Joe Paterno's Legacy Expected to Come Under Fire Upon Abuse Report Release
Jerry Sandusky may be behind bars, but the Penn State story is still far from over.
A report compiled by Freeh Group International Solutions is expected to be released as early as next week, with new details expected to emerge according to ESPN.com.
The report will provide information regarding how former Nittany Lion head coach Joe Paterno and Penn State staff reacted to allegations made about Sandusky dating back to 2001, according to ESPN’s sources.
The report digs deep into the atmosphere cultivated by Penn State over the years, according to an official familiar with the situation (via ESPN):
Much of the focus will be on the culture of the football program, with findings that go back more than a decade. It’s going to be very tough on Joe (Paterno).
Former FBI director Louis J. Freeh has led the investigation, which has been conducted for the past eight months since the story first broke in November. The goal of this report is to get a better grasp on if university policies and the overall ethics of the athletic department contributed to the horrific crimes that were committed on campus.
A CNN report by Susan Candiotti leaked some of the alleged email exchange, though the context in which these emails were written has fallen under scrutiny.
According to ESPN’s report, Paterno family lawyer Wick Sollers believes the email leak was taken out of context, and has asked the attorney general and Freeh to release all of the information the investigation has found (via ESPN):
With the leaking of selective emails over the last few days, it is clear that someone in a position of authority is not interested in a fair or thorough investigation.
While nobody knows for sure what this investigation will uncover, a source who has reviewed the 2001 emails believes the one already released was “the worst one for everybody.”
We’ll know for sure soon enough.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?