ADVERTISEMENT

Graham Spanier speaks out about false narrative that he was convicted on

The original post said that if I believed in a coverup at PSU then I was a conspiracy nut and I replied that would make Spanier's jury conspiracy nuts too as they all believed there was a coverup. The quote from Black confirms the jury believed there was a coverup. Here's a quote from the only other juror to comment publicly on Spanier's conviction, Victoria Navazio: "It didn't feel like they were conspiring to endanger children," Navazio said. "They were conspiring to protect Penn State."
That's one juror. The foreman admitted they made a mistake in convicting Spanier.
 
You mean the Federal Investigation that determined PSU did not comply with the Clery Act and fined the school? If you're talking about the Snedden BACKGROUND check of Spanier that is not a Federal Investigation of the scandal. Most folks are not aware of what DIS background checkers do, I am. Snedden was in no position to conduct the investigation that Freeh did. Plus he's a PSU grad and biased.
LOL. I have first hand experience with federal background checks and they are ABSOLUTELY a federal investigation and are far more honest than anything the OAG did.

You just keep proving how close minded you are on this topic.
 
The emails show that the administrators knew they were not dealing with "horseplay" as others try to make you believe and the emails show that Joe Paterno participated in the decision not to report Sandusky. The testimony to a GJ and to an investigator of the PA OAG confirm MM's testimony that he told Joe that something sexual was going on between Sandusky and a boy in the shower not horseplay. Prima Facia CSA. It's all right there but the mental gymnastics that Truthers go to avoid that bald truth is fascinating.

One other question for you. Anthony Lubrano has posted here that at the infamous meeting that Tim Curley had with Joe Paterno, Curley was told by Joe to "tell everyone" but Curley testified at Spanier's trial that he remembered nothing from that meeting even what Paterno's reaction to his plan was. Was Curley lying at trial or to Lubrano?
I do not recall that post from Anthony but he is certainly in the "Truther" camp on this. If you can point me to that post, I will review it.

The emails show they knew it was only horseplay. This is irrefutable. MM's testimony has changed at every turn AND he complained to the OAG that his grand jury testimony was being misrepresented in the presentmet.

Keep trying though. Your mom thinks you are doing great!
 
The coverup narrative defies logic.

Organizational leaders don't typically want to advertise their problems to the public so I can believe that the PSU administration tried to deal with this on the QT.

But....

Any sensible leaders would simultaneously do everything in their power to prevent embarrassing things from happening again. How stupid would that be for PSU administrators to know that JS was assaulting kids and allow it to continue? That makes ZERO sense!

The fact that they allowed him continued access to PSU property (even without kids) tells me that they didn't interpret MM's report as sexual assault. Add that to the fact that Dad and Dranov said MM didn't tell them about sexual assault. Are we to believe that MM told C&S more than he told his own family?

I'm not weighing in on Sandusky's guilt. At a minimum I think he had boundary problems. Even if he was innocent the 1998 incident should have been a wakeup call for him to avoid one on one contact with troubled youth (in public places). I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't point to C/S/S knowing about sexual assault.
Why would a school who’s image is doing the right thing, want to protect that image by covering up the alleged crimes of an ex-employee that nobody particularly liked? When they could just continue to do the right thing and turn him in?
 
ALL I can provide is firsthand circumstantial proof that there once was a time when NOBODY considered Sandusky a pedophile, and in fact, lauded him for creating The Second Mile to provide help for at-risk kids. BTW - The charity said its youth programs served as many as 100,000 children annually. Did ANYBODY take the time to interview any these millions of children that were directly involved with the charity over the course of its 39 years of operation, as to their experiences with the program?

I have a rather unique perspective, being that I personally knew several of the major actors involved - Tim Curley & Rick Dandrea were both in my fraternity pledge class, and a bit latter - Dr. Paul Suhey, who became FIJI's chapter president. I also knew many of the football team members and other sports athletes of that era through the fraternity. Many a weekend or Wednesday night party I would chat with these guys and girls and listen to their wide array of tales. After a few beers, sometimes conversations turned to some sort of "incident" involving the student athletes. Sordid or mundane, folks felt free to talk about such topics in our in party room because they were mostly speaking amongst peers. I suppose it was cathartic for them. HOWEVER... during all the years I lived there and spending too much time in that party room... I NEVER heard anyone say "there's something strange about Sandusky." And believe me they would be talking about him, just like they talked about Joe. Their favorite stories were about being called to visit the "Rat" at his office... that was their "affectionate" name for Joe. Some players even acted their situation out and had a pretty good imitation of his voice. lol... EVERYBODY would laugh... as it was all in good fun, usually.

