1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser
NCAA FootballSports & Politics

The Paterno Family Is Releasing Its Own Report On The Sandusky Scandal Soon, And Hopefully It’s Over After This


We are very sorry for bothering you with Joe Paterno news, but this is relatively important. The Paterno family wasn’t happy with the Freeh Report, so they’re releasing their own, longer report, that sounds like it’s mainly a critique of the Freeh Report itself.

While the details of what will actually be contained in what’s being called an “extremely comprehensive” report are not known, it’s expected to center on the tactics utilized by the Freeh group, which “conducted over 430 interviews and reviewed over 3.5 million documents” during a probe that began in November of 2011. Coach Paterno was not one of those interviewed. Neither was Mike McQueary, the then-grad assistant who witnessed Sandusky raping a young boy in a shower located in the football program’s on-campus building in 2001.

By the way, we’re pretty darn sure Joe Paterno was negligent regarding much of Jerry Sandusky’s behavior.

Are there legitimate critiques to be made of the Freeh Report? Absolutely. But the report was still pretty damning. It’s highly unlikely that the new report will have any evidence that Joe Paterno was completely innocent, or close to it. An imperfect report can be damning – and this one was, to Joe Paterno.

Could it change public opinion slightly, by damaging Freeh’s credibility? Sure. But the continued complete denial by the Paterno family is ridiculous. As we know, even Joe himself said, “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

This comes in the wake of Sue Paterno’s upcoming interview with Katie Couric (who apparently is the greatest interviewer in all of sports, or something).

The Paterno investigation is worth monitoring, but I doubt we’ll see anything groundbreaking from a report directed by the family itself. At best, this is basically an effective political attack ad. At worst, it’s useless and annoying. And, hopefully, the Paternos just give up after this.

[College Football Talk]


  • Jeff Phillips

    Are you aware that the Freeh report’s conclusions are not supported by facts within the report itself? Mr. Rudintsky, I assume you are a reporter of news, and that you do your own fact analysis and research. What did your research of the report conclude? What say you about the numerous, fact-based critiques of the Freeh report? The Paterno family is not the only entity to counter the Freeh report. The Governor of Pennsylvania, a significant group of Penn State alums, and several non-PSU affiliated radio and news reporters have raised serious issues about the Freeh Report — and this is the only “objective” basis for the bashing of Paterno and Penn State. Sandusky was acquitted of the only charge connecting Paterno with this issue —- the 2001 “shower” incident. But since this doesn’t fit your narrative and uninformed bias, it will not be spoken of by you or others in your so-called profession.

  • Jonathan Lochne

    A quick google search reveals you as a Michigan grad. Did the Michigan school of journalism teach these kinds of choice thoughts?: “It’s highly unlikely that the new report will have any evidence that Joe
    Paterno was completely innocent, or close to it. An imperfect report
    can be damning – and this one was, to Joe Paterno.” On what basis do you conclude that the report, which has yet to be issued, will not have any new or relevant information? You — and no one else — has yet to read it! And how can an imperfect report be damning to an individual it purports to reveal as flawed? That’s like saying a person who is a known crook can successfully impugn another person’s integrity.

  • Anonymous

    Gah, this was all answered within the post! As I said, the Freeh Report deserves some scorn. You are certainly correct about that. BUT the one thing that was clear is that Joe Paterno knew about the Sandusky scandal and did virtually nothing about it, allowing the man to be around the program for a long time. Hence the public vitriol towards Joe Paterno.

  • Anonymous

    A quick Google search would tell you there is no Michigan school of journalism!

    I appreciate your comment, but you aren’t understanding me. Read the Freeh Report, or at the very least, my summary of it. I linked to it above, but here it is again (http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-football/freeh-report-summary/2/).

    I am guessing about the new report, but the point is, while it may offer nothing new or many things, it can’t erase the evidence against Joe Paterno. The evidence that clearly showed he knew about the Sandusky incident back in 1998.

    You are correct that this new report could hurt Freeh’s credibility. 100%. But my point is, the evidence against Paterno was already clear in his report. Freeh may have neglected to interview some people, etc., but there was direct evidence against Paterno. How can anything new dispute that?

  • Anonymous

    My point was, the report was arguably imperfect because it was arguably incomplete. But if the information was already damning, new evidence will not erase that information.

