The Blue Board

They are waving a white flag, imo.

Early damage control

Ha

So what's your take on it? Early damage control or what?

I'm truly curious if the family knows anything we don't or not. I'd have to think Joe told them something, or maybe he left them in the dark as well and they're just trying to preserve his legacy. Can't wait until Thursday....

Yeah, I think so.

*This is my speculation, so just keep that in mind.*

On Friday, Spanier was interviewed by the Freeh Group (see the link below). Interestingly enough, after the interview, Spanier denies being told in 2001 anything "that described sexual misconduct or criminality of any kind." Okay, so on the surface it looks like Spanky is just in deny mode. But think of this... that statement came after his interview with the Freeh Group. Prior to this, Spanier refused to talk to the Freeh Group unless PSU released his emails to him. I'm speculating that the Freeh Group agreed to disclose the emails in order to get his side of the story. In fact, I can even speculate that these leaks were meant to entice Spanky to come forward.

So let's say for a second that Spanier did not in fact know that serious crimes were committed, but rather was told that Sandusky was caught showering with a boy (I know, it's still F'd up, but that is somehow legal...). That would help explain why PSU consulted with an outside legal group.

If the above is true, the next question is, where did the story change from "Jerry was doing something sexual with a boy" to "Jerry was showering with a boy"? Only one of two things could have taken place, IMO

1) Curley and Schultz lied to Spanier about what Paterno and McQueary said to them
2) Paterno and McQueary lied to Curley and Schultz (which is basically what their defense is to pergury)

One thing we know for sure is that McQueary told Paterno that something sexual occurred. We know that because their testimony to the GJ corroborated that fact.

Now again, that is purely speculation on my part, and I don't even know if I would call it likely... but it's just another pluasable scenario that ran through my head.

A few things:

1) This is absolutely early damage control. The Freeh report must be incredibly damaging to Paterno's already-tarnished reputation.

2) I think the family is going to take some major body blows soon that they aren't prepared for at all. I think there'll be at least one thing that comes out that just completely sandbags them.

3) "[Joe Paterno] was...uncompromisingly ethical" - I don't see how anyone can say this with a straight face, especially after the e-mails came out. There are a number of lines in this statement that, in my opinion, are going to just embarrass the rest of the family further if the Freeh report is as bad as it seems to be.

Well, they are family and I'm sure that Paterno had good intentions throughout his career and they know that. From hearing reports that this will be "tough on Paterno", I think they are just trying to protect the man they love. I'm sure they question the validity of the Freeh report as well.

Heck, they could be 100% honest when they say that in their mind, Joe was tricked. There is a good possibility that Joe would have kept something like this to himself if he had something to do with a coverup.

I will never question family members sticking up for one of their own, especially when nothing concrete has come out. And that is coming from someone who thinks there is a very good chance that Joe aided in a coverup.

This.

That statement was a complete embarrassment.