Good find. The documents were always going to cause trouble.
Spanier approved a plan on how to deal with a report that assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky showering with a boy in a team facility. In the email, he told the other two administrators that the “only downside” was if Sandusky did not respond properly “and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it.”
“How else can you take that, other than they knew they should have been reporting it” to the then-Department of Public Welfare, said Navazio, three days after voting with 11 other jurors to convict the 68-year-old Spanier of a single misdemeanor count. He was acquitted of conspiracy and a second child endangerment count.
“Obviously he knew children were at risk for something,” she said. “He knew there was a problem.”
Spanier, as far as I know, has never been able to explain that away except as a poor choice of words. Here he is in the NY Times Magazine piece in 2014:
He said he had no memory of writing the email in response to Curley in 2001, but now regrets that he used the word “vulnerable,” which many have taken to mean that he already knew that something inappropriate or criminal had occurred. “I didn’t,” he said. “I think what it meant was that if he didn’t get the message and stop bringing boys into the locker rooms, we could be open to criticism. Obviously, in retrospect, using the word was a bad choice. But who would think that 13 years later someone would focus in on that one word?”
The shower took place in a coaches’ locker room; Spanier said he was told that it had occurred in one of Penn State’s more public locker rooms. Even so, he said: “We decided we don’t want him bringing kids into the shower again. It doesn’t look good. It doesn’t feel right.”