ON THE OTHERHAND... I also knew Jim Calhoun. My girlfriend's father owned several apartment buildings in town and was kind enough to employ me part-time throughout the week. Jim also worked for Mr. Baker whenever he had larger maintenance projects. Jim was a large, strong, no-nonsense Army Vet at the time. I'm saddened to have learned that he was suffering dementia in a nursing home.

But my greatest grief is that Jim Calhoun may have been the only witness to SEE how monstrous Jerry Sandusky is/was/might be. However... I HIGHLY doubt there was a conspiratorial cover-up. More likely the case of a cleaver sexual-predatorial groomer that even deceived experts. imo

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...-sandusky-child-sex-abuse-penn-state/1917869/
You could have stopped with you knew Tim C. and Rick D. Just based on that whose side would you believe. That my friend isn't close. Full disclosure It sounds like I was a couple hears ahead of you. i don't remember Rick but I knew Tim and it is hard to find straighter shooter.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to remember who this poster was. Was this townie? Was he the guy who was somehow related to McQueary (brother in law, maybe?) who owned the framing shop? Or am I mixing up posters from 10 years ago?
I thought it might have been the guy who drove the equipment truck for PSU. Or maybe he was from the other board.
 
Is WHCANole Frank Fina with a lot of extra time on his hands? I remember an animated cartoon, that I believe JZ put out about the PSU coverup. It made it pretty clear that with everyone knowing it couldn't possibly be considered a coverup. If someone still has a link on file I'd like to see it again, thanks in advance!
 
I'll explain. A coverup is not a crime, in and of itself. The jury found there was not a conspiracy. A coverup and a conspiracy are two different things.

§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.

(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:

(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or

(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime."

Coverup, which is not a legal term, is:

"1. an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime."

Spanier, not telling the BOT fully about the 2001 incident, covered up the lack of action regarding Sandusky. It was not a crime to do so. It also was not a crime to protect the image of Penn State. Reprehensible yes, but not within the scope of that statute. Hence, the jurors comments.
speaking of conspiracy. nuts and this whole case everyone should take a deep breath and think about this.

Think about this for a minute.

. In 2001 you have a crime that has a statute of limitations of 2 years.
. 10 years later the judge suggests the 2 year SoL is an going 2 years because the cover up is ongoing.
. and we have NO VICTIM that was allegedly endangered.

One simple question. Who is the child Spanier endangered and continue to endanger for 10 years?.
 
Last edited:
speaking of conspiracy. nuts and this whole case everyone should take a deep breath and think about this.

Think about this for a minute.

. In 2001 you ave a crime that has a statute of limitations of 2 years.
. 10 years later the judge suggests the 2 year SoL is an going 2 years because the cover up is ongoing.
. and we have NO VICTIM

One simple question. Who is the child Spanier endangered and continue to endanger for 10 years?.
There is a legal term called standing that suggests in order for a suit to move forward the the person needs to show someone or some party was harmed. Tell me who was harmed in this case. MM can't, the prosecution can't, The millions of dollars floated by the BoT can't, The Second Mile can't.
 
the emails show that Joe Paterno participated in the decision not to report Sandusky.
I completely disagree with this statement and I'm one that generally believes Sandusky likely belongs behind bars. The only email evidence of this nature that I recall is the one that stated something to the effect of "coach is anxious to hear about where this stands." For me, that is not an indication that Joe was part of the group making the decision, it could just as likely mean that he was excluded from that group and wanted to hear the outcome of what they decided upon without his input. It's possible Joe was part of making the decision, but it's not clear whether he was or wasn't based on this email.
 
§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.

(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:

(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or

(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime."
So then what conspiracy, specifically, were they charged with committing? And wouldn’t that conspiracy be related to their supposed desire to cover up the crime to protect the university?

