and blogosphere IMO.
Penn State has paid out over $200 million to 36 claimants without rigorously vetted any of them! Penn State was indeed a gravy train!
Lawyer Eric Anderson who represented the insurance carrier said “It appears as though Penn State made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals,"
In his report, Anderson decried “the absence of documentation” in the claims, saying in many cases there was “no signed affidavit, statement or other means of personal verification of the information which I reviewed. do not know why so many of the cases were settled for such high sums of money,”
Jack Rossiter is a former FBI agent who investigated over 150 cases of alleged CSA and was a private detective hired by the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia to defend against alleged CSA claims. In a situation involving national publicity, like the Jerry Sandusky case, Rossiter said, you'd have to be on guard for criminals and drug addicts coming forward to seek a pay day. "With nattional headlines and all these people lining up, you have to be more skeptical" of the claims, Rossiter said.
"Obviously, you have to do a detailed interview" with each alleged victim, he said, asking questions such as, "Who did you tell, when did you tell them? And who can corroborate your story?"
"That's what you do, you investigate," Rossiter said. "The key," he said, is to find corroboration for the victim's story, to see if their stories hold up.
As far as the Penn State case was concerned, Rossiter was surprised to hear that apparently not one of the 36 alleged victims supposedly told anyone about the attacks when they allegedly occurred -- a period that spanned nearly four decades.
If a pedophile was running loose for that long, "You would think someone would pick it up," Rossiter said. "Either at school or the parents or a close friend."
It is remarkable to me that NONE of the 36 claimants told anyone contemporaneously that they had been a victim of CSA. In other words, Penn State paid $200 million without irrefutable evidence that Sandusky had committed CSA!
There should have been iron-clad evidence, yet there is none. The strongest evidence that exists IMO are v1's testimony, v4's testimony, the 2000/2001 report by Mike McQueary (v2), and the 1998 incident (v6). I don't believe any of these items on their own constitute iron-clad evidence especially when you consider all of the exculpatory evidence that exists to the contrary.
Penn State has paid out over $200 million to 36 claimants without rigorously vetted any of them! Penn State was indeed a gravy train!
Lawyer Eric Anderson who represented the insurance carrier said “It appears as though Penn State made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals,"
In his report, Anderson decried “the absence of documentation” in the claims, saying in many cases there was “no signed affidavit, statement or other means of personal verification of the information which I reviewed. do not know why so many of the cases were settled for such high sums of money,”
Jack Rossiter is a former FBI agent who investigated over 150 cases of alleged CSA and was a private detective hired by the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia to defend against alleged CSA claims. In a situation involving national publicity, like the Jerry Sandusky case, Rossiter said, you'd have to be on guard for criminals and drug addicts coming forward to seek a pay day. "With nattional headlines and all these people lining up, you have to be more skeptical" of the claims, Rossiter said.
"Obviously, you have to do a detailed interview" with each alleged victim, he said, asking questions such as, "Who did you tell, when did you tell them? And who can corroborate your story?"
"That's what you do, you investigate," Rossiter said. "The key," he said, is to find corroboration for the victim's story, to see if their stories hold up.
As far as the Penn State case was concerned, Rossiter was surprised to hear that apparently not one of the 36 alleged victims supposedly told anyone about the attacks when they allegedly occurred -- a period that spanned nearly four decades.
If a pedophile was running loose for that long, "You would think someone would pick it up," Rossiter said. "Either at school or the parents or a close friend."
It is remarkable to me that NONE of the 36 claimants told anyone contemporaneously that they had been a victim of CSA. In other words, Penn State paid $200 million without irrefutable evidence that Sandusky had committed CSA!
There should have been iron-clad evidence, yet there is none. The strongest evidence that exists IMO are v1's testimony, v4's testimony, the 2000/2001 report by Mike McQueary (v2), and the 1998 incident (v6). I don't believe any of these items on their own constitute iron-clad evidence especially when you consider all of the exculpatory evidence that exists to the contrary.
Last edited:
When Feinberg & Co took the engagement they expected to follow procedural norms similar to what Messrs. Anderson and Rossiter outlined. They reviewed their MO with PSU and were told to dispense with it, the details were unnecessary. When asked what PSU wanted in the way of evidentiary matter, they got no answer. When they reviewed the initial monetary demands, many of which they believed were excessive based on similar cases, with PSU they were astonished that PSU was unphazed and expressed no objections.
