[outpostinmass2]

I read the critics and I have read the report.

I found the Freeh report to be factual and unbiased unlike the critics of the report.

The report was actually much harder on the board and University than it was on Paterno. In fact the report even defended Paterno in some passages.

The report does not defend the actions of Spanier or Curley it just laid out the facts. Spanier and Curley should have gone to authorities. Paterno should have as well. Paterno decided against it and Spanier and Curley followed his advice. Cowards all.

Facts are stubborn things.

I have read your links, you should read mine.

[Uncle Chip]

I found the Freeh report to be factual and unbiased unlike the critics of the report.

Upon what fact does he rely when concluding that "coach" in the one email referred to Paterno??? Where is his fact for that???

Isn't it reasonable to conclude that the word "Coach" in the one email referred to Sandusky and not Paterno???

How does he reach a conclusion on the basis of two emails neither of which are from Paterno.

My links were only a few pages. You send me 359 pages.