To cover something up, you don’t leave an email chain. And you definitely don’t tell other people, such as Jack Raykovitz. And you certainly would tell your witness to keep his mouth shut (MM says he was never told that).

That you’re here spouting off the media narrative practically by the book tells me you have an agenda.
 
all on the panel agreed was an effort to protect Penn State's brand. The "effort" is another word for coverup. Please.

Of course they believed that. It's a convenient motive to explain why Curley, Schultz, and Spanier did what they did. But there is no evidence of a "coverup." They may be guilty of monumental stupidity, but not a coverup.
 
I do not recall that post from Anthony but he is certainly in the "Truther" camp on this. If you can point me to that post, I will review it.

The emails show they knew it was only horseplay. This is irrefutable. MM's testimony has changed at every turn AND he complained to the OAG that his grand jury testimony was being misrepresented in the presentmet.

Keep trying though. Your mom thinks you are doing great!
This is Lubrano: https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...-scandal-to-start-in-2021.285749/post-5482802

The emails never mention horseplay. McQueary said he never used the term and Schultz backed him up. That term came from Paterno. The actions they took regarding MMs report show they did not think it was "horseplay". Horseplay would have never been reported by MM much less taken to Spanier. Illogical it's a benign term. Laura Ditka pointed that out at Spanier's trial.
 
LOL. I have first hand experience with federal background checks and they are ABSOLUTELY a federal investigation and are far more honest than anything the OAG did.

You just keep proving how close minded you are on this topic.
I have extensive experience as well and they are a federal investigation on the person and whether they are a security risk. That's all. Snedden was not put on the stand for a reason and the media has not picked up on it because a BACKGROUND investigation (and I doubt you know what they are based on your comments) would never be a sufficient investigation by one guy against the team Freeh had to look at the entire event. The only real FEDERAL investigation on the scandal resulted in a fine against Penn State.
 
No, they are simply ignorant.
Maybe, maybe you are too. But their judgement counted and yours and mine doesn't as it relates to jail time for Spanier. So it is false to assert that the trial showed there was no coverup. There was.
 
Last edited:
So then what conspiracy, specifically, were they charged with committing? And wouldn’t that conspiracy be related to their supposed desire to cover up the crime to protect the university?

To cover something up, you don’t leave an email chain. And you definitely don’t tell other people, such as Jack Raykovitz. And you certainly would tell your witness to keep his mouth shut (MM says he was never told that).

That you’re here spouting off the media narrative practically by the book tells me you have an agenda.
Conspiracy to endanger a child. Raykovitz wasn't told anything actionable. In fact Curley exonerates him.
 
That's one juror. The foreman admitted they made a mistake in convicting Spanier.
The foreman is one juror as well. Were you attempting to discount one juror's opinion using the opinion of another juror? In any event it does not matter because they rendered a legal decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Why would a school who’s image is doing the right thing, want to protect that image by covering up the alleged crimes of an ex-employee that nobody particularly liked? When they could just continue to do the right thing and turn him in?
Probably the same reason that the Roman Catholic Church, Boy Scouts and even the US Army did so. BTW, Sandusky was a beloved figure in State College. You just don't like him now. :) See, institutions are important but they can corrupt people who are too attached to them. They will protect the institution (and icons associated with it) at all costs. Tim Curley fits the bill perfectly. He owed his entire professional life to Joe Paterno and Penn State. He took the bullet for the team.
 
Last edited:
I completely disagree with this statement and I'm one that generally believes Sandusky likely belongs behind bars. The only email evidence of this nature that I recall is the one that stated something to the effect of "coach is anxious to hear about where this stands." For me, that is not an indication that Joe was part of the group making the decision, it could just as likely mean that he was excluded from that group and wanted to hear the outcome of what they decided upon without his input. It's possible Joe was part of making the decision, but it's not clear whether he was or wasn't based on this email.
This is the famous "after talking it over with Joe" email that was in the Freeh report.
 
I don't know. You can go back and forth all you want. To me, the story of Joe Paterno is a classic tragedy.

A good man, great coach, and American icon...who stayed in the job far too long and was done in by ordinary human frailties.

People on both sides want to make Joe into a black-or-white saga. According to one side: a hero...and then victim. The other side: a con artist and villain who was never what he was billed to be.

