His knowledge of and response to a 1998 report that Sandusky had showered with an 11-year-old boy on campus.
His knowledge of the 2001 incident in which Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building and saw a naked boy, about 10 years old, being assaulted by a naked Sandusky.
i feel so bad for his reputation :( :( :(
Spanier, who wrote that he has a "heavy heart for the children who were victimized by Sandusky," said his reputation has been "profoundly damaged" by the Freeh report and individual trustees who have spoken negatively about him in public.
Self proclaimed 2012 CF Newcomer of the Year
Yeah no crap. I feel really bad for Spanier and his reputation.
Nobody but HB knows for sure. You pretty much know nothing....like Knownothing would like to say.
Can he explain these emails:
“After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps,” Curley wrote in an email to Spanier and Schultz. “I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved. I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell them about the information we received and tell them we are aware of the first situation.”
The “first situation” appears to refer to allegations against Sandusky that were investigated in 1998. No charges were brought in the original case, but Sandusky stepped down as defensive coordinator for Penn State shortly after.
The email shows that Paterno was involved in the decision-making process with regard to Sandusky. It also hints that Paterno may have been a driving force behind the decision. While Curley was nominally Paterno’s supervisor, it was generally acknowledged that Paterno, a legendary figure at Penn State, had hand-picked Curley for the job, and that Curley effectively served at Paterno’s pleasure.
Ultimately, Curley’s email swung the opinion of Schultz and Spanier.
Spanier acknowledged that the decision to confront Sandusky only could cause problems for the school.
“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,” Spanier wrote. “But that can be assessed down the down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.”
Posturing by anyone involved is just that. I'm so sick of the "wait until the facts come out" statements by the Paternos, Spanier and everyone involved. We all know quite enough to know that even the very minimum - take the monster's keys and ban him - wasn't done. And by minimum I mean not even close to enough.
Last edited by kberyldial; 07-23-2012 at 04:21 PM.