Finally someone with legal gravitas as well as legal standing has put the
Freeh Report in it's place. Freeh himself had been put in his place numerous
times in his career from the Sept 2000 Businessweek article entitled "The Case
Against Louis Freeh" in which they documented cases of Freeh while at the FBI, "
misleading probers and federal judges" in criminal cases, and also accusing
Freeh of "trampling on the civil liberties of American citizens". And the 911
Commission ran Freeh out of the FBI after the commission, and specifically
Commission chairman and former New Jersey governor Tom Kane tore Freeh to pieces
when Freeh testified at the commission hearings, for his bungling and
mishandling and repeated failures in dealing with pre-911 intelligence.
This is the person who the Penn State board of trustees hired to do an
"independent, honest investigation".
Now finally people with some real legal gravitas have had a chance to weigh
in and have defined the Freeh Report as the garbage that it always was, garbage
that was blindly accepted by a lazy and dysfunctional news media and a lazy and
dysfunctional NCAA. And those too lazy or too stupid to see through it
themselves.
Skeptics and die hards, scared to death of being exposed as village idiots
for believing and accepting the report in the first place will try and dismiss
what Spanier's lawyers had to say, and try and pretend that its only lawyers
spinning on behalf of their client.
The problem with that is that one of Spanier's lawyers is himself a former
Federal judge and after he eviscerated Freeh and his report on a number of
points including its lack of integrity as well as saying what has been pointed
out here repeatedly -- that nothing, not one sentence, not one iota of anything
in the Freeh Report could ever stand up in a court room -- Tim Lewis, Spanier's
lawyer was asked about how unusual it was that Lewis, himself a former federal
judge, would break from traditional decorum and criticize a former fellow
federal judge in Louis Freeh so harshly and with such a brutal attack on Freeh's
integrity and honesty.
Lewis admitted it was highly unusual and said he regretted that it had to
be done, for one Federal judge to so harshly criticize another, but that it did
in fact have to be done -- that the Freeh Report was a biased, dishonest,
manipulative factually empty investigation filled with conclusions concocted by
its author, Louis Freeh, to fit a preconceived agenda, and that none of the
conclusions were substantiated by any facts.
Lewis called Freeh's report "blundering" and "a flat out distortion of facts so infused with bias and inuendo that it is unworthy of any confidence placed in it".
Lewis called Freeh's report "blundering" and "a flat out distortion of facts so infused with bias and inuendo that it is unworthy of any confidence placed in it".
Lewis said that during his own investigation ( an investigation that the
factually inept Jonnette Howard at ESPN claimed, before it was even
finished, was unnecessary) he was told by many of those who were interviewed for
the investigation, that Freeh had manipulated and misrepresented their actual
interview in the report, that much of the interview was hostile, that anything
that didn't support Freeh's conclusions was greeted with hostility, and that
only information that could somehow be twisted into supporting Freeh's
preordained conclusions were desired and included in the report while any
information given by those interviewed that was completely exculpatory or ran
contrary to what Freeh wanted was left out of the report.
This is exactly what Freeh did at the FBI, this is what Freeh did when he
framed Richard Jewel as the Olympic bomber in 1996 even though he knew he had no
evidence to support it, this is what Freeh did in many other cases while he was
with the FBI which has necessitated the FBI to go back and review thousands of
cases because of specific accusations made by another FBI agent, Fred C. Whitehurst, that Freeh tampered with or tainted evidence in order to get convictions, a process that is
still going on behind closed doors at the FBI.
There is little doubt that the Freeh Report will eventually be exposed in a
legal as well as non-legal setting for the grotesquely, blatantly dishonest
document it is. It may result in massive law suits against Freeh. There will
certainly be suits against the NCAA, and probably Rodney Erickson and the Board
of Trustees at Penn State for accepting both the report and the sanctions that
came as a result. And it will also mean exposing everyone , including the
dysfunctional news media, who believed it and/or acted based on it, as being the utter fools they were.
