I've always assumed that the 2002 date was selected by the prosecution for statute of limitation reasons (there was basically no evidence that it happened in 2002). Once the date was moved back to 2001, why wasn't that a problem regarding the Curley and Shultz charges. Surely the law doesn't allow those charges to remain when the prosecution made the 'mistake'? The statute of limitations only impacts Curley and Shultz (not Spanier or Sandusky?). Or is there no statute of limitations for any of the charges?
Freeh Resolution
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
I've always assumed that the 2002 date was selected by the prosecution for statute of limitation reasons (there was basically no evidence that it happened in 2002). Once the date was moved back to 2001, why wasn't that a problem regarding the Curley and Shultz charges. Surely the law doesn't allow those charges to remain when the prosecution made the 'mistake'? The statute of limitations only impacts Curley and Shultz (not Spanier or Sandusky?). Or is there no statute of limitations for any of the charges?
IIRC, the prosecution put forth the argument that a failure to act was an ongoing course of conduct and therefore the statute of limitation in essence never expires.
Just curious but what qualifies you to assert that the Freeh report and his opinion aren't accurate? Can you prove they aren't? I can only go by what the document says while you and others assert conspiracy theories and idle speculations from a decade ago. The onus is on you to prove your're right and that I'm not. Further, Freeh proffered an opinion. For me, his opinion holds more weight than the neigh sayers, he being a former FBI agent, director of the Bureau, and federal judge. Four men were charged and were ether found or pleaded guilty. Supports Freeh's opinion doesn't it.
Last edited:
I don't need to answer to your assertions because I don't believe any of them are true. Further, I could give a shit about what the OAG did or didn't do because Freeh relied upon a mountain of evidence (340 interviews, 1.3M documents, and other government agencies to form his opinion.
He didn’t talk to the main people the report focused on however, did he? Except for Spanier a couple days before the report was released? He could have talked to 5 million people but if he didn’t talk to the most important people the report is pretty useless.
Freeh provided a desired result for a large sum of money. In other words, for 8.3 million dollars Louis gave the OGBOT a happy ending.
He didn't necessarily need to. He had documents that memorialized their conversations and possibly interviewed people who had knowledge of the events..
Congrats on regarding the Freeh Report summary. Based on your response to @RussianEagle, you probably don't even know who Snedden is.
Here we go again again. You guys continue to deal in the same nutty theories and idle speculations that you did a decade ago. Why would the Board want a damming report that they knew could possibly cost the university hundreds of millions of dollars? Explain that to me.
FactFreeh has been associated either several highly publicized investigations in which it has been shown he F’ed royally.
Add PSU to the list of those.
coincidence? Ha!
He needed to if he wanted the full picture. Clearly, he didn’t want the full picture.
Easy. Someone or someone(s) have secrets to protect.
explain to me why PSU chose not to investigate and evaluate any of e frivolous claims?
More theories and idle speculations? They did investigate claims and the frivolous ones wern't paid. I guess you didn't know that.
He had enough of a picture to write his opinion. So what is it that the three amigos would have said that would have changed his opinion? Surely you must know.
You’ve just made the point. He had his opinion and was not going to change it no matter what he heard.
You sir are so far off base in your reading comprehension, reasoning ability, and just trying to be a devil's advocate (with very poor success). As his opinion holding more weight -- poppycock. The man has been discredit by much better men and women than me and obviously you.
Because the documents speak for themselves. I'm still waiting to hear what the tree Amigos could possibly have said that would have impeached what they had already memorialized. Please tell me. Interviews would have been synonymous with shooting an already dead horse. What would be the point?
Last edited:
You’re entitled to your opinion.
The report was pretty empty. He made some serious assertions with very little supporting evidence.
For the same reason that the settlement with the claimants protected TSM and CYS. They didn't want anyone turning over the rocks in their personal or corporate worlds. You act like no one here knows how tangled the roots were between OGBOT members (and former members) their spouses with Jerry and TSM... But then again, you believe they were blindsided by the Sandusky investigation/indictment, because trustees are barred from reading PennJive. I guess it was just sheer coincidence how certain PSU big shots started distancing themselves a year or so before the indictment came down.
When it comes to costing "the university" hundreds of millions of dollars.....LOL, explain the gargantuan settlements to casually (if at all) vetted claimants....paying Freeh 8.3 million to generate his opinion and refusing to fight the NCAA (as every other university's trustees and president's have done) and swallowing a consent decree including a 60 million dollar fine? Paying a bogus and unneeded "integrity monitor," and said thank you may I have more sir to the Big 10 bowl money beat down........you know, the same one MSU, Uof M and OSU got.....oops.
Go away, even Ira the Terrible and Eric the Meek have given up defending the Freeh Fable.
Last edited:
Louis never makes an error....ask Richard Jewell.
Freeh is golden. Has a bank account in outer limits.Sweet. Louis Freeh's narrative is about to crash and burn(again).
See where Nichols has his own first-hand experiences with Louie Fresh's team of investigators, who interviewed Nichols four times. The tenor of the interviews still rankles Nichols.
"A lot of their questions were accusatory," he said; "It was not looking for the truth." Instead, Fresh's investigators were looking for "evidence or information that might support a predetermined conclusion that would scapegoat certain individuals," he said. Or support the "highly inflammatory and highly accusatory" claims that Freeh made at his press conference announcing the findings of his report.
For example, Nichols said, Fresh's investigators asked him, since he was a campus insider, at what point did he know about Sandusky's sex crimes. Nichols insisted that he didn't know anything about the subject.
