Email to Ron Cook: Sportswriters are out of their league

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

PSU Claim Payment (and other) Malfeasance

The evidence timeline reveals that a small group of trustees, led by Ira Lubert, used the settlement process as part of the costly scheme to convict PSU in the court of public opinion.

By
Ray Blehar

There is a lot of confusion over the latest Penn State University Board of Trustees (PSU BOT) insurance debacle and misdirected anger at PSU's insurer (the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Insurance Company) about the release of uncorroborated claimant information.  

Make no mistake, the people at fault for this debacle are former PSU President Rodney Erickson and the PSU BOT's Legal and Compliance Committee.  However, the settlement scheme was just one cog in the wheel of an orchestrated effort to convict PSU in the court of public opinion.

The timeline, as usual, tells the story.

Rolling Out the Red Carpet For Lawsuits
After (then) PSU President Graham Spanier attempted to defend the University from the baseless allegations of a failure to report Sandusky, he was removed and the BOT began a series of actions to convince the public of the culpability of PSU officials in the Sandusky matter.

Nov. 4, 2011:  Sandusky charges were announced.

Nov. 9, 2011:  The PSU BOT announced removal of Spanier and Paterno, leading public to believe PSU officials were guilty of a cover-up.  No vote was held prior to announcement of their removals.

Nov 11, 2011: Then interim (puppet) President Rodney Erickson's 5-Point Promise impled that PSU had a culture that failed to do the right thing and he committed to providing support to the victims.

Awareness of "Hole" of Coverage
Upon receiving the first lawsuit, PSU learns that the policies in effect during the time period when most of the (then) alleged abuse occurred do not cover "abuse and molestation"

Nov. 30th, 2011, John Doe A filed a civil lawsuit against The Second Mile and Penn State for his alleged abuse suffered from 1992 through 1996.

Jan. 6, 2012:  PSU filed a claim with PMA for coverage under its comprehensive and commercial general liability (CGL) policy.

Jan 30, 2012:  PMA issued a reservation of rights letter denying coverage under the CGL policy because of its "abuse and molestation" exclusion in effect after 1992.  In addition, PSU policies have "intentional acts" exclusions and prohibit punitive damages.

Attempt to Side-step "Hole" In Coverage
PSU will file bodily injury claims to circumvent abuse and molestation exclusion.

Jan 31, 2012:  The President Rodney Erickson's personal notes, dated January 30,  indicated a plan to submit abuse claims as bodily injuries and utilize Hershey Medical Center to record medical expenses against the claims.

Feb 15. 2012:  PSU filed a lawsuit against PMA seeking payment of the (bodily injury) claims for John Doe A.

Freeh Report, NCAA, and Lawsuits
With the understanding that intentional acts are not covered under its insurance policy, a small group of trustees embrace the allegations in the Freeh Report that place blame on PSU officials.  In the following ten days, this group negotiates a set of sanctions and harsh financial penalties from the NCAA.  This action is a continuation of the small group's goal of convincing the public of the culpability of Paterno, Spanier, and others for not preventing Sandusky's abuse.

July 12, 2012: The Freeh Report was issued claiming PSU officials were aware of Sandusky's sexual abuse of children and concealed the abuse.  


July 12, 2012:  PSU officials Karen Peetz, Rodney Erickson, and Kenneth Frazier publicly praised the Freeh Report as comprehensive and thorough, admonish Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier for their failure to protect children, and pledged to reform PSU by following the report's recommendations.

July 23, 2012:  The President Erickson signed a Consent Decree with the NCAA and agreed to pay $60 million in fines for sexual abuse prevention and victim programs.  The Consent Decree's language quotes from the Freeh Report.  Action was approved by PSU BOT Executive Committee.

July/Aug 2012:  Sandusky victims from trial and elsewhere file lawsuits against PSU.

Some Settlements Approved 
Despite knowing that it is not insured for abuse and molestation claims from 1992 to 2004, the University begins settlements with trial victims who were abused during that time frame.  Erickson understands that some of these claims will not be covered and infers that they will be paid from internal loan interest (residing in the Institutional Support Budget).  While Erickson stated that Penn State wanted a "just outcome for the victims," the underlying motive for the settlements was as a demonstration of the University's culpability for Sandusky's abuse.

Sep 19, 2012:  In a Bloomberg interview, then President Erickson stated that settlement money would come from insurance and internal loan (interest).

