Release of Graham Spanier Full ABC Interview & Response to Baldwin Testimony is Yet Another Bombshell
2013 in now finishing with yet another "bombshell," which, in a rational world, would significantly alter the media's narrative about what really happened in the Sandusky scandal, but which the media itself will once again almost certainly ignore.
This week the judge in the Spanier/Curley/Schultz case basically canceled a hearing on the Cynthia Baldwin issue and whether her testimony should be allowed in the case, or if the entire case should be thrown out because the defendants did not have legal representation during their grand jury appearance. As part of his ruling, Baldwin's testimony was released. Within this testimony is a claim that Spanier lied in his interview with Josh Elliott of ABC in 2012. Because of that, ABC has decided to post the entire, unedited, nearly two-hour interview.
Here is that remarkable interview:
In my opinion, this interview reveals nearly everything you need to know about this case from Penn State's perspective and about the media malpractice which created the false firestorm. It is an absolutely outrageous display of horrendously biased "interviewing" and Spanier's performance is so amazing that it seems impossible to believe that anyone could watch the whole thing and still remotely trust the media's narrative.
I would urge people to watch it not just for the substantive issues involved, but also because Elliott's ignorant and nonsensical grandstanding is so transparent that it truly is hilarious. I haven't laughed so much at a Hollywood comedy in a long time. It really would be worthy of a "Saturday Night Live" parody if it was going to get nearly the media attention that it deserves.
One of the specific things that I wish to point out about the interview is that Elliott is engaging throughout the two hours in a classic tabloid media tactic. He knows that he is only going to use, at most, a minute or two of this interview (he clearly never anticipated it being released in its entirety) and this gives him a chance to swing for the fences dozens of times, safe in the knowledge that if he misses embarrassingly that there will be no repercussion because those miscues will never see the light of day. He never even comes close to even making solid contact.
Elliott is obviously primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with creating a "highlight" moment which will make news and bring him attention/media adulation. If you think of Elliott as a basketball player, he doesn't care if he goes 1/20 from the field with a dozen turnovers as long as he ends up on "Sportscenter" with the dramatic dunk.
He tried very hard to get Spanier to react emotionally to the victim's testimony, take blame for Sandusky's crimes, or bait him into saying something he could take out of context. Thanks to Spanier's remarkable composure, he failed miserably.
If there were any ethics left in the news media, Elliott would be humiliated by the release of this full interview and would suffer some sort of punishment from ABC. Instead, because no one in the rest of the media will ever do anything which appears to support anyone from Penn State in this case (unless they are paying money to Sandusky victims of dubious credibility), nothing like that will happen.
Also, just as importantly, as part of their response to the release of Baldwin testimony, Spanier's lawyers have put out a blistering analysis which makes it clear that Baldwin is not to be trusted. It also suggests that what is really happening here is an indication that the prosecution is so desperate/insecure about their case that they now have to resort to outrageous and unethical practices in order to maintain their myth as long as possible.
Here is Spanier's response, which is being released to the media today.