Did any of you guys actually read the 200+ page Freeh report? I did and it is clear in the report that Freeh made the determination that Paterno was involved on the basis of an email sent to Spanier by Schultz that said "coach was on board". Neither we, nor Mr. Freeh knows who the coach was that Schutz referred to. It may have been Sandusky that he was referring to. However, this didn't stop Freeh from deciding that it was Paterno being referred to and therefore, Paterno had to be involved in a cover-up. This is what is known as circumstancial evidence and such "evidence" is not allowed in criminal courts because there is zero certainty who was being spoken about. Another piece of "evidence Mr. Freeh mentioned was Sandusky being given Professor Emeritus status. Paterno (or any other coach at any unsiversity or college) does not have the authority to do so. Only the top administrators like Curley, Schultz, or President Spanier have that authority for former coaches or assistant coaches. Mr.Freeh used the University granting Sandusky "unlimited use of the football and athletic facilities" and allowing him to "use the facilities to bring in youth" as further evidence" of Paterno's wrong doing. Once again, Paterno did not have the authority to do this. It was University administrators who granted these priviledges to Sandusky. It is also curiuos that Mr. Freeh used this "evidence" of the Schutz-Spanier email despite the well-known fact that Paterno did not use email, didn't use a computer, heck he didn't even use or own a cell phone. But non of that stopped Mr. Freeh from "determining" that Paterno knew what Spanier, Schultz, and Curley were doing. That is tatamount to the head of the Seattle Street Department knowing what the Mayor, Chief of Police, and Head of Public Works are talking to each other about. Mr. Freeh also included Paterno's statement that he "should have done more" as futher evidence that he was involved in a cover-up. In the whole 200+ pages of Mr. Freeh's report, these are the only two pieces of "evidence" he cited to show Paterno was involved in a cover-up. It is very clear in Mr. Freeh's report, and the Grand Jury Criminal Indictments that Schultz and Curley and possibly Spanier did cover up for Sandusky and didn't take action. The Grand Jury did not indict Paterno, excused him after only 15 minutes, and said he had nothing to do with the criminal actions or cover-up. The determination that Paterno was involved in a cover-up despite a lack of real evidence. And since Paterno died in January, no one can question him about these things, he is not able to bring forth evidence on his behalf, nor can he make legal motions to demand Mr. Freeh explain how he came up with his determination. And Mr. Spanier, Schultz, and Curley aren't about to make any statement because they are all indicted on criminal charges by the grand jury and the trial hasn't been held yet. Also interesting is Paterno's family has filed a motion in Centre County Court a motion to force/compell the University to release all the emails and internal correspondence that was given to Mr. Freeh and which were concerning Sandusky and the allegations against him. The University has refused to release them and it fighting the request. I wonder why the Board of Trustees is doing this. Perhaps they don't want things available to would exonerate Paterno. Just sayin.