From the special investigation report issued by Louis Freeh, former Director of the F.B.I., et al:
February 27-28, 2001:
"Curley emails Schultz and Spanier and says he [Curley] has changed his mind about the plan after talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday. Curley now proposes to tell Sandusky ‘we feel there is a problem’ and offer him ‘professional help.’ ‘If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing‘ the Second Mile; if Sandusky does not cooperate, ‘we don’t have a choice and will inform’ DPW and the Second Mile. ‘Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use out facilities.’"
"Spnaier emails Curley and Schultz: ‘This approach is acceptable to me.’ He adds: ‘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. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed.’"
From a story by Bill Dedman, Investigative Reporter, msnbc.com, July 12, 2012:
"At no time in the more than 16 years of his presidency at Penn State was Dr. Spanier told of an incident involving Jerry Sandusky that described child abuse, sexual misconduct or criminality of any kind, and he reiterated that during his interview with Louis Freeh and his colleagues, Spanier's attorneys, Peter Vaira and Elizabeth Ainslie, said in a written statement."
I don’t understand why Dr. Graham Spanier, former pesident of Penn State University, (and still a tenured professor on staff) would apparently have denied that he even knew of any allegations against Jerry Sandusky of sexual misconduct with children if these referred to emails in the Freeh report exist.
Is the Dedman quote accurate? Is the Freeh report accurate regarding the emails that Dr. Spanier is claimed to have been a party to and, if so, are their substances accurate? This seems very strange.