Any updates from Spanier on the stand?
- Thread starter JoeDidntKnow
- Start date
Something about a confrontation he had with some dude "guns" at the Waffle Shop.
Apparently he was heckled when he left the building by some guy screeching at him to start talking after 5 years, or some such thing.
They put the guy into a straight-jacket and led him away, but they did let him keep his laptop.
They put the guy into a straight-jacket and led him away, but they did let him keep his laptop.
I heard he jacked up Guns and they had to pull him off lest he would have hurt that guy
From Pennlive:
BELLEFONTE - Former Penn State President Graham Spanier, perhaps offering a preview of coming attractions, testified publicly for the first time Thursday about his handling of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
Spanier took the stand in former assistant football coach Mike McQueary's whistleblower suit against the university.
Measuring his words very carefully throughout, Spanier portrayed himself as an executive who never really got too immersed in the details of McQueary's initial eyewitness report to Joe Paterno on Sandusky.
Rather, he said, he was busy with fundraising and other duties of the presidency and content to let his senior lieutenants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, take the lead on the issue - especially after he had been led from them to believe that the incident was based on nothing more than "horsing around."
Spanier also reitereated his prior public assertions that he had no recollection of hearing about a separate 1998 shower allegation against Sandusky that had been investigated by university police.
The former president, one of many Penn State figures who saw his career abruptly interrupted by the Sandusky scandal, is likely a key witness in McQueary's quest for damages over what he sees as mistreatment by Penn State.
But Spanier, with Curley and Schultz, is also a defendant in a separate criminal case stemming from the former administrators' handling of McQueary's report.
Spanier first was asked about the 1998 case.
He said Thursday that he was travelling out of the country at the time Schultz, his senior vice president for business and finance, sent his email reporting that the 1998 case had been closed without charges.
Spanier said that he would not have had access to the email during his trip. He also said he has no recollection of seeing it upon his return.
"That was probably the one circumstance where I didn't go back and try to read every email, because my schedule was pretty busy," Spanier said.
Spanier added that even if he had seen the 1998 email, because since Schultz had marked the matter as closed he likely would not have followed up on it.
Spanier was then confronted with the now-infamous February 2001 email exchange between he, Schultz and then-Athletic Director Curley about the allegation McQueary had reported.
The former president told the jury, under questioning from McQueary's attorney Elliot Strokoff, that he had initially heard about McQueary's report from Curley and Schultz after a Feb. 12, 2001 president's council meeting.
Spanier said it was described to him only as "horsing around," and that at the time they decided on two "interventions:
* Telling Sandusky that he was not welcome to bring Second Mile youth into campus facilities any more.
* And to make sure the leaders of the former Penn State defensive coordinator's youth charity, the Second Mile, knew of that decision.
Strokoff noted that conversation would have occurred the day after Schultz had already consulted with then-Penn State counsel Wendell Courtney about obligations to report possible child abuse.
But Spanier said that consultation with Courtney was never mentioned in his discussion with Curley or Schultz.
He also said he was comfortable reaching a decision on how to handle the allegation without hearing directly from McQueary or ordering further investigation because it was only characterized as "horsing around,"
It seemed, he said, "like an adequate level of intervention."
Strokoff moved onto the now-infamous email exchange from February 2001 between Curley, Schultz and Spanier in which the three men came to a final determination on how they would handle the Sandusky matter.
The trio is facing failure to report and child endangerment charges because they did not take McQueary's report to police or child welfare officials.
Strokoff quizzed Spanier on many specifics about Curley's initial email from Feb. 27, 2001, which seems to allude to prior concerns about Sandusky.
But Spanier stated several times that he did not know precisely what Curley's reference was to when he wrote about telling Sandusky the administrators were aware of "the first situation," about offering Sandusky help with his "problem," or references to reporting to "the other organization," which prosecutors have defined as child welfare officials.
"You're asking me to explain what someone else wrote, and I'm not sure I can do that," Spanier said.
Strokoff countered that Spanier, in his own response, had signalled his approval of Curley's approach.
Clarifying that point, Spanier stated that Curley had been designated the lead on the Sandusky matter, and he was basically giving his approval to Curley's revised approach.
Noting that he had also been travelling for much of the time between the first conversation and the emails traded two weeks later, Spanier said: "I'm sure I was thinking: 'You have the lead on this. I'm comfortable with your approach. Please proceed with handling it.'"
