If you recall, Graham Spanier denied knowing or remembering any investigation regarding Sandusky showering with a boy in 1998. The evidence that Freeh uses to ‘prove’ that Spanier knew of 1998 were two vague emails that Spanier was cc’d on.
The first was Exhibit 2A of the Freeh Report, which states:
“Will do. Since we talked tonight I’ve learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the individual Thursday.”
There was no mention of an investigation or that a university employee was in trouble. In fact it doesn’t even mention a name (aside from the subject line, Joe Paterno).
The second email sent June 9, 1998, again only copied (cc’d) to Spanier, is shown in Exhibit 2E of the Freeh report. This email mentions Jerry’s name and that the investigation was over.
Subject: Re: Jerry
They met with Jerry on Monday and concluded that there was no criminal behavior and the matter was closed as an investigation. He was a little emotional and expressed concern as to how this might have adversely affected the child. I think the matter has been appropriately investigated and it is now behind us.
Even so, Spanier claims he had no knowledge of these emails. Freeh contends he had full knowledge and provided the evidence to the Attorney General, resulting in Spanier being charged with conspiracy and child endangerment.
Spanier's Calendar Indicates OtherwiseWhat’s interesting to know is that Spanier was on an international trip to the UK from June 8, 1998 to June 19, 1998. This was before the days of blackberrys and internet cafes. Spanier had no access to email while away. When he returned he would have had over one thousand emails waiting for him in his inbox.
It is very likely that an email with no urgency and one that he was only copied on would have not caught his attention or made a lasting impression. HOWEVER, what’s even more interesting, and this has been confirmed, is that Spanier had a calendar book and was meticulous about keeping dates and times of meetings, lunches, business trips, etc.
The AG and Freeh had copies of Spanier’s calendar and knew that Spanier was away when that email was sent to him. They knew it was likely he would not have seen it or remembered it among the thousand or so emails awaiting his return. Additionally, PSU was engaged in retirement talks with Sandusky before and after the May 1998 incident. It is quite possible that Spanier read the "top" or latest Sandusky update that may have dealt with retirement and simply deleted the older e-mail referencing the investigation.
That’s one little piece of evidence Freeh failed to disclose.
What other pieces of evidence have they failed to disclose because it doesn’t fit their narrative that the PSU officials are guilty of a cover up?
Full Report At Eileen's Page