PSU wins restored.

[Northeast Stinger]

There is evidence that Paterno knew at least as early as 1998. This seems to match with emails detailed in the Freeh report. And this also seems to match the grand jury report page 49:

As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned "Jerry," and asked, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Schultz forwarded Curley's note to [university police chief Thomas] Harmon, who provided an email update that Schultz then forward to Curley. The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.

Then there is this from page 51 of the report:

After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno. Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew "everything that was going on." As Head Coach, he had the authority to establish permissible uses of football facilities. Nothing in the record indicates that Curley or Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky.

The time line may get fuzzy (and this is strictly my opinion) because the aging coach's memory is not as sharp as it once was. In an article from deadspin about the Paterno family insisting Coach knew nothing about Sandusky's pedophilia there is a copy of some of Mr. Paterno's testimony:

http://deadspin.com/5924959/paterno...-not-know-that-jerry-sandusky-was-a-pedophile

Some disagree but I think that when an alleged date rape is reported in a college dorm it should be turned over immediately to the police. Quick action is even more important when a child is involved. Paterno waited a full day before doing anything and then reported it to Curry.

My wife works as a trainer in child abuse prevention and such a passive response does not fit best practices. It still suggests that Paterno saw this, and treated this, as an NCAA and athletic department matter rather than the criminal issues it was.

 

[Animal02]

There is evidence that Paterno knew at least as early as 1998. This seems to match with emails detailed in the Freeh report. And this also seems to match the grand jury report page 49:

As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned "Jerry," and asked, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Schultz forwarded Curley's note to [university police chief Thomas] Harmon, who provided an email update that Schultz then forward to Curley. The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.

Then there is this from page 51 of the report:

After Curley's initial updates to Paterno, the available record is not clear as to how the conclusion of the Sandusky investigation was conveyed to Paterno. Witnesses consistently told the Special Investigative Counsel that Paterno was in control of the football facilities and knew "everything that was going on." As Head Coach, he had the authority to establish permissible uses of football facilities. Nothing in the record indicates that Curley or Schultz discussed whether Paterno should restrict or terminate Sandusky's uses of the facilities or that Paterno conveyed any such expectations to Sandusky.

The time line may get fuzzy (and this is strictly my opinion) because the aging coach's memory is not as sharp as it once was. In an article from deadspin about the Paterno family insisting Coach knew nothing about Sandusky's pedophilia there is a copy of some of Mr. Paterno's testimony:

http://deadspin.com/5924959/paterno...-not-know-that-jerry-sandusky-was-a-pedophile

Some disagree but I think that when an alleged date rape is reported in a college dorm it should be turned over immediately to the police. Quick action is even more important when a child is involved. Paterno waited a full day before doing anything and then reported it to Curry.

My wife works as a trainer in child abuse prevention and such a passive response does not fit best practices. It still suggests that Paterno saw this, and treated this, as an NCAA and athletic department matter rather than the criminal issues it was.

The Freeh report makes attempts to connect dots with no evidence. There are three emails with inconclusive statements that Freeh "made" the connection that he needed for his conclusion.
Paterno was not "in control" of athletic facilities. With emeritus status, Sandusky had access to the PSU facilities. This was an institutional issue....not a football one. You might want to read the footnotes on the same page you cite.

There is no evidence of a cover up - except the one contructed by the Freeh report.
As for a "best practices" response.........that has nothing to do with Paterno's actions. University protocol is very defined and is ingrained in the academic culture. Paterno's response "not knowing what to do and looking it up" is quite believable and appropriate.....as was his staying out of the investigation moving forward. My wife's university updated their protocols after the PSU incident because they saw the problems that could occur. It does not mean Paterno did anything wrong

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Actually, there is plenty of evidence of a cover up. But I think your position is that Paterno was not part of that cover up. My position is not that he was necessarily part of a cover up (evidence could be read either way on that) but that he did not have control of his program which led to tragic consequences.