Thursday, September 28

9.20.2017 Freeh Statement & Addendum











9 comments:

  1. Thanks Ray.

    This is lots more BS from Freeh. Freeh is such a hypocrite. He expresses regret to the damage done to the "wonderful students, athletes, faculty and staff of a great university" yet in the Freeh Report he smeared them all as part of the "Penn State culture."

    Freeh never spoke up to defend Penn State's "wonderful students, athletes, faculty and staff" when his report was used as the basis for the NCAA's draconian sanctions that punished them all.

    In his addendum he even pretends President Barron backed the Freeh Report when just the opposite is true. Barron publicly stated that the Freeh Report was "absurd, unwarranted" and "not useful to make decisions."

    Barron also said "There's no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case... There’s no doubt in my mind what was completely and totally wrong was the notion that this entire alumni base, our students, our faculty, our staff, got the blame for what occurred.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of the most outrageous lies Freeh told was on page 1, paragraph 1 where he wrote,

    "Although Spanier has been sentenced to prison, he still could have maintained this civil lawsuit if it was not meritless, as shown by the court's ruling."

    In this latest ruling, the judge did not rule at all on the merits of Spanier's lawsuit. In fact, in a previous ruling, the judge identified 11 statements from the Freeh Report that were potentially defamatory. That was proof that the judge felt there was merit to the lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The more I study Freeh's diatribe, the more I wonder if Freeh suffered brain damage in his car accident. He doesn't use the rational reasoning and careful weighing of evidence of a former federal judge.

    His "Criticism 1" fails to consider other plausible explanations but concludes that Curley, Schultz and Spanier "were conspiring to protect Penn State."

    A far more plausible explanation is that Mike McQueary never told Curley and Schultz in 2001 that he believed it was a sexual assault. That explains why no one corroborated McQueary's testimony, even his father. It explains why Dr. Dranov contradicted McQueary when he testified that McQueary only told him that he saw a boy peer around the shower wall, an arm pull the boy back and then Sandusky exit the shower a bit later.

    Another very plausible explanation is that in 2001 they were trying to protect Sandusky from another false allegation of child abuse, which had occurred in 1998. The policy of PA child protection agencies is to soon destroy all files on child abuse complaints that are determined to be unfounded in order to protect the falsely accused. It is well known that even a false allegation of child sexual abuse can ruin a man's reputation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      Thanks for all of your comments.

      Yes, I wondered too, if Freeh didn't have a severe head injury.

      His earlier statement after the Spanier conviction was similarly flawed and irrational. It was so bad that I questioned its authenticity.

      Delete
  4. If Louis Freeh received a head injury, it was at birth and not in some highly suspicious accident. His bizarre accident, as with any fake news, seemed to keep evolving with ridiculous add-on details. Freeh's accident was most likely staged to give him the "head injury out" when it comes time to put this rat on trial. We probably shouldn't be helping him establish this "get-out-of-jail-free" card by buying into it. I saw this coming years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Freeh's goes on for over a page disputing the criticism that "No one knows what Paterno and Curley discussed" in 2001 yet that is a fact because Curley testified he had no memory of the conversation. Paterno never was asked about it at the grand jury.

    Freeh provides a specious argument that because the judge thought Curley was lying about not remembering the conversation, that it meant that Paterno must have been in favor of changing the plan and not reporting Sandusky to DPW.

    Freeh ignores the material fact that Curley has lung cancer and chemotherapy treatment for lung cancer is well known to cause memory loss.

    Freeh ignored his own former FBI agent and expert in child sex abuse cases, Jim Clemente, who stated that people rarely remembered details of a decade old conversation.

    He also ignored that possibility that Curley never had a conversation with Paterno but simply dropped Paterno's name in the 2001 email to bolster Curley's decision to change the plan.

    You can speculate on a wide variety of possibilities for the conversation. Here's one:

    Paterno: "Tim, I have been meaning to ask you, what did Sandusky say about the boy in the shower?"

    Curley: "I never asked him."

    Paterno: "Why not?"

    Curley: "VP Schultz came up with a plan to report Sandusky to DPW, ban him from bringing boys on campus and report him to the CEO of his charity."

    Paterno: "Sounds like a great plan. Anything else, I have to run to a meeting."

    Curley: "That's it."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Newsweek just published an article blaming Sandusky for reduced mentoring opportunities on college campuses for high school students interested in science and medicine.

    http://www.newsweek.com/students-still-live-and-suffer-sanduskys-long-shadow-676615

    The author doesn't even seem that familiar with the Sandusky scandal because he claimed Sandusky "was convicted of sexually assaulting eight of his student players."

    He does make a valid point that new laws requiring background checks for people that work around minors are probably not going to be effective.

    The blame should be on legislators' draconian new laws and corrupt prosecutors who trumped up child endangerment charges against Penn State administrators. That scared college administrators nationwide.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The article seemed to me to be a classic non-sequitor. The author never explained the nexus between what happened at PSU and how that affects students in science and medicine. There was no correlation at all. He just rambled on. Very poor writing. I am sure that there is more risk avoidance, but that is why we have release of liability and promise to idemnify statements that people sign. In fact, I am sure PSU had such a statement signed by Second Mile for their "Friends" program. The liability for whatever JS did within that program was on SM.

    Background checks only partially cover the ass of the organization doing them. They do nothing to stop people from doing what they want to do. Everyone is an upstanding, law abiding citizen until they break bad.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So Freeh admits “They were conspiring to protect Penn State”. Why would anyone feel they needed to conspire to protect their institution by not reporting a crime? Why would any observer of this situation think there would be a scandal if the crime was reported? Isn’t THAT the real problem?

    Freeh gives away his true intentions with that statement. When reporting a crime of any nature might bring harm to your livelihood, that is the real issue here. And THAT is the fault of these scandal-chasers more than anyone else. There should never be any social consequences for reporting a crime of this nature.

    ReplyDelete