This is just a beginning to get this started against the wrong-headed sanctimonious statement's of Emmert at the NCAA Press Conference and the unconscionable penalties based on FREEH
I know of no better words to describe the insanity of the NCAA's press conference today. They based their decision on the Freeh Report? Are they complete IDIOTS?
"The Freeh Report is dishonest, in many ways incomprehensibly incompetent, and had an agenda to fit a preconceived idea. It was going to fill that agenda even if it meant doing it not just with distortions but out and out fabrications." Marc Rubin
Ray Blehar - 2008 Honors MBA Graduate "In responding the the Freeh Report, PSU must call out the flaws in the report , the inaccuracies of Mr. Freeh's press conference comments, ...... the report, while containing some facts, is certainly not a full accounting of the facts. The Freeh report also takes liberties with hearsay evidence provided by witnesses and treats the hearsay as if it were direct quotes. Finally, Mr.Freeh assigns motives and feelings to theofficials involved in the 1998 and 2001 incidents without ever interviewing those officials"
Marc Rubin of Tom In Paine: A dishonest bureaucratic authority (Freeh) disseminating propaganda and outright lies to fit a preconceived idea, offering unchallenged "evidence" that wouldn't last a minute in a court room, an incompetent, spineless press, spreading and repeating the lies without bothering to see what is true and what isn't and not caring, and a mindless mob who wont think for themselves who swallow it and then, torches lit, go on their midnight rampage. The comments by the university president as to why the statue was taken down are worse than the statue being taken down
In 1998 CYS is replaced by DPW in the Victim 6 investigation and in the process A.Chambers damning psychological evaluation is hidden from DPW investigator Lauro. Instead a CYS counselor who worked with The Second Mile gives a "pedophile free" evaluation over the objection of DA Arnold to Lauro who advises Gricar to close the case. Sandusky goes undiscovered. Sounds downright Machiavellian but the Freeh Report reveals that's what happened. Ironic isn't it? Freeh could have actually cleared Joe and PSU and discovered the real reason that Sandusky was not found out in 1998?
Part One: The Philadelphia Inquirer Mangles the Flawed Freeh ReportWhat do you do when reporters from a major metropolitan daily newspaper—in this case, The Philadelphia Inquirer—demonstrate that they are completely incapable of reading a published report—in this case The Freeh Report—and providing their readers with a coherent summary of its contents? What do you do when the egregious misreading of that report by these reporters presents its readers a very false picture of how officials at Penn State handled Mike McQueary’s allegations of child molestation by Jerry Sandusky in February 2001? Perhaps you would recommend that the Philadelphia Inquirer receive the “death penalty” and not be permitted to publish its sludge for a full year!MUCH MORE TO COME ON THIS WEBSITE about this travesty.
Might want to get a better headline writer for this blog.
ReplyDeleteAre you applying for the position?
DeleteAurabass....
ReplyDeleteYour doing a great job. Keep up the good work. The Paterno family, if they have their own investigators, should be made aware of Edward Savitz visiting Second Mile functons. And they should also be made aware of Spanier's friendship with Ronald Roskens....who was fired from Nebraska.
Also , I'm linking all articles from here on in at my website.....www.cornerstorenews.com......we are going to try to set up a Second Mile/Sandusky section. If we put on our site any articles that belongs to you...anyone who clicks on the link will be brought here. Once again...keep up the great work....keep breaking down the Freeh report for the naive and uninformed.
ReplyDeleteThank you Corner Store News. We will look for your links and return the favor.
DeleteThe Paternos should be made aware of Savitz visiting TSM functions? Are you aware that the Paternos themselves, including Joe, frequently visited TSM functions? What could Savitz tell them that they don't already know from visiting TSM functions?
DeleteWhat are you trying to say about the Paternos? Leave them out of this.
We have a couple of your links up now at the site. Keep up the good work.
DeleteI'm really hoping that someone takes Greg Bucceroni's story and does some leg work with it. Or some more people come forward....
Anyone hear anymore about the Three Men who claimed they were abused in the 70's? That story just disappeared.
Hey Anonymous,
DeleteI'm not saying anything about the Paternos. Pay attention...what I'm saying is that they should be made aware that Savitz and Sandusky knew each other. And I'm sure Paterno attended TSM functions....but from what i was told...Paterno was not at the TSM functions that Bucceroni attended.
Doing FANTASTIC work here!!
ReplyDeletePlease keep up the honest and strong efforts to deliver the truth with accuracy and integrity.
There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions who greatly appreciate a non PSU alumni delivering an unbiased fact based summation.
Thank you H. and thanks for the link on the other page
Deletefeel free to contact me for updates using aurabass AT yahoo.com
I was surprised that there have been no individual members of the BOT speaking out since last night's BOT meeting regarding the NCAA sanctions. Instead they reluctantly accepted the sanctions. Erickson has stated that a "four year death penalty" was THREATENED. I have troubling believing that a four year penalty would have actually resulted. Discussing it is one thing, reality is far different.
ReplyDeleteIn any regards, the BOT again failed miserably in responding to the sanctions. Two months ago, the BOT should have split up into three separate groups: (1) HARSH PENALTIES - this group splits up into three sub-groups which develops and inquires into the legal, PR, and administrative responses under a Rejection Model, Acceptance Model, and a Hybrid Model (i.e. we challenge completely the sanction and why/how, we accept it and why/how, or a we reject some of it and why/how); (2) SLIGHT PENALTIES - three same sub-parts; and (3) NO PENALTIES - three same sub-parts.
Under that framework, the BOT could have developed and discussed: (1) a self-imposed penalty, with or without the assistance of the NCAA, financial contributions, endowments, etc.; (2) the process, with counsel, to file for an injunction and challenge the sanctions in Court; and (3) the NCAA administrative formalities, i.e. due process, investigative procedures, the right to enforce, what to enforce, authority, etc. This all should have been completed in a two or three day session, before or during Erickson's alleged discussions with the NCAA. It would have assisted the BOT in preparing a formal response to the sanctions as opposed to adopting them.
A self-imposed penalty would have enabled the University to remain in partial goodlight with the public whilst challenging, legally, the NCAA sanctions.
The administrative and legal process would have assisted the current players to remain in good-standing while a likely injunction were in place.
Example:
Three weeks ago, Erickson goes to Emmert and says: "The BOT has adopted a self-imposed penalty on the football program: (1) We will not participate in bowl games for the next two seasons; (2) We will not participate in Big Ten Championships over the next two seasons; (3) With the assistance of the NCAA, we will permit the current players to transfer without penalty; (4) We have established leadership, honesty, open-door, and abuse training for all staff and para-staff to undergo as a part of the employment process forever; (5) We will create a multi-million dollar wing of the Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS) Department focused on Child Abuse focused on undergraduate, post-graduate, and doctoral research;(6) We will tender 10% of tickets and merchandise for the next 13 years to multiple charities of the NCAA's choosing;(7) We will pay a find of 20 Million Dollars to the NCAA; and (8) We will have a five year probationary period with the NCAA with an open door policy to the NCAA to ensure compliance, which will cease upon a subsequent hearing and review regarding our compliance with the probationary period.
If the NCAA says, "no, we're going to penalize you further". The University responds, by stating, "We request a full investigation by the NCAA, a hearing, and all other administrative processes available. We do not adopt the Freeh report as conclusive. If you sanction us otherwise, we will challenge it in Court, as the NCAA is without the authority to penalize us."