FC/SIAP: New Spanier interview
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
Thank you for sharing Zeno. Spanier expresses a lot of the same comments and thoughts in the Zeigler podcast/interview.
Got to admire him for sticking to his priniciplesā¦he could have taken a much easier route. A pox on those who orchestrated this grave injustice.
Mimi: Graham, what are your thoughts on your successors, Rodney Erickson and Eric Barron?
Graham: Aw, those guys are f ags!
Graham: Aw, those guys are f ags!
Mimi was one of those loathsome individuals who f'd psu and a lot of individuals. F' her.
So Mimi Coppersmith thinks the alumni-elected Trustees make the Board dysfunctional.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/town-and-gown/lunch-with-mimi,1467983/
bwi.forums.rivals.com
---
I have a certain degree of sympathy for Spanier because I don't believe what he did was criminal and merited jail time. Unfortunately, this interview diminishes that.
He didn't know details of the incident at the time, he didn't bother to ask. Always though that he blew this from Day 1, just never realized how badly.
You may be correct but if he didn't know details and didn't ask, that would bolster his defense. He can't be expected to act on something that he does not know the details of.
To a broader point, Spanier made a huge mistake in not testifying. I wonder if he regrets that decision. I am sure he relied on his attorney's advice, that the prosecution had not proven their case so there was no need to prove his innocence. But that badly miscalculated the reality. This case was about both the facts and perception. The allegations were so shocking that there was no way a jury was going to acquit, regardless of the facts, unless the defendant explains their conduct. Lawyers seem to have a blind spot to this component of some high profile cases.
Of course, you say that as a long-time fan of Graham.
So my dislike of the man absolves him of the responsibility to do his job and protect the University?
Last edited:
May bolster his legal defense. As for carrying out his responsibilities as President of PSU, **** him.
How many Penn State employees were interviewed by the grand jury leading up to the indictments? Up to a dozen? That answer became apparent to the board and to Spanier at the March (or was it May?) board meeting and yet Spanier and the board accepted Baldwin's claim that the grand jury investigation did not involve Penn State. Such a statement by Baldwin is absurd on it's face, and yet no one challenged it. That alone justifies dismissing Spanier
(who I liked) and seeking resignations from the entire board membership that attended that meeting.
When you have multiple employees in your organization being interviewed by a grand jury, it's time to pull all the fire alarms.
(who I liked) and seeking resignations from the entire board membership that attended that meeting.
When you have multiple employees in your organization being interviewed by a grand jury, it's time to pull all the fire alarms.
Wait a minute.
1. It was the May Board. If memory serves me right, the BOT did receive a presentation on what was happening w/r/t GJ interviews and what-not. How Many BOTers asked a single, solitary question? I'll give you a hint. It is less than one. Not one of those scum-sucking cretins of the day bothered to stay awake and ask, "Hey, what might this mean to PSU?"
2. You have extreme hindsight bias when you think Spaniers remarks that he heard "... brief report about an unnamed staff member witnessing horseplay" should have caused him to jump in the phone booth and come out with a red cape.
One of the biggest blunders was hiring Baldwin as general counsel.
I believe he explains that in the Ziegler podcast, but I cannot recall the specific of his response. Take a listen and let us know what you find out, please.
I don't recall every detail but I think it is obvious. If a second incident occurred it would add credibility to the belief that the initial incident was not innocent. And this would PSU admin made a mistake in not reporting and this would make them vulnerable. That said, if they truly thought they were handling the initial incident appropriately, that would be a good faith decision on their part.
You're right. I disliked Spanier before Sandusky ever reared it's ugly head and his handling of it just confirmed that I was right to do so.
Grammie thinks that Sandusky was a big nothing burger. He makes a presentation, content of which is unknown, to the BoT and they shrug their collective shoulders. That excuses Spanier's lack of action? Mmmmmmmm....no.
Spanier's explanation does not make sense. Ziegler doesn't really press him either. What did you gather from it?
Last edited:
I wish the Black Widow would have asked GS why he did not testify and if he would change that decision
Its been a month since I listed to the podcast. I recall thinking his explanation was plausible and credible (i.e., nobody was trying to cover up anything nefarious). Why don't you think what Spanier offered do not make sense?
The actions that EVERYONE took in 2001, including McQ himself, certainly point to the shower incident being much less severe and concerning than the GJ Presentment made it out to be. McQ himself lacked the urgency to do anything because he likely sat on it for 6 weeks before seeing JoePa. Additionally, if you want to start itemizing every facet of every accuser and every assertion made in the entire saga that does not make logical/rationale sense, you're going to need a couple extra bundles of paper.
Ziegler read the quote to him and he said and I'm paraphrasing a bit, "well what I meant was that if he doesn't accept the message then we could elevate it". This bears no relation to what he wrote which was "that we become vulnerable for not reporting". What he wrote shows he knew they should report it because not reporting it made them vulnerable. Spanier seemed to duck it and basically just said "well, I stand by what I meant to say". I felt he was dissembling a bit and trying to rewrite the record. I think Ziegler should have pressed him more and asked what he meant by vulnerable. Zig just moved on.
Schultz said in his GJ testimony that what MM told him he saw was sexually inappropriate. Paterno did the same.
I'm not sure that's proven. MM said he went to Joe the next day and the testimony of Dranov and his Dad bear that out
That may be true but I think Spanier is trying to recover his reputation which was quite high at one time.
Last edited:
TruthFinder? Really? That's the name you chose on this site?
More appropriate for you would have been TruthSupressor, EvidenceIgnorer, PaternoHater... surely anything other than TruthFinder. The very last thing you want to be found is the truth. I'm not sure why you just didn't stick with WackHole.
More appropriate for you would have been TruthSupressor, EvidenceIgnorer, PaternoHater... surely anything other than TruthFinder. The very last thing you want to be found is the truth. I'm not sure why you just didn't stick with WackHole.
Mimi: Graham, what are your thoughts on your successors, Rodney Erickson and Eric Barron?
Graham: Aw, those guys are f ags!
Hey Stu. Where did ya get that Jacket?
"Uh the network gave it to me Jeff"
Get unlimited access today.