Originally posted on 07/24/2012:

This may be the most ridiculous of all of the "blame Joe" nonsense that has come out since the Boards "Cover Our Ass Freeh" report came out. Freeh was hired by the Board to dig up and place as much blame on Joe as possible to help fend off the Paterno family's wrongful termination suit. But the most absurd slide of all in this BS is the one that says "after 1998 Joe failed to closely monitor Sandusky's behavior". First, that might be because Sandusky left PSU in 1999. But more over, Joe Paterno was a football coach, not a law enforcement official, or a Child Welfare Department employee, or anybody who was in any position to know what Sandusky was doing much less "monitor" his behavior. The alleged notes that claim to say that Joe wanted to be kept informed of the 1998 investigation led to him being informed that the charges were dropped and Sandusky was cleared. So what a reporter is saying is Joe should have confronted Sandusky and said "even though you don't work here any more, and you have been cleared of the charges against you, I am going to monitor your private life behavior?" Ridiculous. It was also made clear that Sandusky was given emeritous status and access to PSU by The President of the University, not by Joe Paterno and it was part of a retirement package, not because he was connected to the football program. Nobody knows what, if anything, Joe discussed with Tim Curley until Curleys trial.

Joe Paterno's job was coaching the football team, not "watching" Jerry Sandusky when he was on campus. Joe had no way of knowing when Sandusky was on campus much less have the time to follow him around "watching" him. If the university has suspicions, they should have had security watch him. How can you say that after the 1998 incident (where Sandusky was cleared) that Joe never said "get away from PSU football?". Sandusky quickly decided to retire in 1999. You don't think Joe was behind that and that was his way of saying "I don't care if you were cleared, I don't want you around my program"? Freeh said he could not draw any conclusions about that. Also don't overlook several other facts. The incident in the shower in 2001 took place at 9:30 at night. Long after the Lash Building was closed. Where was security? Joe was no longer there to "watch" him. How do you know Joe was "OK" with Sandusky having an office right next to him? Sandusky was given office space by Graham Spanier as part of his retirement package. Another important fact left out by Freeh was that Tim Curley and Graham Spanier told Sandusky not to bring any more kids on campus and took away his keys to the locker room after the 2001 shower incident. Mike McQueary testified at the Curley/Schultz hearing that he saw Sandusky around campus after 2001 but he never saw him on campus with a child after that. I am not in denial about anything. I am just not willing to drink the Freeh Report coolaide. Especially when he states that the cornerstone of his investigation was a conversation between Joe and Curely that he admits he knows nothing about other than a vague reference in an email. He never talked to either party so he has no way of knowing what Joe said. Is Joe guilty of poor judgement, probably; he is guilty of making a mistake, probably. But is he guilty of knowingly "enabling" or "allowing" Sandusky to molest children? No way in hell. Is he "complicit" in the crimes of a former employee? No way in hell. And no bogus report by anybody is ever going to change that.