Joe Paterno Cover Up: Breaking Down What Louis Freeh Report Alleges JoePa Knew

Former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of 45 of the 48 counts against him for sexual assault against children last month, and while that may have brought closure to some, there continue to be new findings with regards to the case.

Louis Freeh released a report on Thursday that focuses on the inaction of several high-ranking Penn State officials in the face of allegations against Sandusky. Among them are former university president Graham Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz, former athletic director Tim Curley and, of course, former head football coach Joe Paterno.

Paterno's involvement in the report garnered most of the attention leading up to Thursday as his participation in a possible cover-up has been talked about at length. Paterno passed away from lung cancer in January after being terminated from the post that he held for 46 years.

Here is a breakdown from the Freeh report on what Paterno might have known about Sandusky's actions, when he knew about them and what actions he took to prevent them.

Paterno Knew About a 1998 Sexual Assault Incident Involving Jerry Sandusky

While Sandusky's sexual assault of a boy in a Penn State locker-room shower in February 2001 is the incident that most are familiar with, due to the fact that former Penn State assistant Mike McQueary was a witness, there was a previous incident in 1998 that Penn State officials were aware of as well, according to the report.

Paterno allegedly learned of a criminal investigation being conducted on Sandusky in 1998 and followed it closely. The incident was similar to the one in that would take place in 2001, and perhaps it could have been prevented if the 1998 situation was handled better.

Neither Paterno nor the rest of the Penn State staff spoke with Sandusky about the 1998 attack despite being aware of it.

The Freeh report maintains that Paterno could have at least prevented Sandusky from bringing other children on campus, but he failed to do that as well. There is no indication of exactly how much Paterno knew or if he believed that the allegations were true, but whatever the case, he allowed Sandusky to carry on without any questioning whatsoever.

Paterno Didn't Limit Sandusky's Access to Penn State Facilities

On page 51 of the Freeh report, Paterno's knowledge of the 1998 Sandusky situation is brought to light, as are the actions he took in the aftermath. Paterno was allegedly told about the details of the case by Tim Curley and had the power to ban Sandusky from Penn State facilities if he chose to do so.

According to the report, witnesses said that Paterno was in complete control of the football facilities and "knew everything that was going on."

Sandusky used the Penn State locker-room shower as the site of his sexual assault in 1998, and while he was cleared at the time and it was determined that no criminal behavior had taken place, Paterno could have taken measures to prevent any similar incidents from taking place.

Sandusky wasn't monitored closely by Paterno or anyone else after the incident, and he was even allowed to continue running football camps on campus. Former president Graham Spanier said he had no knowledge of the camps, but Paterno likely did since he was in charge of all football operations

Paterno Took Improper Action Regarding Jerry Sandusky's 2001 Incident

The most-talked-about incident throughout this process has been Sandusky's sexual assault of a boy in February 2001. It is well documented that Mike McQueary alerted Paterno after he witnessed it, but things became cloudy after that.

According to the report, Paterno and Curley initially intended to report Sandusky's alleged actions to the authorities, but they ultimately decided against doing so.

After not even acknowledging Sandusky during the 1998 investigation, Paterno and the powers that be reportedly made Sandusky aware of what McQueary had saw rather than keeping Sandusky in the dark about it. Paterno also explained his inaction by claiming that he didn't know the correct steps to take:

"

I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.

"

In addition to that, the report reveals that Paterno waited to inform Spanier, Schultz and Curley because he didn't want to interfere with people's weekend. The botching of the situation was a group effort, but Paterno appears to have been a big contributor to it.

Paterno and Others Concealed Facts to Avoid Bad Publicity

It is still unclear whether or not Paterno knew the severity of what McQueary witnessed in February 2001, but the Freeh report concluded that Paterno, along with Spanier, Schultz and Curley, concealed facts from the authorities, the Board of Trustees and the Penn State community in order to prevent backlash and bad publicity for the university.

According to the report, Spanier said that he was never told by Paterno or anyone else that the Sandusky incident involved anything of a sexual nature. He claimed that he was told that Sandusky was simply horsing around with a boy, although it was never explained what that meant.

Paterno and others failed to identify the victim and report the incident for several reasons outlined in the report. The officials wanted to "humanely" handle what were described as vague allegations.

The creators of the report believe that Paterno and the rest of those in question knew a lot more than they claimed, though, and didn't report the incident out of fear of the possible consequences.

What We Learned About Paterno from Louis Freeh's Press Conference

Following the release of the Freeh report, Louis Freeh held a press conference and took questions regarding his findings. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many of those questions were in reference to Paterno's role in the situation and what Freeh believed to be a cover-up.

According to reporter Michael Sisak, Freeh said that many of the people he spoke with on campus considered Paterno to be one of the most powerful leaders on campus. He wasn't in an administrative position like Spanier, Curley or Schultz, but Paterno's legacy at Penn State clearly made him a very influential figure.

That laid the groundwork for Freeh's claim that Paterno could have stopped the cover-up. According to Brian Hamilton of the Chicago Tribune, Freeh said that it would be a "strong and reasonable inference" to think that Paterno had enough pull to put the Sandusky situation to rest himself.

Ultimately, Freeh believes that Paterno knew more than he revealed, particularly because of how much power he had. According to Bruce Feldman of CBS Sports, Freeh said that Sandusky's sexual assaults occurred in the Lasch Building, which is where Paterno's office was located.

It may be impossible to find out how much Paterno truly knew, but based on Freeh's comments, he obviously thinks that Paterno was a key figure in the scandal.

Follow @MikeChiari on Twitter