In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 813
On this Board 401Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)
Online now 782Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
Now if we can get someone with some weight to take up the cause. Franco, bless his heart, ain't going to cut it.
F the NCAA
F the BOT
I saw that the Patriot News, CBS 21, and CNN have already mentioned it on Twitter... Hopefully it picks up... This is good stuff...... Btw I'm just going read the summary and draw my "reasonable conclusions" from that.
Let me know what you come up with. I'll just believe you without reading it at all.
I actually just scanned the whole entire thing as quick as I could and am just shocked at a few things (I am sure there are more):
1. Freeh and the Gang represented the BOT not the University. Biggest thing I have read so far.
2. Freehs Group actually outsourcing some if not a majority of the work.
I wish MM would just man up, get paid billions to say the truth, and be done with it.
I think he found out later that his buddy, Matt, had been abused for years and this was his way when he had the opportunity to "get back". I think he "reminded" JVP what he told him about the incident and when JVP said "I just hope the truth comes out" he meant it because he really didn't rmember the truth.
Seriously....what a bunch of baloney this whole thing is/was. The BoT use 6.5 million dollars of PSU's money to pay for a report that is such a piece of horse manure that horses are offended when their manure is compared to it. The current members of the BoT must be forced out. And they should be sued and forced to pay back the $6.5 million to the University. Disgusting.
This post was edited by psumichael on 9/13/2012 at 5:19 PM
A very good report.
The section about the brother of the board member is reaching a bit. Might be worth a mention, but the report spends too much time on it.
Excellent points that the Freeh report failed to acknowledge possibilities, motives or intents other than the ones they concluded were what happened. Also, that the Freeh report should have often (if not always) determined that a conclusion was impossible to reach because so much evidence was not available (interviews with critical witnesses, e-mails from before 2004, etc.), or that the evidence that was available was not determinative of only one conclusion.
Good job of pointing out the Freeh report’s stunning failure to cite and discuss any evidence or witness statements contrary to the conclusions drawn by the Freeh group. It’s clear that at some point, the Freeh group determined in their own minds what had happened, and wrote the report to support that theory. Instead, they should have presented all of the evidence – conflicting or not – and then either left it up to the board to draw its conclusions, or at worst, set out its own conclusions with the caveat in each case that much evidence was missing.
You have to ask. How can the Freeh group interview 400 people and review 3.5 million pieces of paper and find only evidence that supports the conclusion of a cover-up?
Noting that the report fails to admit that university e-mails from before 2004 is important. Without a comprehensive set of e-mails, the few e-mails the Freeh group had are impossible to place in context.
Overall a very good report that generally (although not completely) avoids the type of “reasonable conclusions” the Freeh report used to hammer Penn State.
Now the problem will be getting anybody to read it.
ESPN headline: "Penn State loses 13th player in scandal's wake" - And it's about the walk on kicker. Maybe when that "story" is played out they'll give this a quick mention.
This post was edited by JettaPSU2001 on 9/13/2012 at 8:54 PM
I just spent the last few hours reading the entire review. A pretty serious rebuke of Freeh if you ask me. This is what I sent to firstname.lastname@example.org (the Mike Schmidt???)
"I think this was a powerful rebuke of the Freeh Report! I congratulate all who were involved in publishing this Review.
I have just one issue that sticks in my craw. The “review” states:
“Notwithstanding the various misstatements of fact in the press conference, the concept of releasing the written report, and a written summary, immediately prior to a press conference where FSS’ client had not even had an opportunity to review the Report, was misguided.” I agree!
“Initially, Mr. Freeh made the following statement: ‘To be absolutely clear, this public release is the first time anyone outside of our investigation team has seen the report.’ He went on to state, however, in addressing the various leaks that had arisen relative to the report, that ‘[l]et me assure that none of these leaks came from the Special Investigating Counsel team’.”
“It is impossible to reconcile these two statements – there were clearly leaks, something even Mr. Freeh acknowledged, yet Mr. Freeh says that: (1) no one outside his team had ever seen the report; and (2) no one on his team was responsible for the leaks. Both of those statements simply cannot be true. Stated differently, since there were acknowledged leaks, either: (1) the report was shared with someone outside the Special Investigating Counsel team, and that person was responsible for the leaks, thereby rendering Mr. Freeh’s statement on Page 2 of the Opening Remarks false; or (2) a member of the Special Investigating Counsel team was responsible for the leaks, thereby rendering Mr. Freeh’s statement on Page 3 of the Opening Remarks false.”
Or (3), the individual(s) responsible for delivering the “evidence” to FSS was/were a person not affiliated with Freeh or his staff and “leaked” the evidence independent of the Freeh investigative team. And as such never saw the FSS report prior to leaking this information. This is a valid alternative to only the two black & white choices that the Review report offers. I expect there may be a (4th) or (5th) alternative to the ‘Review’s” narrative too!
Overall, good job I support you!
PSU Class of ‘95
P.S. I was a bit perturbed that I could not copy/paste verbatim from your online Review. I had to retype every word. For future “ease of use” please allow the Copy/Paste function for both ‘supporters’ and ‘detractors’ of your work.
Also, I would have loved to share my opinion of your review publicly on the internet, but couldn’t see that option. Your review is critical of the Freeh Report; I think as a critical reviewer you should allow the public the same courtesy to critically ‘review’ your interpretation. There’s nothing to be afraid of."
October 12, 2013. PSU 43 - UM 40 (4 OT). Unfortunately this fan wasn't around long enough to see it!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports