The Paterno family's take on the Jerry Sandusky pedophilia scandal neither discredits the Freeh report's findings about Penn State's astounding failure to stop the child rapist nor refutes Joe Paterno's role in the cover-up.
And whatever weight is added by former Gov. and U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh's association with the family-sanctioned report, it comes up quite light in its attempts to exonerate the family's beloved patriarch.
Shoddily disregarding context as it struggles to favorably spin two May 1998 emails sent by Athletic Director Tim Curley to Gary Schultz, a Penn State vice president, in the wake of talk about Sandusky showering with young boys on campus, the family report claims:
• One email is unclear about the identity of “the coach” with whom Mr. Curley had “touched base” — despite its “Joe Paterno” subject line.
• Another email — with subject line “Jerry” — that said “Coach is anxious to know where it stands” could refer to Sandusky possibly leading a proposed football team at the Altoona campus, not to Mr. Paterno being concerned about where the issue of Sandusky's child molestation stood.
In both instances, the “coach” clearly was Paterno — as the Freeh report found. Who else would anyone at Penn State have thought “the coach” meant?
What this report really shows is that in the eyes of his family, the legend of “JoePa” still trumps all else — even the suffering of Sandusky's victims.
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.