NOTE: A humorous animation spoofing the conclusions of the Freeh Report and it's assertions of a cover up has been posted on YouTube. It can be viewed by clicking the link here.
NOTE: A humorous animation spoofing the conclusions of the Freeh Report and it's assertions of a cover up has been posted on YouTube. It can be viewed by clicking the link here.
Posts
7 comments:
"Tim: This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means that your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is if the message isn't "heard" and acted upon, and WE THEN BECOME VULNERABLE FOR NOT HAVING REPORTED IT. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
As usual, Sara Ganim cuts through the bull to ask the essential question about this email from Spanier to Curley:
"The most obvious question: What did he mean in 2001 when he wrote in an email that not reporting allegations made against Sandusky could leave the university vulnerable?"
If as you say, Sara Ganim, as part of the media, is an "utter fool", you should be able to answer her question rather easily. So what's the answer, Marc?
To Anonymous at 2:23PM 8/23:
The answer to Sara's question is it that it's inconclusive what Spanier meant.
I agree with you that Ganim has asked an important question rather than jumping to conclusions like most in the media.
Looking at Exhibit 2F from the Freeh Report, you can see that Curley proposed a plan of talking to Sandusky and indicating that there is a problem and telling him of having a responsibility to inform his organization (Second Mile), and maybe informing the other organization (Dept. of Public Welfare).
Spanier’s response to Curley’s plan of becoming vulnerable for not having reported it could apply to either not carrying through and informing the Second Mile after talking with Sandusky, or not informing the Dept. of Public Welfare. Which one he meant just isn’t clear.
Full disclosure is that I am a Penn Stater, just like Sara Ganim, and I am not a cultist like many in the media like to portray us. I don’t think that the Freeh Report is complete garbage. It makes many worthwhile recommendations in areas of policy and governance improvements. It does expose a number of questions, like Sara’s, that need to be answered before concluding that a conspiracy to cover-up actually occurred. I am disturbed by the unsupported conclusions included in the report
The above comment (@7:59) makes many excellent points. I am not a Penn Stater or an alumnist or a cultist, but think this whole thing moved way too fast. The Freeh Report was a good starting point, but the problem with the Freeh Report is its jump to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence (not without more information and evidence). Additionally, the email in question refers to "Joe" but we do not know what Joe's conversation was (or if there even was a conversation with Joe). This piece of evidence needs to be explained by Spanier because it is troubling, but to automatically assume that it clearly demonstrates Paterno was involved in a cover up is just not true. Sadly, to defend Paterno or give him the beneift of the doubt is not done by the general population, and anyone who calls into question the Freeh Report or the conspiracy theory is attacked.
I am not making a determination one way or another until after the Curley/Schultz Trials, after more information from Spanier's investigations is revealed, and I would like to see the additional evidence gathered by Freeh (and possibly going to be released to the lawyers in the Schultz and Curley trials) that was not provided with his report and not specifically referred to.
What else bothers me is that Freeh's report and investigation may have tainted the evidence and witnesses in the Schultz/Curley Trial and any civil trials that may occur. Freeh did not interview key witnesses for his investigation (as admittedly done at the request of the Attorney General) but who is to say what other witnesses (possibly key to the prosecution, or possibly key to the defense) are now going to be less than honest as a result of Freeh's investigation (or will be less than honest because of fear of being charged with perjury if their testimony does not comport with the Attorney General's theory)? Sadly, the Attorney General should have asked this investigation to be done after the criminal investigations and after the trial (the A.G. Indicated that Spanier is still under investigation, and they should have indicated that Freeh might be interferring with a very serious criminal investigation), rather than cherry picking certain witnesses to not be interviewed. Specifically, as one example, Mike McQueary (whose testimony, possibly changing story over time) is so important, and Freeh never called into question his credibility or his recountings of the story, but relied on him to make his conclusions. It really is crucial to look at him critically and have him explain why he may have told Paterno and Dranov different stories than the one relied on by the A.G. and Freeh.
