Here you go. Big Dog did the work now its your turn to read the report and form your own opinion. This is a cliff notes version of the report that will help direct you to some of the most important parts of the Paterno Report.

Page 20: Sandusky fooled all the experts

Page 22: Thornurgh totally debunks Freeh report.  

Page 27-28: Destroying all of Freeh findings and ignoring any and all evidence that would have exonerated Paterno completely.

Page 32-33: Misinterpreting of the critical email by Freeh that suggested that it was JoPa that made the decision not to report to child welfare agencies, when in fact it was Curley.

Page 36: Proves that Freeh actually changed the language of the email to further his own beliefs when in fact it would have totally exonerated JoPa

Page 38: Jerry Sandusky’s Office was “steps away” from Joe Paterno’s office, and, as one of the most “powerful” people at Penn State, Joe Paterno must have known but concealed that Sandusky was a pedophile. All this evidence directly contradicts Mr. Freeh’s suggestion that the two had offices in close proximity and that Joe Paterno had visibility into Sandusky’s regular routine.

Page 42: Similarly, as Dr. Berlin writes in his report, in the critical “effort to protect innocent children, the fair treatment of adults should not become a collateral casualty.” At the same time he was formulating his subjective judgments, Mr. Freeh did not provide the Paterno family any opportunity to rebut or even provide context for any of his so-called conclusions prior to the release of his report, despite repeated requests for this due process.

Page 57: Thornurgh report.

Page 74: There is NO credible evidence to support the theory that Paterno was involved in any form of cover up

Page 76: The Report completely ignores the fact that his description of this encounter weighs against the Report’s conclusion of an alleged conspiracy to conceal Mr. Sandusky’s actions. Moreover, Mr. Schultz reached out to Wendell Courtney, outside counsel for Penn State, about the situation. This is further evidence that there was no intent to limit the number of people who knew of this matter, much less engage in a cover-up. Without any evidence and without speaking to any of the key parties involved with the initial reporting, the Report falls glaringly short of     suggesting, let alone proving, any concealment by Mr. Paterno.

Page 79: Failure to interview anyone from the 1998 investigation makes the report not credible.

Page 99: Thomas Clemente, Former FBI agent who actually worked for Freeh and was reluctant to take on the investigation.

Page 114:Incorrect to assume that Paterno was in a better position to know about Sandusky than the University police dept.

Page 115: Finally, the SIC report did not mention why the District Attorney’s office, which declined prosecution of Sandusky, did not direct its investigators to take any of the steps that Paterno is accused of not taking to prevent Sandusky from victimizing children.

Page 126: The mistaken belief that someone had to know

Page 129: Why Paterno did what he did and no more. Contrary to the SIC report’s opinion, it was not fear of bad press or public scrutiny that caused Paterno to simply report to his superiors what he’d been told and step away from the investigative and/or decision-making process. When he heard the detailed allegations against Sandusky, he lamented and wished he had done more, but there was never any evidence that fear of damage to the reputation of Penn State or its football program was ever a factor.

Page 130: Paterno not part of any “Active Agreement to Conceal”

Page 131: Though it is possible that others later concealed information about the 1998 and/or 2001 incidents, there is no evidence linking Paterno to such concealment, there is no evidence that he     knew about such concealment, and there is no evidence that he participated in such concealment.

Page 139: No evidence of Paterno’s participation in an active agreement to conceal. There is no evidence that Joe Paterno was part of any agreement to conceal what McQueary reported witnessing in the Lasch Building showers in 2001. All available evidence suggests that Paterno did (1) inform McQueary he would find out who in the school’s administration should handle this matter, (2) inform his superiors (Curley and/or Shultz) and make sure that McQueary spoke directly to them, (3) step out of the administrative process at that point, (4) at most was updated about the administration’s response to McQueary’s report, and (5) went back to McQueary and made sure he was okay. There is no evidence that Paterno participated in the ultimate decision to inform or not to inform DPW.

Page 143: Paterno’s actions, in the wake of McQueary’s cryptic disclosure, were arguably the most honest and moral of anyone involved.

Page 144: Based on my decades of experience with these exact type cases and offenders as skilled as Sandusky, it is completely understandable, and in no way blameworthy or immoral, that Paterno did not recognize Sandusky for what he truly was and do more. Years of anecdotal evidence tells us that nearly anyone in his position, even those held in the highest moral regard like Paterno, without an understanding of acquaintance child sexual victimization, would have acted in the same way. What Paterno did and didn’t do in this case is very different from what has been revealed and litigated in the past in organizations like the Boy Scouts of America, and the Catholic Church, where there was a knowing and deliberate plan to conceal the explicitly documented sex crimes of multiple offenders to preserve the name of the organization. Instead, Sandusky is a case involving effective grooming by a “nice-guy” acquaintance offender, with classic compliant victims who were extremely reluctant to come forward. The victims and witnesses who did come forward in 1998 and 2001 gave equivocal and watered down versions of what happened and as a result, the true nature of Sandusky’s behavior was not discovered at the time. Sandusky fooled an entire community for decades because he actually did help thousands of children through The Second Mile, while he molested selected boys from that group.

Page 145: In my colleague Ken Lanning’s treatise on the subject, Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis, he states:For the public the “default setting” still seems to be stranger abduction. To them child molesters are sick perverts or “predators” who physically overpower children and violently force them into sexual activity. They often forgotten piece in the puzzle of the sexual victimization of children is acquaintance molestation.

Page 151: The often forgotten piece in the puzzle of the sexual victimization of children is acquaintance molestation. Acquaintance molesters are still, however, one of the most challenging manifestations of sexual victimization of children for society and professionals to face.

Page 152: It is only because the SIC report lacks an understanding of the dynamics of acquaintance child sexual victimization that it has misconstrued the behavior of the individuals involved and blamed Sandusky’s ability to hide and continue his offending on the “culture of reverence for the football program.” If the writers of the SIC report had fully understood those dynamics, they would not have been searching for reasons why Paterno and others did not recognize Sandusky’s offending behavior for what it was.

Page 163: Clemente conclusions.

Page 172: Clemente qualifications