Sep 20, 2012:  PSU hired Feinberg Rozen to moderate and settle claims.

Lubert: Board Member
at PSU & Second Mile

Oct 26, 2012:  Subcommittee on Legal and Compliance, then chaired by current BOT Vice-Chair Ira Lubert, approved settlement actions in Sandusky related matters.  Lubert was formerly a regional director at The Second Mile charity.

July 12, 2013:  Subcommittee on Legal and Compliance propose approval of claims.  Committee members included: Ira Lubert (chair); Kenneth Frazier (vice chair), Keith Masser (ex officio), Kathleen Casey, Richard Dandrea, Keith Eckel, George Greig, and Adam Taliaferro.  Approved by PSU BOT Executive Committee.

Oct 28, 2013:  26 of 31 claims settled for the amount of $59.7 million.  3 claims were denied (D.F. claim among them) and 3 claims agreed to in principal (Victim 6 and Victim 9).  The settlement agreements contained a provision that the claimants cannot file additional lawsuits against The Second Mile.

More Lawsuits and "Freeh" Money
Unable to come to terms with Penn State, Victims 6 and 9 use discovery of the Freeh Source materials to extract additional money from the University.

Nov 22, 2013: After being unable to reach agreement, Victim 9 files a lawsuit relying heavily on information from the Freeh Report to prove negligence on the part of Penn State.

Mar 18, 2014: After being unable to reach an agreement, Victim 6's legal team is awarded discovery of some of the Freeh Source materials.

Sep 3,  2014:  Victim D.F. sues PSU, also citing Freeh Report to prove negligence.

Dec. 5, 2014:  Victim X sues PSU, claiming abuse in 1988, argues his case would have been within the statute of limitations if not for PSU's failure to report in 2001.

Jan 1, 2015:  Victim 9 legal team awarded discovery of Freeh Source materials.  PSU was required to turn over all materials d by May 29, 2015

Apr 12, 2015:  By an 18-6 vote,  the BOT approves a substantial and undisclosed settlement for Victim 9 (estimated at between $15 - $20 million) and for five other claimants.  Total payment of approximately $33.2 million.

Judge Slams Door on Reimbursements
In an outcome that should have been a surprise to no one, Judge Glazer ruled that PSU's case for reimbursement for the claims from between 1992 and 2004 were essentially denied.   In his ruling, he frequently referenced the Freeh Report to justify that PSU was negligent, especially noting the timeframe from 1998 to 2001. Moreover, PSU attempted to refute the Freeh Report findings that PSU officials knew about Sandusky's behavior, but the arguments were refused by the Judge due to - among other things -- the University's acceptance of fines and sanctions from the NCAA. 

32 claims were paid by PSU for a grand total of $92.8 million.

What we know:

1.  PSU is not entitled to reimbursement for the claims between 1992 and 2004, which include at least eight victims: Matt Sandusky, Victim #2, John Doe A, Victim #3, Victim #4, Victim #5, Victim #7, and Victim #10.  Estimated Loss:  $12 million.


2.  PSU can receive $3 million aggregate limit for three claims paid from 2005 and 2006.  This coverage would include the exorbitant ($20 million) claim paid to Victim 9, a payment to Victim 1, and one other payment.  Estimated Loss: $21 million.

3.  PSU can receive full coverage for three claims prior to 1992. The ruling notes claims from 1976, 1987, and 1988. Estimated Coverage: $6 million.

What we don't know:

How many of the eighteen remaining claims fell within the 1992 to 2004 time frame that is not covered and how many occurred prior to 1992 and are fully covered.

The Bottom Line
The Committee on Legal and Compliance knowingly made a decisions to pay out at least $32 million that they (and Erickson) knew would not be covered by insurance.  

In news that surprised no one who closely followed this fiasco, the University went on record to admit that the Committee and Feinberg Rozen did not require evidence to support the allegations made in the claims.  At this point, we now know what Eric Barron meant in his video stating that some people don't believe Paterno's statue should be returned because of what they know.

Who are they? Lubert, Frazier, Peetz, Dambly, Eckel, Casey, and Dandrea.  And they are all trustees who stood by the Freeh Report and did everything possible to ensure that it never got reviewed.

It is highly probable that if the Judge hadn't released the uncorroborated information about reports to Paterno in his ruling, one or some of these trustees would have leaked the information to the press -- on or about the time the alumni-elected trustees were going to finally toss the Freeh Report on the ash heap of history.