But I think the truth, as is often the case, lies in the middle. Not in the territory of black or white...but rather gray. Where most things are.

In the end, I'll remember Joe for being "Joe." At his best, he represented the best...in coaching and life. Which is why his death in disgrace (justified or not) was heartbreaking.

As for Sandusky, I hope the mf-er rots in Hell, which is the proper destination for those who prey on children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Conspiracy to endanger a child.
This might be the stooopidest thing I’ve heard in a long time. You’re saying they were accused of conspiring to endanger a child? That doesn’t make any sense. Now if you’re saying they were accused of conspiring to cover up what they knew and that endangered children, then okay I get that. But they were found not guilty of conspiracy.
 
This might be the stooopidest thing I’ve heard in a long time. You’re saying they were accused of conspiring to endanger a child? That doesn’t make any sense. Now if you’re saying they were accused of conspiring to cover up what they knew and that endangered children, then okay I get that. But they were found not guilty of conspiracy.
Read the jurors comments again. You need to understand that a conspiracy is not a coverup.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. You can go back and forth all you want. To me, the story of Joe Paterno is a classic tragedy.

A good man, great coach, and American icon...who stayed in the job far too long and was done in by ordinary human frailties.

People on both sides want to make Joe into a black-or-white saga. According to one side: a hero...and then victim. The other side: a con artist and villain who was never what he was billed to be.

But I think the truth, as is often the case, lies in the middle. Not in the territory of black or white...but rather gray. Where most things are.

In the end, I'll remember Joe for being "Joe." At his best, he represented the best...in coaching and life. Which is why his death in disgrace (justified or not) was heartbreaking.

As for Sandusky, I hope the mf-er rots in Hell, which is the proper destination for those who prey on children.
You have a point with his staying too long. That is I believe the root cause of his disgrace.
 
Maybe, maybe you are too. But their judgement counted and yours and mine doesn't as it relates to jail time for Spanier. So it is false to assert that the trial showed there was no coverup. There was.

Nothing I've read indicates that Curley, Schultz and Spanier ever discussed the need to protect the Penn State "brand" or the football program. Maybe if Spanier had considered that he would have taken different action.
 
This is Lubrano: https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...-scandal-to-start-in-2021.285749/post-5482802

The emails never mention horseplay. McQueary said he never used the term and Schultz backed him up. That term came from Paterno. The actions they took regarding MMs report show they did not think it was "horseplay". Horseplay would have never been reported by MM much less taken to Spanier. Illogical it's a benign term. Laura Ditka pointed that out at Spanier's trial.
At that same trial, Dr Jack admitted on the stand, under oath, that he was informed of the infamous shower incident.

Cover-up and conspitracy theory officialy and 100% debunked right then and there!
 
Nothing I've read indicates that Curley, Schultz and Spanier ever discussed the need to protect the Penn State "brand" or the football program. Maybe if Spanier had considered that he would have taken different action.
Their actions are what shows it.
 
At that same trial, Dr Jack admitted on the stand, under oath, that he was informed of the infamous shower incident.

Cover-up and conspitracy theory officialy and 100% debunked right then and there!
But he was told essentially nothing about it and Curley admitted that under oath. MM told Joe (corroborated by Joe) that it was sexual. Curley and Schultz say he didn't tell them that but the jury and I think they are lying. I believe MM told them it was sexual. Their actions show that IMHO.
 
Read the jurors comments again. You need to understand that a conspiracy is not a coverup.
I get the difference. But you aren’t getting that in this case the two things are interrelated. Can’t have the coverup without the conspiracy.
 
I get the difference. But you aren’t getting that in this case the two things are interrelated. Can’t have the coverup without the conspiracy.
Sure you can. That's why the jury asked for extra instructions about the law. CSS conspired to protect Penn State not to endanger a child. That's why Spanier got off that charge. That's the way the law is written.
 
Last edited:
speaking of conspiracy. nuts and this whole case everyone should take a deep breath and think about this.

Think about this for a minute.

. In 2001 you have a crime that has a statute of limitations of 2 years.
. 10 years later the judge suggests the 2 year SoL is an going 2 years because the cover up is ongoing.
. and we have NO VICTIM that was allegedly endangered.

