@hawkeye10,
Freehs major condemnation of Paterno seems to be
1) he did not allert everyone in the football program that Sandusky was reported as a bad guy.
There was a investigation of Sandusky after which law enforcement and the University stewards took no action...spreading derogatory gossip about sandusky around the foodball program would have been inapropreate.
2) Paterno did not lock sandusky out of football facilities
See #1
3) Paterrno was told fully of the 1998 investigation so he should have known that sandusky was a bad guy
All that investigation showed was that Sandusky was conducting horseplay in the shower, to which authorities gave Sandusky a pass. Why should we have expected Paternio to countermand his bosses and law enforcement?
4) Paterno did not break the chain of command and go to the board about Sandusky
What was Joe suppoesed to report? Why would we expect Joe to break ranks to report gossip about a guy who had done so much to help the football program? Joe never had any cause to think any worse of Sandusky than that he was stupid, so why would Joe display disloyalty to both Sandusky and his bosses to do this? This accusation about Joe assumes that he either knew or should have known more than Paterno said that he knew. So far my skim of the report and reporting indicates that Freeh did not even begin to prove that his assumptions are valid.