The settlements by this cabal of trustees and their efforts to protect the false and harmful narrative that was put forth by the Attorney General, the Freeh Report, and the NCAA were all part of an ongoing effort to convict Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz in the court of public opinion.

The purposeful damage done to the University by their actions is immeasurable and should qualify as malfeasance.

CNN's and NBC's Yellow Journalism

After the Patriot News' yellow journalism about 1976, CNN and NBC followed with similar uncorroborated stories that were "too good to check."

By
Ray Blehar

Penn State President Eric Barron responded to the latest media attacks on the University by issuing a statement chastising them for rushing to judgment and publishing sensationalized stories.

The most important passages of his statement bear repeating (my emphasis added):

"....over the last two days we have worked to be diligent in reanalyzing the record of reports and depositions to ensure that our reactions and comments are both responsible and trustworthy. 

First, the allegations related to Penn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them. 

Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report. Others cite assistant coaches that were witnesses or had knowledge – stating it as fact in headlines and text – even in the face of a denial and clear failure to corroborate from the individuals allegedly involved. Other stories are clearly incredulous, and should be difficult for any reasonable person to believe. We should not be rendering judgments about the actions of Coach Paterno or any other former employees of Penn State based on incomplete, sensationalized media accounts.

While Barron did not get into the details, his description that these accounts are "incredulous" and "difficult for any reasonable person to believe" were 100 percent accurate.  That two national media outlets like CNN and NBC would allow these stories to be run demonstrates how far both individual and organizational ethics have fallen.

Yellow Journalism by Sara Ganim, CNN

Sara Ganim’s column regarding an alleged 1971 child sex abuse incident that was allegedly reported to Joe Paterno should serve as reminder of why she won a Pulitzer Prize for LOCAL (not investigative) about the “Penn State Scandal.”  

Ganim covered scandal over a year and knew that Sandusky was an acquaintance offender who befriended pre-teen boys and groomed them for victimization.    In the latest article, she mentions victims being hesitant to come forward as a result of their "close relationships" with Sandusky.  As such, she obviously knew that her story of Sandusky picking up a 15 year old hitchhiker, plying him with drugs and alcohol, and forcibly raping him was not consistent with Sandusky’s modus operandi.   

The story continued on its incredulous path by then stating when the foster parents of the youth (dubbed Victim A) found out, they directed him to call high-ranking Penn State officials -- then told the youth that Penn State wouldn't call the police.  

If these foster parents understood that, why didn't they call the police themselves?   

"So many good things"

In what is surely a fabrication, the alleged Victim A states that he called the University and took part in a conference call with  Joe Paterno and a man named Jim.   

After allegedly telling them he was raped by Sandusky, he alleged Paterno and Jim threatened to call the authorities on him because they couldn't believe an attack could have come from a man who "did so many good things." 

The year was 1971 and Sandusky had joined the coaching staff in 1969.  He was an unheralded position coach then, and most importantly, would form his Second Mile charity six years later (in 1977).

In short, Sandusky wasn't famous in the community for his charitable work in 1971.

 This adds more evidence of a fabricated story.

Unreliable Source

However, Ganim attempted to bolster this ridiculous story by using well known Paterno-hater, Bernie McCue, as the corroborating source.  

She had to know her corroborating witness would not be viewed as an unbiased/credible source, as he was featured in the movie Happy Valley conducting a pathetic one-man protest at the Paterno statue.  

McCue also had other anti-Paterno actions in his past, including writing derogatory and offensive notes in the courtesy newspapers and magazines provided at the Corner Room, then returning them for other patrons to find.  

He was also arrested for harassment regarding an incident allegedly over Peachy Paterno ice cream being served at the Berkey Creamery.  

According to source McCue, the alleged victim told him about the abuse in 1972.  McCue was 33 or 34 years old when he got the report from the 15-16 year old victim.   How did McCue explain coming in contact with the victim?  Ganim doesn't say.

More than likely, she didn't think to check those facts and ask the question.  However, it does raise an interesting question about McCue and his motivations.  

As the old saying goes, "the guilty dog barks the loudest."

In summary, no investigative reporter would ever use a questionable source like Bernie McCue, which is consistent with the fact that Ganim is NOT an investigative reporter.

While Ganim's incompetence is evident, how was it that the editors at CNN weren't asking these questions about her incredulous story?