One simple question. Who is the child Spanier endangered and continue to endanger for 10 years?.
The one who testified at his trial.
 
This is the famous "after talking it over with Joe" email that was in the Freeh report.
Yes, I'm familiar. "After talking it over with Joe I'm uncomfortable with what we agreed as next steps." What is "it?" Who is "we" and does "we" include Joe? What were the previously agreed to next steps being referenced? What was the suggested change to the action plan? Objectively this email proves nothing, it only raises more questions unless there is more context. The email is inconclusive at best.

It's possible that Curley reviewed a plan of action with Joe, Joe disagreed and recommended something else, and this is how Curley expressed a recap of that conversation. It's also possible that he didn't discuss the action plan with Joe at all and he simply met with him to get more context about something, and that Curley decided on his own accord that he was no longer comfortable with the prior action plan given the additional context. It's also possible that the prior agreed action plan was soft and Curley's discomfort could have been that it wasn't tough enough, either with or without the Joe's input specific to the action plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister
At that same trial, Dr Jack admitted on the stand, under oath, that he was informed of the infamous shower incident.

Cover-up and conspitracy theory officialy and 100% debunked right then and there!
The good old Pa judicial system during it's finest hour. The only liscensed child psychiatrist and mandatory reporter of TMS admitting he knew and not doing anything to protect the children under his care. That total responsibility fell on the PSU 3 and Joe. What a travesty of justice. One term Tommy, Dr Jack and Fina should have seen a prison cell not the PSU 3!
 
How is Freeh disgraced? No one authoritative has said so.
You can start with his long history of blunders at the FBI, you can start here and here to catch you up with the rest of the world. Those are just the tip of the failure iceberg. Then you could try and find one person who thinks that his conclusions are supported by the document, and that he interviewed key players. Good luck finding anything but articles ripping apart his PSU report, and evidence his own team didn't even believe the conclusions were supported.

So I guess a better question is... how is he not disgraced? I mean "no one authoritative has said so."
But he was told essentially nothing about it and Curley admitted that under oath.
Correct, because (Occam's Razor) there was nothing to tell. Do you think they decided to inform a mandated reporter outside the university a toned down version of the incident you think they were actively covering up?!?!?!
MM told Joe (corroborated by Joe) that it was sexual.
Not true. But if it was true, then ALL the blame falls on MM for not notifying the proper authorities in a timely manner.
Curley and Schultz say he didn't tell them that but the jury and I think they are lying. I believe MM told them it was sexual. Their actions show that IMHO.
You can believe MM told them it was sexual, just like you can believe the earth is flat… doesn’t make it true. Their actions show that he didn't tell them it was sexual.
Probably the same reason that the Roman Catholic Church, Boy Scouts and even the US Army did so.
Apples and Oranges. Sandusky didn't work for PSU, the victim (who is on the record saying no abuse occurred) didn't go to PSU. Now if you want to claim the PSU admins were covering up for the TSM for some reason, you might have a point if they had any connection to TSM. I don't believe they did, but I do believe that many of PSU BOT did in have TSM connections, which might explain why they handled the situation so terribly and threw the admins under the bus.
BTW, Sandusky was a beloved figure in State College. You just don't like him now. :) See, institutions are important but they can corrupt people who are too attached to them. They will protect the institution (and icons associated with it) at all costs. Tim Curley fits the bill perfectly. He owed his entire professional life to Joe Paterno and Penn State. He took the bullet for the team.

It doesn't matter if he was a beloved figure in State College, it is common knowledge that those working at PSU did not like him, especially JVP. This is just another in a long line of details you are wrong about.
 
I completely disagree with this statement and I'm one that generally believes Sandusky likely belongs behind bars. The only email evidence of this nature that I recall is the one that stated something to the effect of "coach is anxious to hear about where this stands." For me, that is not an indication that Joe was part of the group making the decision, it could just as likely mean that he was excluded from that group and wanted to hear the outcome of what they decided upon without his input. It's possible Joe was part of making the decision, but it's not clear whether he was or wasn't based on this email.
I am jumping in the middle here but the email above was in regards to the 1998 incident. We’ll never know Joe’s knowledge BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER. That was investigated and JS was effectively cleared. Just a wise up and stay from kids from the POLICE.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT