Archive

The Sandusky report: Kathleen Kane’s shovel | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

The Sandusky report: Kathleen Kane’s shovel

Who could have imagined that Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane would be such a prolific hole digger?

On Monday, the AG formally released the findings of an independent review of the investigation into serial child molester Jerry Sandusky. As previously leaked, the very report that Ms. Kane, a Democrat, commissioned refuted Kane’s incendiary charge that then-AG Tom Corbett, a Republican, and/or his associates delayed the Sandusky probe for political reasons.

The report, however, did question the pace of the investigation. And while Kane characterized those findings as “crucial missteps” and “an inexcusable lack of urgency,” we would remind that prosecutory discretion is a thing of wide latitude and that Mr. Sandusky is in prison for the rest of his life.

Kane, however, decided to break out the shovel and dig another hole. In a startling claim, Kane said two men contend Sandusky molested them in the fall of 2009, several months after the investigation began into the former Penn State football coach.

The implication, found nowhere in the independent review or even in Kane’s news release on the report, is that the AG office’s delays allowed others to be victimized. Kane conveniently demurred when pressed for details. Her second hole collapsed on top of the first when prosecutors involved in the Sandusky case called the new charge a “fiction.”

“When at first you don’t succeed, dig, dig again,” Madam Attorney General?


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.