Spanier has always insisted that he had never known that the incident McQueary had seen in the Lasch Football Building that winter was sexual in nature.
That's why, he added, he was comfortable with Curley's suggestion.
"It didn't occur to me that it was something that warranted an investigation," Spanier said.
Before breaking for lunch, Strokoff began questioning the former president on the statement he issued in defense of Curley and Schultz when they were initially charged with perjury and failure to report in November of 2011.
McQueary has argued that that statement defamed him, as the former administrators initial accuser.
Spanier made plain that he issued the statement based both on what he remembered of the 2001 allegation, and his longstanding relationship with both men.
"I knew what they said to me, therefore I knew what I thought was the truth," Spanier said.
"I thought it was an unbelievable injustice that these two guys - who are like Boy Scouts - would be charged with a crime... That's what was in my head."
Spanier, who was still on the stand at lunch break, was preceeded on the stand by Tom Harmon, who was chief of Penn State's university police at the time.
Harmon spoke as he has in prior court proceedings, testified to his communications with Schultz and Curley over the 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and a different boy.
The email chains show that Schultz and Curley clearly knew about the 1998 investigation, which did not result in charges against Sandusky at that time, and that Spanier was at least copied on the information.
The existence of that incident - and the administrators' knowledge of it at the time, is a building block for the criminal charges pending in from McQueary's 2001 report.
McQueary, 42, alleges he's been treated unfairly by Penn State in the aftermath of his public emergence as a key prosecution witness against Curley, former PSU President Graham Spanier, and former senior vice president for business and finance Gary Schultz.
McQueary's suit says the cumulative effect of inaction by the three former administrators to his initial eyewitness account against Sandusky, has branded him as part of a cover-up.
As a result, he believes, his name has become radioactive in college football coaching circles.
Spanier, Curley and Schultz still face child endangerment charges in Dauphin County court.
Sandusky was convicted in June 2012 of the serial sexual abuse of 10 different boys between 1994 and 2008. He is currently a minimum 30-year state prison term.
McQueary, a State College native who played and coached for the late and legendary Paterno, seeks damages of $4 million to replace expected lost income as a major college coach.
BELLEFONTE - Former Penn State President Graham Spanier, perhaps offering a preview of coming attractions, testified publicly for the first time Thursday about his handling of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
Spanier took the stand in former assistant football coach Mike McQueary's whistleblower suit against the university.
Measuring his words very carefully throughout, Spanier portrayed himself as an executive who never really got too immersed in the details of McQueary's initial eyewitness report to Joe Paterno on Sandusky.
Rather, he said, he was busy with fundraising and other duties of the presidency and content to let his senior lieutenants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, take the lead on the issue - especially after he had been led from them to believe that the incident was based on nothing more than "horsing around."
Spanier also reitereated his prior public assertions that he had no recollection of hearing about a separate 1998 shower allegation against Sandusky that had been investigated by university police.
The former president, one of many Penn State figures who saw his career abruptly interrupted by the Sandusky scandal, is likely a key witness in McQueary's quest for damages over what he sees as mistreatment by Penn State.
But Spanier, with Curley and Schultz, is also a defendant in a separate criminal case stemming from the former administrators' handling of McQueary's report.
Spanier first was asked about the 1998 case.
He said Thursday that he was travelling out of the country at the time Schultz, his senior vice president for business and finance, sent his email reporting that the 1998 case had been closed without charges.
Spanier said that he would not have had access to the email during his trip. He also said he has no recollection of seeing it upon his return.
"That was probably the one circumstance where I didn't go back and try to read every email, because my schedule was pretty busy," Spanier said.
Spanier added that even if he had seen the 1998 email, because since Schultz had marked the matter as closed he likely would not have followed up on it.
Spanier was then confronted with the now-infamous February 2001 email exchange between he, Schultz and then-Athletic Director Curley about the allegation McQueary had reported.
The former president told the jury, under questioning from McQueary's attorney Elliot Strokoff, that he had initially heard about McQueary's report from Curley and Schultz after a Feb. 12, 2001 president's council meeting.
Spanier said it was described to him only as "horsing around," and that at the time they decided on two "interventions:
* Telling Sandusky that he was not welcome to bring Second Mile youth into campus facilities any more.