The only credible part of Ganim's story came at the end, where a state trooper recalled thinking the story was "too crazy to be believed."

Yellow Journalism by NBC

On May 8th, an NBC story, citing mostly unnamed sources, stated unequivocally that as many as six Penn State coaches had witnessed Sandusky's "inappropriate behavior" with children.

In fact, the article later stated that none of these incidents were corroborated, as a lawyer for one coach refuted the allegation, one coach refused to comment,  one couldn't be reached, and the other is unknown.

NBC then referenced a report by Sandusky's adopted son, Matthew, that he was informed that a coach saw him being molested by Sandusky in a PSU locker room.

In Matthew Sandusky's recently released book, Undaunted, he told the story of how Jerry Sandusky was able to hide in plain sight and abuse children while in the presence of other, unwitting adults. 

On page 10, Matthew specifically recalled a "wrestling" incident in which he was being fondled, but Sandusky stopped the fondling when he heard the door's cipher code being pressed, alerting them to someone entering the room.  According to Matthew's account, Jerry then asked the assistant coach who walked in to do a three count as Jerry pretended to "pin" Matthew.   

Numerous victims at the trial mentioned Sandusky wrestling with them as part of their "workouts."

Those familiar with the case also know that Victim 4 also mentioned the cipher code noise being used as a signal by Sandusky to disengage in whatever inappropriate conduct that was ongoing.



Sex crimes expert James Clemente also noted that, in his experience, many serial child molesters were experts in utilizing abuse techniques that provided them with plausible deniability. According to trial testimony, Sandusky used techniques such wrestling matches, tickling, blowing raspberries on the boy's stomachs as a means of accomplishing this. 




All of the information above is readily available on the public record.  NBC knew or should have known that Sandusky was able to avoid detection even when abusing boys in plain sight.  As such, the coaches observing Sandusky and the child likely had no idea anything "inappropriate" was occurring.

Finally, it bears repeating that none of these claims were corroborated by the coaches who were alleged to have observed "inappropriate behavior" and that Penn State issued a statement that there is no evidence supporting the claims.

Clicks

The bottom line is that CNN and NBC weren't interested in accuracy and had stories that were "too good to check."  As Jay Paterno wrote, they are part of a media who is only interested in "clicks." 

1976, Insurance, Evidence, and Media Hypocrisy

In what should have been a story about how the Penn State Board of Trustees blew $93 million dollars, the media spun a story about an uncorroborated allegation about Joe Paterno

By
Ray Blehar

Yesterday, a judge ruled that Penn State University was not entitled to insurance reimbursement for most of the claims it paid to victims as a result of the Sandusky scandal.  The majority of the settlements paid for claims after 1992 are not covered. 

You can read a responsibly written report by Lori Falce of the Centre Daily Times about that here.

The story that made all the national headlines, however, involves an unsupported allegation about a 1976 incident that was allegedly reported to Joe Paterno by an alleged Sandusky victim.   The media malpractice came about not only when the word "alleged" was dropped from the headlines, but when the Patriot News ran with the uncorroborated allegation.

Getting back to responsible journalism, Falce wrote:  

But why use the word “alleged”? The retired defensive coordinator was convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse crimes in 2012, right?  Yes. Those 45 counts relate to 10 boys, and incidents that occurred between September 1995 and the summer of 2009. However, Glazer’s order points to many more people and claims that include 1976, 1987, 1988, 1998 and 2001.

Based on the judges ruling, PSU is not entitled to reimbursement for the compensation awarded to almost all of the victims who testified at the trial, to the person who claimed to be Victim 2, to John Doe A (whose abuse in 1994 brought about PMA's lawsuit), and John Doe X who claimed abuse in 2004.  Victims 1 and 9's 2005 allegations will be covered as a single claim and will result in serious financial impact of around $20 million to PSU. 

It should also be noted that PSU's failure to challenge the validity of the Freeh Report resulted in no coverage for claims between 1998 and 2001.

As for the other non-trial claimants, PSU has admitted it has no evidence to corroborate their claims.  

Uncorroborated Allegations

On Friday, PSU released a statement that it does not possess any information to corroborate the allegations about the 1976 report and others:

  "The university has no records from the time to help evaluate the claims. More importantly, Coach Paterno is not here to defend himself. Penn State does not intend to comment further, out of concern for privacy, and due to the strict confidentiality commitments that govern our various settlement agreements."

If there was more responsible journalism in America, the second part of the story is that PSU didn't bother to vet the claims.  