  • Steve

    You summarized the summary, which is Louis Freeh’s opinion. You did not actually summarize the report itself. And no, there is no evidence that Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 incident. There is an email suggesting “Coach is eager to find out…”. What coach? Is it Joe Paterno? Is it Coach Sandusky? You’re going to ruin a man’s reputation based on a blatant assumption that he knew something?

  • jeff phillips

    Thanks for your reply. Agree to disagree about any basis regarding Paterno’s knowledge. Sandusky was viewed universally as an odd, but well-meaning philanthropist. What he did know about the 2001 incident he told to the A.D. and chief of campus police. Never once, and the Freeh report does not point to any evidence of this kind, did Paterno step in to control that investigation, conceal any information about it, or grant some kind of special access to Sandusky.

  • Anonymous

    C’mon, man. If you read my summary and the Freeh Report, there is no way you can think Joe Paterno was clueless to the situation. The only possible way that’s true is if the entire report was a lie. Again, the report may be imperfect or incomplete. But that doesn’t mean the entire thing, including all of the evidence and testimony, was made up. It wasn’t an op-ed column by Louis Freeh. It was a long investigation headed by a guy who ran the FBI.

  • Steve

    Whose testimony? Paterno’s? Curley? Schultz’s? McQueary? I’m sorry, but you want me to just give in to an incomplete “investigation” because it’s hip to hate Penn State? Not to mention how you paraphrased what Joe actually said in November of 2011. He did not say “I wish I had done more”. (Which I admit, could be construed as an admission of guilt) He actually said, “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.” Which is very different.

    BTW, who knows what the report says at all at this point. To judge it before anyone has had a chance to even look at it is ridiculous.

  • Bill

    The Free-of-Evidence report does not prove that Joe Paterno knew anything about ’98. That’s Freeh’s assumption and you jumped all over it becasue it made a good story for the media. Not sure you care because the media never really seemed interested in the facts in this case but it was against the law for Paterno to know about the ’98 investigation. And while I know I’ll get the Joe was God retort and he ran everything bullcrap response -I have it on good authority that Curley will testify that the “Coach wants to know where it stands” e-mail that you people destroyed Paterno on is a reference to Sandusky since at the stage during the ’98 investigation Sandusky had a right to know the status of the investigation after 24-48 hrs. And let’s not forget that it was evil Penn State that presented the case against Sandusky for prosecution to the DA and it was the authorities that failed – although Paterno gets the blame for that as well.

    The idea that you would so arrogantly dismiss anything that contradicts the Freeh narrative shows you have zero interest in learning what really happened or being fair. It’s easier for you to allege a man who lived a wonderful life would suddenly throw it all way to enable a child molester. And why – because he was afraid of turning in a child molester (which is what he did anyway) because of bad publicity – Although how one receives bad publicity for turning in a child molester is beyond me but that’s the ridiculous motive Freeh assigned to Joe, and the one the media blindly ran with.

    And one more thing Michigan man. Since you are in the media – at least get Joe’s quotes right. He said: “With the benefit of Hindsight – I wish I had done more.” We can’t all be perfect like you. Some of us make mistakes and wish we knew then what we know now.

  • voice of reason

    Poorly…you forgot to mention that freeh ran the FBI poorly. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised considering you (and your lazy media ilk) have been misquoting Paterno for year now. I won’t go so far as to say freeh lied, so much as I would that he presented another in a long line of inept, shoddy work.

  • BillyBob69

    Matt, you are aware that in 1998, there were no charges and Sandusky was totally cleared, rights. So what was Joe going to do? He didn’t even like Jerry. He was gone the following year. So if he was aware of something, he didn’t willfully cover anything up, a lot of people heard and no barges were filed. In 2001 he went to his superior as the PSU handbook said to do and this was handled and addressed,mas far as Joe knew. Again, McQuerry was vague in what he said and his father and family friend Dr. dranov say to this day Mike never saw any visual sexual act. How does Paterno aid in covering something up when there is no real concrete evidence of anything? Now, should Schulze have taken all Sandusky’s campus access away, certainly, but everything was so vague and after that situation there was nothing linked to Penn State, it was all done through the second mile and done at Jerry’s home.