* And to make sure the leaders of the former Penn State defensive coordinator's youth charity, the Second Mile, knew of that decision.
Strokoff noted that conversation would have occurred the day after Schultz had already consulted with then-Penn State counsel Wendell Courtney about obligations to report possible child abuse.
But Spanier said that consultation with Courtney was never mentioned in his discussion with Curley or Schultz.
He also said he was comfortable reaching a decision on how to handle the allegation without hearing directly from McQueary or ordering further investigation because it was only characterized as "horsing around,"
It seemed, he said, "like an adequate level of intervention."
Strokoff moved onto the now-infamous email exchange from February 2001 between Curley, Schultz and Spanier in which the three men came to a final determination on how they would handle the Sandusky matter.
The trio is facing failure to report and child endangerment charges because they did not take McQueary's report to police or child welfare officials.
Strokoff quizzed Spanier on many specifics about Curley's initial email from Feb. 27, 2001, which seems to allude to prior concerns about Sandusky.
But Spanier stated several times that he did not know precisely what Curley's reference was to when he wrote about telling Sandusky the administrators were aware of "the first situation," about offering Sandusky help with his "problem," or references to reporting to "the other organization," which prosecutors have defined as child welfare officials.
"You're asking me to explain what someone else wrote, and I'm not sure I can do that," Spanier said.
Strokoff countered that Spanier, in his own response, had signalled his approval of Curley's approach.
Clarifying that point, Spanier stated that Curley had been designated the lead on the Sandusky matter, and he was basically giving his approval to Curley's revised approach.
Noting that he had also been travelling for much of the time between the first conversation and the emails traded two weeks later, Spanier said: "I'm sure I was thinking: 'You have the lead on this. I'm comfortable with your approach. Please proceed with handling it.'"
Spanier has always insisted that he had never known that the incident McQueary had seen in the Lasch Football Building that winter was sexual in nature.
That's why, he added, he was comfortable with Curley's suggestion.
"It didn't occur to me that it was something that warranted an investigation," Spanier said.
Before breaking for lunch, Strokoff began questioning the former president on the statement he issued in defense of Curley and Schultz when they were initially charged with perjury and failure to report in November of 2011.
McQueary has argued that that statement defamed him, as the former administrators initial accuser.
Spanier made plain that he issued the statement based both on what he remembered of the 2001 allegation, and his longstanding relationship with both men.
"I knew what they said to me, therefore I knew what I thought was the truth," Spanier said.
"I thought it was an unbelievable injustice that these two guys - who are like Boy Scouts - would be charged with a crime... That's what was in my head."
Spanier, who was still on the stand at lunch break, was preceeded on the stand by Tom Harmon, who was chief of Penn State's university police at the time.
Harmon spoke as he has in prior court proceedings, testified to his communications with Schultz and Curley over the 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and a different boy.
The email chains show that Schultz and Curley clearly knew about the 1998 investigation, which did not result in charges against Sandusky at that time, and that Spanier was at least copied on the information.
The existence of that incident - and the administrators' knowledge of it at the time, is a building block for the criminal charges pending in from McQueary's 2001 report.
McQueary, 42, alleges he's been treated unfairly by Penn State in the aftermath of his public emergence as a key prosecution witness against Curley, former PSU President Graham Spanier, and former senior vice president for business and finance Gary Schultz.
McQueary's suit says the cumulative effect of inaction by the three former administrators to his initial eyewitness account against Sandusky, has branded him as part of a cover-up.
As a result, he believes, his name has become radioactive in college football coaching circles.
Spanier, Curley and Schultz still face child endangerment charges in Dauphin County court.
Sandusky was convicted in June 2012 of the serial sexual abuse of 10 different boys between 1994 and 2008. He is currently a minimum 30-year state prison term.
McQueary, a State College native who played and coached for the late and legendary Paterno, seeks damages of $4 million to replace expected lost income as a major college coach.
As expected, Spanier says that he had little involvement and had handed it off to Curley and Schultz.
Spanier said it was described to him only as "horsing around," and that at the time they decided on two "interventions:
* Telling Sandusky that he was not welcome to bring Second Mile youth into campus facilities any more.
* And to make sure the leaders of the former Penn State defensive coordinator's youth charity, the Second Mile, knew of that decision.
"But Spanier said that consultation with Courtney was never mentioned in his discussion with Curley or Schultz."
