Posted on 05/26/2012 6:42:17 AM PDT by Scoutmaster
A lawsuit filed Friday by former Penn State President Graham Spanier against the university shows the investigation into what others knew about the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse accusations, and when, may be far from over.
Spanier, who was removed from office by Penn State trustees on Nov. 9 — four days after Sandusky was charged — is seeking the court’s help in getting access to a trove of emails from 1998 through 2004.
According to the lawsuit, filed in Centre County court, the emails were thought not to be recoverable until a few weeks ago.
The disclosure about the new information comes on the eve of Sandusky’s trial on charges that he sexually molested 10 boys between 1994 and 2008. Jury selection for the former Penn State assistant football coach’s case is scheduled to start June 5.
Many of the alleged incidents of abuses are said to have occurred on the Penn State campus, which has caused investigators to focus on what administrators there knew.
Nothing in Spanier’s lawsuit reveals any direct contents of the new documents. Still, it’s a hugely important time frame that, depending upon what has been recovered, could be a bonanza for prosecutors. That time span, if accurately represented in the suit, could potentially cover:
— A 1998 molestation allegation against Sandusky that was investigated by Penn State’s university police but did not result in charges at the time.
— The period surrounding Sandusky’s surprising retirement as head football coach Joe Paterno’s defensive coordinator the end of the 1999 football season.
— A 2001 incident in which a graduate assistant saw and reported Sandusky’s alleged assault on a boy in the football team’s showers. Spanier, whom The Chronicle of Higher Education recently listed as the third-highest paid public university president in the 2011 fiscal year with earnings of $1,068,763, has been considered a possible target of the ongoing Sandusky investigation.
State Attorney General Linda Kelly, in her initial news conference on the charges last November, made a point of noting that Paterno was not a target of the ongoing criminal probe.
At the same news conference, Kelly was far less clear-cut about Spanier’s status, stating only that with regard to the president she could not go beyond what is in the grand jury presentment because the case is still active.
In the grand jury presentment, Spanier is reported to have told jurors that even though he signed a document following the 2001 shower incident barring Sandusky from bringing children from his Second Mile Foundation onto the Penn State campus, he didn’t know the triggering incident was sexual in nature.
Attempts to reach attorneys for Spanier for additional comment on the suit Friday night were not successful.
Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, now on leave, and retired Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz have been charged with failing to report that incident to police and later lying to the grand jury about what they knew about it.
New information that comes out of the emails being sought could have implications for their case.
Attempts to reach attorneys for Curley and Schultz Friday night were not successful.
According to Spanier’s lawsuit, when Spanier, Paterno and other high-ranking administrators appeared before the state grand jury investigating Sandusky last year, everyone thought a new email system installed at Penn State in 2004 had eliminated emails prior to that time.
Somehow — and the court documents do not make it clear how — at least some of those earlier emails became retrievable “in recent months.” A spokesman for Kelly declined comment about the investigation Friday, as per office policy on cases before a grand jury.
But what is known now is that the find set off a nervous exchange of letters this spring, which were attached as exhibits in Spanier’s lawsuit. Spanier states in his suit that he asked Penn State officials for a chance to review his old files before speaking to investigators with the Freeh Group, hired by trustees last fall to head their internal investigation into the Sandusky scandal.
The university, in an April 20 letter from outside counsel Frank Guadagnino, refused, stating in part: “We have received an explicit instruction from the deputy attorney general not to share the requested information for fear of compromising the commonwealth’s ongoing investigation.”
On April 25, writing directly to Freeh, Spanier’s attorneys asked for Freeh’s help in changing the university’s mind, but also insisted that they would not permit Spanier to talk to the internal examiners without a chance to review his files.
“We cannot repeat the episode from last year (2011) in which our client was permitted to be interviewed by the attorney general’s office and, later, appear in front of a grand jury with absolutely no preparation, including no review of any relevant documents,” that letter reads.
Penn State spokesman Dave La Torre issued an email statement in which he declined comment on the specifics of Spanier’s lawsuit.
“However,” La Torre said, “the university has cooperated fully with the Office of Attorney General and the Freeh Group and expects all of its faculty, staff and administrators, including Dr. Spanier, to cooperate to the fullest extent.
“The university believes it has done nothing that would prevent Dr. Spanier from meeting with the Freeh Group, which has already met with hundreds of university employees.”
Spanier has to be concerned as to what internal communication regarding Penn State child abuse has been recovered by the committee.
Freeh is easily corruptable which is why Penn State selected him to head up the internal investigation. Freeh is more attached to clearing his friends than he is attached to the rule of law. However, he has no control over the criminal justice process in this situation and has to be careful not to be an obstructor of justice.
Those internal communications may not be relevant to the Sandusky trial, scheduled to commence in June. However, they'll be relevant to the Curley and Schultz trials for perjury (if I'm not mistaken, the charges for failure to report may no longer fail within the statute of limitations) if either of those gentleman are on the receiving end. If they're not, or if others are cc'd, then there may be others who'll be called before a/the grand jury (I don't know if the term of the November 11 grand jury has expired or if a new grand jury must be empaneled).
These emails will also be key in any possible perjury charges against Spanier - regarding whether his previous testimony that he had no knowledge that that Sandusky's 1998 problems involved matters of a sexual nature and other testimony already given by Spanier before the grand jury regarding what he knew and when he knew it.
If the information in these new emails is damning to Spanier, then that information may also raise issues regarding what Spanier either withheld from the Board of Trustees . . . or what the Board of Trustees knew from Spanier and when the BOT knew it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.