[Husker] Penn State / NCAA deal

[Scott Stewart]

I am going to take the other side on Spanier (always up for debate) lol.

I think he is the biggest piece of trash in the heap next to JS.

1. He was the person who was required by law to report the abuse. He got
out of that by claiming he was never told it was abuse, that he was told it
was horseplay.

2. He appears to not have been indicted because they got Curley and Moe
(Schultz) for lying by saying they were not made aware it was abuse.
Therefore, to the Grand Jury it looked like that was the place of the
alteration of facts occurred. However, in hind site the Freeh report made
it clear (and quoted from the emails described on CNN) that Spanier was
well aware of the abuse and his quote was the most damning of them in the
report. I paraphrase because I am tired of looking at the report, but he
said essentially to Curley that he would support not reporting, but that if
JS continued his behavior it could be bad for all of them.

3. So then Spanier doesn't do what he is ethically, morally, and legally
obligated to do and his response during the subsequent investigation is to
throw everyone under the bus to save his sorry butt. He throws Curley and
"Moe" under with the lie to the Grand Jury, and then most recently throws
his own father under the bus by doing an interview that he  wouldn't ever
have not reported abuse because he was physically abused by his father
growing up. I wanted to vomit.

It seems to me that Spanier thinks that because they "talked" in code in
the cited emails ("that guy" for JS, and "the incident" for the abuse, etc)
that he will be able to continue to claim ignorance. It is interesting that
the only time in the emails reviewed (according to the Freeh report) that
they talked in code was regarding the 2001 incident. They clearly talked in
the open about JS and the 1998 incident. It really burns my britches that
Spanier is getting a 'free pass' on this.

Scott


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Mike Nolan <nolan at tssi.com> wrote:

> > As I understand it, Curley and Schultz were indicted for lying to the
> > grand jury; I don't think the charges had anything to do with the
> > cover-up per se. Perhaps Spanier had enough sense not to lie under oath.
>
> Which makes you wonder what would have happened (and when) had Curley
> and Schultz not lied to the grand jury, doesn't it?
> --
> Mike Nolan
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>