Spanier said it was described to him only as "horsing around," and that at the time they decided on two "interventions:
* Telling Sandusky that he was not welcome to bring Second Mile youth into campus facilities any more.
* And to make sure the leaders of the former Penn State defensive coordinator's youth charity, the Second Mile, knew of that decision.
"But Spanier said that consultation with Courtney was never mentioned in his discussion with Curley or Schultz."
Last edited:
I don't know if it's just that the press is being ignorant about the issues or if it's so, but does MM really want to claim that it's the inaction of CSS&P that caused him to lose his job?
I don't think he is saying that, I think he is saying their handling of the case has put him in the cross hairs of a mess they created. He lost his job, and cant get another as his reputation has been tarnished because of their actions.
Yes. Absolutely
That is the nature of the suit - - - in its essence. (well....should expand to "lose his job...." AND become largely "unemployable" moving forward)
And if the Plaintiffs can convince the Jury of that......it will have huge implications.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Hey - looks like he may benefit from some 'inaction' after all!
What he in essence is saying is that he finds MM to be the most credible of anyone. OAG disciple. Strongly disagree with that premise.
Last edited:
Lundy is not an oag disciple.
I think he simply try's to look at all aspects of the cases.
I think he simply try's to look at all aspects of the cases.
Didn't the guy challenge him to a wrestling match in the parking lot or some such thing?
Because he didn't mention anything about slapping some swimming pants on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have never had any issue with Lundy. I find him to be a very valuable asset. I hope he will respond with his thoughts.
I find it very interesting that Harmon claims he played a very minor role in 1998 and knows little about it as he was playing second fiddle to Schultz and Curley..... What laughable bull$hit given that Harmon is the party who had the file marked "Administrative" rather than a potential "Criminal Investigation" despite the UPPD's Lead Detective, Ron Schreffler, fielding the complaint (Harmon was Schreffler's boss and Schreffler was basically #2 in the entire Dept!) and immediately going to the Centre County DA's Office and the ADA in charge of Criminal Abuse Complaints, Karen Arnold, for instruction as to how to proceed!?!? 1998 CLEARLY started out as a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION FILE under Schreffler and was not changed "in arrears" and officially marked "Administrative" until the DPW rendered their report which SCUTTLED the Centre County DA's case and rendered it "non-prosecutable" due to the ruling of the "Administrative Judiciary Authority", the DPW, under PA CPS Law! IOW, Harmon, Sandusky's church-buddy who was also his neighbor for a long time, made sure that the file was put under seal as an "Administrative File" which would rendered it effectively buried for the ages....what a coincidence!
Goes right along with my thought that if there was a coverup, it occurred with Curley and Schultz.
Graham was once a promising boxer in South Africa. My gut tells me he wouldn't back down from Miles.
And why the f**k didn't he go to the police if he was dissatisfied with their inaction???
So far Spanier has testified that A. He didn't read the emails from Schultz concerning the 1998 Sandusky molestation investigation; B. He never knew about 1998 (even though in court filings Schultz has contended that he believes Spanier did know) C. Didn't know that Schultz had consulted an attorney about the 2001 incident; D. Apparently didn't think it strange that the COO and the AD of Penn State should drag him out of a meeting to tell him about "horseplay in the shower" E. Then engaged in a series of meetings and emails concerning horseplay in the shower F. Didn't know what Curley meant by "the first situation" and didn't bother to find out G. Didn't know what Curley meant by Sandusky's "problem" and didn't bother to find out H. Didn't know what Curley meant by "the other organization" and didn't bother to find out.
He probably would've been better off saying he didn't read Curley's email but since he responded to it, he didn't have a choice.
I don't know what his explanation is for "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."
He probably would've been better off saying he didn't read Curley's email but since he responded to it, he didn't have a choice.
I don't know what his explanation is for "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."
Now it's easy to see why they have wanted Curley and Schultz silenced all this time. They are the only guys who know what really went on.
But let's be frank here: if whatever Curley and Schultz did/didn't do fit the narrative of the BOT/OAG story, they wouldn't have bothered to muzzle them. They'd only muzzle them if what they had to say was not in line with the storyline that was being propagated. And they would have certainly prosecuted them by now.
I can only assume that what Curley and Schultz have to say will not be helpful to the BOT/OAG cause.
