Paterno family has released their own investigation today (in coordination with ESPN as it seems since they did such a great job with Te'o).
You can read about it here
And surprise, surprise, they find Paterno completely innocent of all allegation, scouts honor.
The "report" basically is a what a defense attorney would argue if this was tried as a criminal case in a court of law. They are arguing that none of the evidence the Freeh Report is beyond reasonable doubt. Which is correct since Freeh Report was never meant to be beyond a reasonable doubt. It was more like a Civil Case conclusion where you just need more than likely as the basis. Shift the goalpost and it is easier to score, go figure.
Here are parts of the new report pretty much says all you need to know
There is another troublesome email implicating Coach Paterno that the Paterno family experts challenge. In February 2001, Spanier, Schultz and Curley met to figure out an action plan about the McQueary allegation that he saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the shower. The options, according to Schultz's notes: report it to the Pennsylvania Department of Child Welfare, tell the chairman of the board of Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile, and tell Sandusky "to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg."
Two days later, Curley reported he had changed his mind about the action plan "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday." Curley decided to talk with Sandusky: If Sandusky was cooperative, they would inform The Second Mile, and not alert authorities. And if he was not cooperative, Curley said then, "We don't have a choice and will inform the authorities."
Spanier agreed to this approach, saying, "The only downside for us if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
All three of the Paterno family's experts say this single email is insufficient grounds for Freeh to have concluded that Paterno conspired to cover up the 2001 incident. "The report falls glaringly short of suggesting, let alone proving, any concealment by Mr. Paterno," Thornburgh writes in the report.
Insufficient? By whose standard? Seems pretty damning to most people who read it. If I say it is a cold day today, I think these people would also argue that that statement is insufficient to conclude that today is cold
I am sure the folks at Black Shoe Diaries are celebrating this "report" like a Fourth of July today.
Is it still too late to kick them out of our conference?