Spanier asked to explain case against Freeh
HARRISBURG — The man who led Penn State's internal probe into the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal demanded on Tuesday that the school's former president elaborate on claims that he was defamed during the investigation.
Ex-Penn State President Graham Spanier has sued former FBI director Louis Freeh, who led the school's investigation, for defamation. Spanier sued in a one-page writ while seeking more time to file a full legal complaint, and he also wants his civil suit put on hold while he defends Sandusky-linked criminal charges.
However, lawyers for Freeh said the defamation charge is clouding their client's reputation, and they object to a delay.
“Spanier has succeeded in garnering headlines for suing Judge Freeh without having to provide any substantiation,” they said in their motion.
University trustees had hired Freeh to conduct an internal investigation into the school's handling of complaints about Sandusky, the former assistant football coach since convicted of molesting boys on and off campus.
Freeh's 2012 report concluded that Spanier, football coach Joe Paterno and other school officials failed to protect children from abuse.
Sandusky is now serving a 30- to 60-year prison term. Spanier and two other university officials, former vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic direct Tim Curley, are awaiting trial on charges they took part in a cover-up.
Paterno died of lung cancer early last year.
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.