But let's be frank here: if whatever Curley and Schultz did/didn't do fit the narrative of the BOT/OAG story, they wouldn't have bothered to muzzle them. They'd only muzzle them if what they had to say was not in line with the storyline that was being propagated. And they would have certainly prosecuted them by now.
I can only assume that what Curley and Schultz have to say will not be helpful to the BOT/OAG cause.
it only makes sense if you understand how words work
At least Spanier has been consistent throughout this ordeal and has refused to be silent.
Guns wrestled him into an inverted facelock camel clutch with a small side of arm bar.
McQueary told the jury he did not believe his son ever followed up with his superiors, but John did, questioning Gary Schultz at some point after the initial report.
"Gary, this is big. This is huge. What's next?" McQueary says he told Schultz.
Which still begs the question - Curley brought this to Dr. Jack Raykovitz. Nothing kept McQ Sr. from doing the same, was there?
By dumping it onto PSU, then you've just effectively washed your hands of it, so how "huge" could it really have been then?
Way too much disconnect I see here. But that could just be me.
"Gary, this is big. This is huge. What's next?" McQueary says he told Schultz.
Which still begs the question - Curley brought this to Dr. Jack Raykovitz. Nothing kept McQ Sr. from doing the same, was there?
By dumping it onto PSU, then you've just effectively washed your hands of it, so how "huge" could it really have been then?
Way too much disconnect I see here. But that could just be me.
Last edited:
What you're trying imply that Spanier should have done (i.e. bother to find out) was simply not realistic given what he says he was told. It's plainly clear that this situation was not brought to him as a problem that deserved his close attention. He could be lying, but I doubt it. His mere presence in court today was not the act of a guilty man.
Wha? Once again this defies common sense and dignity. So, if you see a crime, the advice is not to report it to police because the crime has already taken place? Sounds like Dad and MM have been working on their story.
Conrad asked McQueary if he made sure to ask his son if the boy was okay before he left. He said his son assumed the child had left the Lasch building.
"Mr. McQueary left the locker room and left that young boy in a shower with Jerry Sandusky," Conrad stated. "Yes," McQueary responded.
"And when he called you and told you what he saw, did you tell him to call university police?" Conrad continued. "No," McQueary said.
Conrad asked McQueary if he made sure to ask his son if the boy was okay before he left. He said his son assumed the child had left the Lasch building.
"Mr. McQueary left the locker room and left that young boy in a shower with Jerry Sandusky," Conrad stated. "Yes," McQueary responded.
"And when he called you and told you what he saw, did you tell him to call university police?" Conrad continued. "No," McQueary said.
Your assumption is wrong. Dukie is brave enough to come on here and provide his insights. He doesn't troll or act inappropriately so as far as I'm concerned, he is welcomed.
Must have been a hell of a prodigy, because his family moved to the U.S. when he was one.
Yes, and if he was so dissatisfied then why did MM testify at the 12/16/11 prelim that when Curley called him a few weeks later to follow up with PSU's action plan, he never expressed any dissatisfaction and never said that MORE needed to be done? There are simply too many disconnects to MM's story.
Also, when JM, Dr. D, and Schultz had a meeting a few months after the incident why weren't JM and Dr. D making a big stink about the fact that JS was still accessing kids and walking around as a free man?? Why not ask Schultz why the EFF no one from UPPD ever came to get MM's written statement for their criminal investigation??
========================================
During the 12/16/11 Prelim this is what JM had to say about this meeting between him Dr. D and Schultz:
Page 156
Q: Do you recall if you ever expressed any dissatisfaction with Mr. Shultz about the action that was taken or not taken?
A: I wouldn't make it a personal dissatisfaction. I was - I was dissatisfied with the process that what appeared to be or sounded to me to be a serious reported infraction that we've all discussed here, that it appeared on the surface that the system wasn't doing much about it (gee I wonder if that's because your son never filed a written statement to UPPD??). I am no in a position to say that Gary Schultz didn't do anything about it.
Q: Well, did you ever express to Mr. Schultz your dissatisfaction with how the system was proceeding?
A: I cannot say that I ever expressed dissatisfaction to Gary
==============================================
Chew on that for a minute then compare it to the crap MM and JM are trying to pull now acting all outraged that these guys supposedly placated them and deceived them....yeah right. Neither one of MM nor JM expressed any dissatisfaction to ANY of the people they said they trusted to handle MM's report. C/S were not mind readers.