"Spanier told ABC that he doesn't remember the memo "but it sounds like me."
The word "vulnerable," Spanier said, "may not have been the best choice of the term" but was "a reaction to the possibility that we didn't want this to happen and if he didn't accept that and understand it, we would be disturbed by it and perhaps need to take further action. But the message we got back was that he heard the message and was agreeable."
This defense of his actions (or inaction) in 2001 is of the same high quality as his defense of his action (or inaction) in 1998 :
"I have no memory, and I still don’t today (about email conversations on what to do about Sandusky). I can’t even swear that I saw those e-mails. Because first of all, back in that era, every so often, maybe once a month, our I.T. folks would say, 'All the e-mails today have been lost, if you were expecting any you need to write people and tell them to resend them because the system went down.' Honest to goodness, I had no recollection of 1998, didn’t in 2001, have no recollection now, what I’m telling you I’m only for the sake of not wanting people to think that I’m hiding something."
Was this guy actually the president of a world-class university? He doesn't seem capable of composing a coherent thought
"Looking at Exhibit 2F from the Freeh Report, you can see that Curley proposed a plan of talking to Sandusky and indicating that there is a problem and telling him of having a responsibility to inform his organization (Second Mile), and maybe informing the other organization (Dept. of Public Welfare).
Spanier’s response to Curley’s plan of becoming vulnerable for not having reported it could apply to either not carrying through and informing the Second Mile after talking with Sandusky, or not informing the Dept. of Public Welfare. Which one he meant just isn’t clear.
The plan which Spanier's email is approving calls for Curley to inform TSM regardless of whether Jerry agrees to stop showering with young boys at Penn State. This is supported by the fact Jerry did agree to stop and Curley still informed TSM. The plan was as follows :
"Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. IF HE IS COOPERATIVE WE WOULD WORK WITH HIM TO HANDLE INFORMING THE ORGANIZATION. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups."
If the plan required TSM to be informed, how could not reporting to TSM be the source of vulnerability?
You have to admire Spanier's ability to claim total amnesia today AND in 2001 about the emails and events in 1998 while recalling verbatim an alleged exculpatory conversation with Curley and Schultz in 2001 :
"I recall asking two questions:
"Are you sure that is how it was described to you, as horsing around?" Both replied 'yes'.
"Are you sure that that is all that was reported?" Both replied 'yes'."
This guy is a joker.
"Looking at Exhibit 2F from the Freeh Report, you can see that Curley proposed a plan of talking to Sandusky and indicating that there is a problem and telling him of having a responsibility to inform his organization (Second Mile), and maybe informing the other organization (Dept. of Public Welfare).
Spanier’s response to Curley’s plan of becoming vulnerable for not having reported it could apply to either not carrying through and informing the Second Mile after talking with Sandusky, or not informing the Dept. of Public Welfare. Which one he meant just isn’t clear.
The plan which Spanier's email is approving calls for Curley to inform TSM regardless of whether Jerry agrees to stop showering with young boys at Penn State. This is supported by the fact Jerry did agree to stop and Curley still informed TSM. The plan was as follows :
"Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. IF HE IS COOPERATIVE WE WOULD WORK WITH HIM TO HANDLE INFORMING THE ORGANIZATION. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups."
If the plan required TSM to be informed, how could not reporting to TSM be the source of vulnerability?
Look to the next email in the chain at Schultz's response to Curley and Spanier:
Tim and Graham, this is a more humane and upfront way to handle this; I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed).
Curley's words of 'working with Sandusky to inform his organization' are a little ambiguous in terms of stating that Penn State would absolutely inform TSM. Schultz seemed to feel the need to clarify what Curley had proposed in that Penn State would be informing TSM regardless of Sandusky's cooperation.
Post a Comment