Judge offers mixed bag of opinions in Spanier-Freeh suit

You win some, you lose some.

On Tuesday, Louis Freeh did both.

The former FBI director won some of his arguments in the lawsuit brought by former Penn State president Graham Spanier, while others were denied, allowing Spanier’s suit to proceed.

Freeh was hired by Penn State to conduct an independent review of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

Lebanon County Senior Judge Robert Eby filed an order in Centre County Court that said seven of the statements in Spanier’s defamation claims were factual in nature. That opinion was not that they were true, but that they were able to be proven true or false.

Eby denied Freeh’s objections for six of those statements. One of them, that an investigation showed Spanier “discouraged discussion and dissent,” was granted.

Four other statements, like a “total disregard for the safety and welfare” of Sandusky’s child victims and a “striking lack of empathy” were found to be opinions. Freeh’s motion on those was granted.

Another statement, namely that one victim’s assault could have been prevented if Spanier, as well as late longtime coach Joe Paterno, former vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley, had “taken additional actions,” was deemed to be both factual and opinion.

Eby granted Freeh’s request on that statement as well.

Five more statements deemed to mix fact and opinion were allowed to proceed on the factual issues but not as opinion.

Freeh also argued that Spanier had not adequately pleaded malice in his complaint, but that was denied by Eby.

Spanier lost on another claim after Eby called the tortious interference charge moot.

This story was originally published September 27, 2016 at 11:13 PM with the headline "Judge offers mixed bag of opinions in Spanier-Freeh suit."