But Freeh's guys weren't buying it. Their attitude was, "Obviously you knew as well, everybody knew," Nichols said. "It led me to believe . . . that they had already reached the conclusion that everybody knew that Sandusky was doing this but they were looking the other way to protect football. They had already reached the conclusion," he said, and they "wanted me to verify that."
But when Nichols read the Freeh Report, "the evidence [for a cover up] wasn't there," Nichols said. "I was taken back, I was shocked."
"It became clear to me," he said, that "the executive summary and Freeh's oral comments [at his press conference] were wild accusations that had no basis in factual support in the main report."
"His goal was not to find the truth and help Penn State, the people who paid him to $8 million to do this, but to build a case like a prosecutor, but without evidence or with flimsy evidence."
John Snedden, the former NCIS special agent who hosted the podcast, said it was clear from email exchanges and a copy of Freeh's preliminary report that Freeh didn't care that he was making unfounded accusations. In the emails, and in handwritten notes on a preliminary draft of the report, Fresh's own investigators pointed out that Freeh's accusations had no basis in facts or evidence.
But Freeh made his unfounded accusations anyway, because, according to Freeh's own emails, the "media was clamoring for what he intended to say," Snedden said.
Nichols recalled that Freeh's investigators were also "pretty intimidating" when they interviewed him.
"It was made clear to all that were interviewed [that] we must cooperate fully and freely with the Freeh investigators at the cost of our employment," Nichols said.
Snedden described the interviews conducted by Fresh's team of investigators as an "exercise in support of their predetermined conclusions."
Nichols said when he talked it over with his senior colleagues, "Every faculty senate chair came to the same conclusion that the Freeh report in our view was at odds with the truth." But that didn't stop the NCAA with issuing "huge, massive, unprecedented sanctions based on the Freeh Report," Nichols said.
When a group of former faculty Senate chairs put out a joint statement attacking the conclusions of the Freeh Report, "the board of trustees, they didn't care," Nichols said. "They didn't want to be knocked off their story line." Ditto for the media, Nichols said.
Nichols said it was "outrageous" for the NCAA to hire Freeh and his investigators as employees.
But he added, "I think the NCAA lost its moral compass long before they hired Louie Freeh."
About Graham Spanier, Nichols said, "they destroyed a great university president's career based on a hyperbolic, mean spirited, sell interested fact-void report."
And that's just the first episode of the podcast, which concludes that the Freeh Report found no smoking gun at Penn State, nor any evidence to backup their claims that it was Penn State's football-mad culture that inspired university officials to cover up and look the other way when it came to Sandusky's alleged crimes against children.
In the Smoking Gun? Part 2, Snedden and Nichols continued the discussion. Nichols said the unfounded charges in the Freeh Report, such as that Penn State "had a culture of supporting football over the well being of their own children."
"That's what Freeh alleged and that's what the NCAA parroted," Nichols said. It led to a "media feeding frenzy," the idea that the Penn State community "was so corrupt as to throw their children to the lions to protect football."
It amuses me how Hugh Laurie, et al, usually only post here when something arises which could threaten the OGBOT narrative. It makes me hopeful something of substance may be happening, otherwise they'd let the sleeping dogs lie.
He's probably a dentist from Pittsburgh
I’m sure many of those interviews were conducted with university employees who were jealous of the football program and “jocks” in general. Probably most never even met Sandusky, Curley, or Paterno, and may have only had limited interactions with Spanier and Schultz.
All I can say is everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not entitled to his own facts.
You just need to get the F off this board!
I agree! Sunshine is the best disinfectant for a lot of things. This included. Put the Board on record. I for one am not insane.
Hugh Laurie said:
OMG, there is still someone who believes the Freeh report!?!?! That's precious! Most people knew it was garbage on day 1. Just curious but what qualifies you to assert that the Freeh report and his opinion are accurate? Can you prove they are? Spanier was found not guilty, as Curley and Schultz would have been if not bullied into a plea bargain. Paterno was never charged, only praised by the AG. Recently we learned that PSU not only contacted the responsible organization (Second Mile), but also CYS. John Snedden, a non-disgraced former FBI agent also completely blows Freeh out of the water. His opinion holds more weight the disgraced Freeh. The onus is on you, the truther, to prove you're right and that I'm not. I can only go by what reality, non-disgraced FBI agents, and the outcome of court cases say while you assert conspiracy theories and idle speculations from a decade ago.
Hugh (4 letters) Laurie (6)
Paul Silvis (4, 6)
Mark Dambly (4,6)
Is he Silvis or is he Dambly?
I'm kidding.....mostly
Freeh provided a lot a facts. However, his conclusions were not supported by those facts. As for his reputation, you might want to do some research. The guy is scum.
As for the four men, please tell me who the fourth was? And C/S/S did not plead guilty to any of the original 15 felonies with which they were charged. Those charges were dropped.
BTW, not to be a grammar Nazi, but the word is naysayers.
Jerry being the 4th.
There will always be those who will disagree with Freeh's conclusions whether it be the one associated with the PSU engagement or others he delivered to other clients. The PSU Freeh naysayers will always point to the naysayers affiliated with his other engagements as proof that his PSU conclusions had to be and must be faulty. For a decade that's the game they've played because they didn't get the results they wanted and continued to trumpet that the evidence doesn't support his conclusions. This despite not being privy to all the evidence he assembled.
Specifically, which conclusions do you believe are not supported by the evidence and were you privy to all the evidence that Freeh had assembled? If your answer is no to the second part of the question how can you assert that the evidence don't support his conclusions?
Curley and Shultz were charged and spent time in jail. Spanier missed being locked up when he got off on a technicality. Jerry is in for life.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/10/penn_state.html
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
Football Penn State Football Welcomes four More Enrollees to Campus- Latest: Marty Leap
-
-
-
-