  • Willy T

    Sorry

  • Willy T

    More bald-faced lies by the PSU cult.
    Sandusky was cleared of the ’98 incident? Nope. He never went to trial because the DA at the time felt there was a lack of evidence. Now we know CYS gave PSU police the Chambers report of multiple experts on child abuse stating that Sandusky’s behavior fit that of a pedophile and PSU police buried it. The DA never saw it. Instead he got the Seascock report and Seascock wasn’t qualified in matters regarding child abuse. And even Seascock told Victim 6′s mom he should be alone with Sandusky. PSU police even botched the so-called “sting” even though they all felt there was more than enough there to get Sandusky. PSU police botched things, not the state. And it Looks to me we’ll find out at the upcoming trials PSU interfered with the ’98 investigation.
    And McQueary was not “vague”. Another PSU lie. He mentioned sexual slapping sounds over and over. He said he saw Sandusky in an inapporpriate position with a kid. He said he didn’t see penatration. Mike’s dad and Dranov both backed him up – he never said he saw sex, but for the love of Christ you don’t need to see rape to know abuse was going on. Sexual sounds and seeing Sandusky alone in the shower with a kid is very real concrete evidence something wrong was going on and 2 Grand Juries and the trial jury for Sandusky all believed him. Sandusky -guilty on 4 of 5 counts including a 1st degree felony regarding Victim 2. Get that through your fucking skulls PSU cultists. What Mike saw was more than enough to get Sandusky investigated. Way more. His dad, Dranov and Paterno all testified to this – after they all failed Victim 2.

  • Willy T

    You have it on good authority about the ’98 ‘Coach wants to Know where it stands’ e-mail? Bullshit. No way Sandusky was the coach referred to in those e-mails. One e-mail even has “Joe Paterno” in the subject heading. Read the 2001 e-mails – Curly clearly states in an e-mail that if Jerry doesn’t cooperate they’ll tell him they know of the previous incident. That means Jerry had no idea they even knew about his ’98 investigation dumbass. Only a poorly-educated, blind fool would come to the conclusion that those ’98 e-mails weren’t referring to Paterno. you are correct in 1 thing – it was against the law for Paterno – and Curly – to be informed by Schultz regarding ’98. And it will be proven at the upcoming trials for Schultz, Curly and Spanier that PSU indeed violated the law by informing Joe and Curly as well as for interfering with the investigation by burying the Chambers report.

  • Willy T

    Jesus Jeff.
    1. Schultz wasn’t the Chief of Police at PSU – that was Tom Harmon. Schultz was a beauracrat in charge of the Police department finances. He had no police training and thus no authority to do anything regarding Sandusky other than pass it to Harmon, which he didn’t do. McQueary, John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curly and Spanier also could – and should – have conacted Harmon or the state police at any time. They all failed Victim 2 and those who Sandusky later preyed upon.
    2. Paterno didn’t step in to control the investigation because there was no investigation dumbass. No proper authorities were ever contacted in 2001 genius.

  • Willy T

    Freeh was actually respected as FBI director. He had some bad things happen under his watch – but so has every director pretty much. But leave it to the PSU cult to blame him for everything without looking at the actual facts as whose to blame. I especially like how you blame him for Waco – he wasn’t even FBI director yet when that occured. But lets not let facts get in the way of the PSU cult’s quest to put football and the Paterno name above child sex abuse victims. You want examples of lazy, shoddy work look at your own defenders – Ziegler and Blehar are national jokes with zero credibility who have been shot down over and over for cherry picking and manipulating facts to straight up lying and yet you lap up everything they say.

  • Anonymous

    Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? What makes you, aside from a lack of real reporting skills, so sure that Joe is guilty of anything? Seriously, do you know something we don’t?

    And don’t worry, this is far, far from over. We have an investigation being done by the new Pennsylvania Attorney General, as well as the Feds and of course the upcoming trials of the other 3 that Louis ” I am responsible for ruining plenty of people’s lives” Freeh” is trying to pin the blame on.

    This kind of bandwagon, can’t get off my lazy rear end to do some real reporting so-called “journalism” is one of the reasons this is so far out of whack.

    So, Mr. Rudnitsky, if you and your mouse are so sure that Joe guilty, prove it. Do your own reporting and fact finding. Don’t take the word of a criminal (Louis Freeh), just get off your lazy rear end and report. It’s your job!!!!!


© 2014 SportsGrid, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram | Sports Statistics Provided By Rotowire