When did she say this? To this day, the BOT has actively hindered any attempts to challenge the narrative....even from within its own ranks!
The blog post is long. I believe that Peetz made the remarks in conjunction with the PMA insurance case. Almost half way down the post is a picture of Peetz with the following text.
As part of their concerted effort to turn the page on the Sandusky scandal, Penn State's board of trustees decided not to publicly contest any of the findings of the Freeh Report. Even though behind closed doors, some trustees were highly critical of the work done by the former FBI director.
On Jan. 14, 2015, Karen Peetz, former president of the board of trustees during the Sandusky scandal, was deposed by lawyer Engelmyer in the insurance case.
In response to questions from Engelmeyer, Peetz criticized Freeh for an "overreach" when he accused Penn State officials of concealing Sandusky's conduct, and having a "striking lack of apathy" (note: I believe they meant empathy) for victims.
"His spin on the situation," was how Peetz characterized Freeh's criticisms. When the university hired Freeh, Peetz testified, she expected "nothing but the facts."
"I expected facts," she repeated, but stated that instead of facts, the university got "editorializing" from Freeh. As well as a "kind of dramatization," Peetz said, when Freeh faulted the university's football culture for the sex abuse scandal.
Peetz also stated that she had no idea until she read the Freeh Report that the NCAA was relying on it to punish the university.
"Were you aware that they [the NCAA] were using the Freeh Report as a factual basis for the imposition . . . of sanctions?" Engelmyer asked.
"No," Peetz said.
"When did you first find out?" the lawyer asked. "Was it when you read it?"
"Yes," she said.
But, according to Peetz, rather than take issue with Freeh, a majority of trustees decided to roll over.
"We made a decision not to pick apart the Freeh Report, thinking that that wasn't going to be that helpful to moving forward," Peetz testified.
She added, "There's a group of trustees who would like to do that
Thanks. And now that I've read the article, both Peetz and Lubert are saying that they don't think C/S/S are guilty of anything more than poor judgment. So why hasn't the narrative been changed? Why are they still fighting to keep people from challenging it?
"What do you think of your guys now?"
To this day, I can hear Ira utter those words.
July 12, 2012. Louis Freeh had completed his performance on the world’s stage. The Board, University Administrators and staff and the outside PR firm Edelman gathered in the conference room at the hotel in Scranton, PA
I entered the room and walked toward Ryan McCombie who was standing in a corner not far from Ira Lubert. Ira saw me and then uttered those words.
Well I think the world of “your guys.”
I believe I I know Tim Curley well. He is as honest as the day is long. I will always think the best of him.
I knew Gary and Graham far less but I have come to know them much better.
Of course, we all know Joe even if you never met him.
None of them were guilty of any crimes in my opinion based on my six years of reading, research and review.
Penn State, stop hiding the truth. release to the public the Report of the 7 Plaintiff Trustees provided to the Board on June 29, 2018.
Anthony- not sure if you are following Ray Blehar's posts here. But he claims there is evidence that McQueary incident was reported to Tom Harmon and to CYS. Of course that doesn't reconcile with Tim and Gary pleading guilty. And none of the 3 have used that information in any type of defense.
Yeah, but despite King Ira saying those words, you still gave him your ringing endorsement to head the BoT and continue the unbridled corruption. So what does that say for your judgement?
Ah and there is another mystery that hasn't been explained.
"As Lubert was bringing the meeting to a close, trustee Anthony Lubrano interrupted to praise Lubert for his behavior at a closed session that preceded the board meeting. Lubrano, the president of an Exton-based financial services and wealth management firm, was one of the alumni trustees who had been critical of Lubert.
"I want to commend you for this morning's discussion. I thought you demonstrated great leadership and confidence," Lubrano said. "It is unfortunate that we only got to hear it in executive session."
After the meeting, Lubert said he could not comment on what occurred in that private session, adding, "I think people have their opinions."
http://www.philly.com/philly/educat..._payouts__Lubert_elected_PSU_board_chair.html
