<p>Since 3togo has revived the thread, interested people can know that Sunday on ESPN and on the website, the Paterno family will release an 180-page report of their own. And as you have no doubt heard, Sue Paterno’s interview with Katie Couric will air on Couric’s show this Monday. </p>
<p>Sandusky’s appeal for a retrial was denied, and the Curley/Schultz/Spanier trial is still scheduled to begin early summer '13.</p>
<p>To paraphrase basketballer Charles Barkley’s famous words… Mrs. Paterno ‘has about 1 Million reasons’ to remain in denial. Actually, several million reasons.</p>
<p>He was her husband, I would be surprised if she didn’t defend him.</p>
<p>^^Same here. As much as I think Paterno bears a large degree of the responsibility for the cover-up (not the molestations), I’d still be shocked if Mrs. Paterno had done anything other than defend him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Never – not once – did I see … is very likely true, or absolutely true. But the poor old lady was not always around to SEE and when she was looking the rosy glasses tinted with love must have helped. Or the inch thick blinders everyone associated with this case and PSU seem to have been wearing. Their entire line of defense is based on deciding what to … see! </p>
<p>Why don’t they not adopt the next stance of the characters in what should be the Paterno Statue at PSU <a href=“https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRso1WWa8G1fgjsF1AwV7ijzU9V3Z4wDjkKDaJzBHz5l88gVkDYeg[/url]”>https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRso1WWa8G1fgjsF1AwV7ijzU9V3Z4wDjkKDaJzBHz5l88gVkDYeg</a>
They saw no evil, they heard no evil, now they just … shut up!</p>
<p>Sandusky’s wife probably felt the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not even in the same ballpark. When you’ve been married, how do you not notice your spouse not being in the same bed when there are young boys in the basement??? Sue Paterno saw her husband act morally in her presence and wasn’t there for the meetings w Curley and Schultz… In my opinion there is no way Sandusky’s wife could not have had suspicions that something was amiss…This wasn’t a one time incident but a long term serial abuser situation…</p>
<p>I think there is a world of difference between Sue Paterno and Jerry Sandusky’s wife. As jandjdad mentioned, how do you not notice your husband is in the basement with boys and not in your bed? I have difficulty believeing that she had no idea there was a problem.</p>
<p>Joe Paterno’s actions took place at his workplace, he behaved in a moral fashion around his wife.</p>
<p>As I said, Sandusky’s wife probably FELT the same.</p>
<p>As to how well JoePa lied to his wife for more than a decade (and maybe three), we’ll never know.</p>
<p>There are a very liimited number of top pro actors with physical disabilities. An actor playing Paterno would have to be convincing he could “turn a blind eye”</p>
<p>You all are so ignorant of this story it is pathetic. Did you even read the Freeh report? Did you even know that there is no evidence of a coverup by anyone at PSU. IN FACT IT WAS PATERNO who did exactly the right thing in reporting to his superiors the info he was told. Please visit: notpsu.blogspot.com and get your facts straight before you make such ridiculous accusations.</p>
<p>[How</a> could Sandusky’s wife not know? - Washington Times](<a href=“How could Sandusky's wife not know? - Washington Times”>How could Sandusky's wife not know? - Washington Times)</p>
<p>Clsdep,</p>
<p>The Paterno family hired someone to review the Freeh report. The review was written by Dick Thornburgh, former Republican governor of PA. Thornburgh’s review is highly critically of Freeh’s report and says that Freeh had insufficient evidence to support his conclusion that Paterno was involved in the cover up. So, even the Paterno family thinks that Freeh implicated Paterno in the cover up. </p>
<p>Whether or not you think Paterno was involved, the Freeh report says he was.
[Paterno</a> family: Freeh report ‘factually wrong’ – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs](<a href=“http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/10/paterno-family-freeh-report-factually-wrong/]Paterno”>http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/10/paterno-family-freeh-report-factually-wrong/)</p>
<p>Freeh has issued a statement defending his report: “I stand by our conclusion that four of the most powerful people at Penn State failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.” I don’t blame the Paterno family for trying, but I think a rebuttal report they paid for will not stand up against the results of an independent investigation.</p>
<p>In spite of the 267-page Freeh Report, it only took 163 words to seal the fate of these four disgraced men…</p>
<p>” The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno’s.</p>
<p>At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley also failed to alert the Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr. Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity.”</p>
<p>You’ll find a complete transcript of the Freeh Report in PDF format here: <a href=“http://sunbury.info/pdf/FreehReport.pdf[/url]”>http://sunbury.info/pdf/FreehReport.pdf</a></p>
<p>About a month before the scandal broke, a friend took his son on a tour of Penn State and refused to let him apply there citing the “cult-like” mentality that deified Joe Paterno and “football uber alles.” The reaction to the scandal has only strengthening that view among many with no Penn State ties…</p>
<p>" In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity."</p>
<p>A lot more than “nothing was done”. He was made Professor Emeritus, given an office and keys, given a bonus payment of $163k, and allowed (probably at the football program’s expense) to bring his victims across state lines (a federal offense) to Penn State football games and events. All of it likely facilitated by JoePa.</p>
<p>It was A LOT more than turning a blind eye, a lot more than “failing to protect”. How JoePa pulled the wool over his wife’s eyes is as interesting as how the former Professor Emeritus did the same.</p>
<p>It said expert analysis showed Sandusky “fooled qualified child welfare professionals and law enforcement, as well as laymen inexperienced and untrained in child sexual victimization like Joe Paterno.” The coach respected Sandusky as an assistant, but knew little about Sandusky’s personal life, the analysis said, though Freeh’s report “missed that they disliked each other personally, had very little in common outside work, and did not interact much if at all socially.”</p>
<p>so they are ignoring that Paterno knew about 1998. Also, imho, by saying Paterno knew little about Sandusky’s personal life, and pointing out that they didn’t socialize, they are attempting to portray Sandusky’s crimes as “his personal or social life”. And pretending it didn’t happen at PSU, with the support of an office and a set of keys (as Mini again reminds) </p>
<p>Sickening. Feel for the woman, as this is pretty tough to go through especially at her age. However, I feel more empathy for the actual victims.</p>
<p>JoePa knew enough about Sandusky’s private life to facilitate his bringing young boys to Penn State football games after 1998.</p>
<p>This report commissioned by the Paterno family includes a statement that I think is important in preventing future abuses everywhere we are. An investigator who specializes in this sort of case, and who is himself an abuse survivor writes persuasively about the following issue, and forgive me for paraphrasing</p>
<p>[When well meaning people see conspiracy, force, intimidation and silent enabling as essential parts of “explaining” an abuse incident or series of incidents, they demoralize and silence victims. When well meaning people expound at length about the “horrors” of abuse and how it “ruins” a person for their entire life, they demoralize and silence victims. More difficult for society at large to accept is that these abusers do not rely solely on opportunity or conspiracy; instead, these “good guy” abusers rely on gifts, kindness, attention, and building a relationship. ] Victims are made to feel that if there was not a giant evil conspiracy, force, or threats, the implication is that they were complicit in their abuse. Victims are made to feel that there is no hope for their future, so there is no point in coming forward.</p>
<p>Sue’s interview with Katie Couric will air today.</p>