The Penn State scandal: Charging Spanier
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
— Sir Walter Scott
And, oh, how several former high-ranking and powerful Penn State officials likely now wish they first would have considered that axiom before allegedly engaging in the massive cover-up of Jerry Sandusky's sick and repeated perversions.
The Penn State sexual molestation scandal exploded yet again on Thursday. State Attorney General Linda Kelly announced five felony and three misdemeanor charges against fired university president Graham Spanier, including perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Additional charges of obstruction of justice and child endangerment were lodged against Athletic Director Tim Curley, officially “on leave” but soon to be severed from Penn State, and Gary Schultz, the former senior vice president for business and finance, who retired in the scandal's aftermath. They previously were charged with perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse.
All have professed their innocence.
Ms. Kelly called the alleged actions of Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schultz “a conspiracy of silence.” And it is a conspiracy that has grown into a giant pit that threatens to bury Penn State, dug by a silence that proved to be the wisdom of fools.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- The ‘green’ ruse: Germany’s poor ‘model’
- The Stellarwind program: Hardly stellar
- Saturday essay: Grandma Nick’s stormy forecast
- The Plum sex scandal: New, sad questions
- The Takata air bags recall: It’s about time