In 2013, the PSU Board of Trustees Legal and Compliance Committee, then chaired by current Vice-Chair Ira Lubert, approved a settlement program then allocated $59.7 million dollars for compensation based on 31 claims.  In what is surely not a coincidence, PSU's insurance coverage for bodily injury claims was $2 million per incident and a $3 million aggregate limit.   

Do the math.

26 of the 31 claims were approved and all $59.7 million was spent. However, 3 of the claims not approved happened to be for incidents in which the claimants were asking for compensation over $3 million.  

The bottom line was that the legal team from Feinberg Rozen, basically approved the claims based on whether or not it was inside the insurance coverage limits.  

In 2015, an additional $33 million was paid for later claims, including an exorbitant payment to one claimant who was previously denied compensation (after his lawyers were granted access to the Freeh Source materials).

As the judge ruled, PSU was not covered for many to most of the claims -- and had no legitimate reason to EXPECT coverage based on its policies.

Use of Evidence

As I write this, various alleged legal experts, some from the world of sports, have weighed in that the 1976 allegation about Paterno cannot be corroborated.   They are correct, however, the legitimacy of the entire 1976 claim can be evaluated in light of the other evidence in the case. 

Former FBI child molestation investigator, Kenneth Lanning, who wrote what was is commonly referred to as the "Child Molester Investigator's Bible" provides this guidance on assessing victim claims.

Given the above, the 1976 deposition could be accessed and reviewed for consistency with the grooming and victimization techniques used by Sandusky.  Other details in the deposition can also be examined for credibility, as I will show below.

In summary, not only can the 1976 deposition be evaluated, but any and all depositions should be evaluated by qualified individuals. 

The Feinberg Rozen team proved themselves not capable of the task -- and the same goes for the unqualified investigators and biased prosecutors who worked on the Sandusky case.

Notable Vetting Failure

Using Lanning's "template of probability," Victim 5's most serious abuse allegation was not credible nor was the August 2001 time frame of it.  The significance of the date was that PSU paid the (then) largest settlement to Victim 5 because PSU could have prevented his abuse (because it allegedly occurred after the McQueary shower incident).

Unlike Feinberg Rozen, the jury likely used the "template of probability" in vetting V5's indecent assault allegation -- and voting not guilty for that charge.  

V5 testified to meeting Sandusky in 1999 and attending numerous events, including trips to Albright College to watch football games over two years.  However, unlike the rest of the victims he testified he didn't work out and shower with Sandusky until 2001.  Almost all of the other victims stated they were introduced by Sandusky the first year of camp and then invited to work out very early in their relationships with Sandusky.  In Victim 6's case, it was his initial one-on-one encounter.

Also, Victim 5 alleged being indecently touched the first time he showered with Sandusky.  Other victims who showered with Sandusky on multiple occasions testified to a gradual progression of touching/washing leading into indecent touching.  This gradual progression is typical for acquaintance offenders, as noted by Dr. Alycia Chambers Report about the Victim 6 (1998) incident.

In summary, Victim 5's abuse scenario didn't fit the "template of probability."

The testimony about the time frame of the incident was also inconsistent.

-- Victim 5 told the grand jury he was abused in 1998 (when he was ten years old).

-- In November 2011, he met with investigators to tell them he might have been the child referred to in the 2000 janitor incident (when he was twelve)

-- At the trial and in his claim, he stated he clearly recalled being abused in August 2001 (when he was 13).  Note:  Prosecutors changed the Bill of Particulars in his case from a very broad time frame 1996 to 2002 down to a single month (August 2001).

Notably, Judge Cleland instructed the jury that child victims who were abused many years ago can't be expected to know the exact date of the abuse.

So which date was most accurate?

According to his grand jury testimony, Victim 5 stated Sandusky had an erection in the shower didn't understand what it meant.

Given that testimony, it is more likely he was ten and it was in 1998 and not 13 in 2001.  Also, given Sandusky's penchant for early showers with his victims, it occurred soon after he met Victim 5, not two years later.

Again, Feinberg Rozen made the Victim 5 settlement the highest on the grounds that it happened in August 2001 and could have been prevented by PSU.

Victim Credibility/Media Hypocrisy

The media is quick to criticize anyone who questions the claims of a child sexual abuse victim. In the Jerry Sandusky case, the media remains quick to accept and run with uncorroborated allegations and sensationalize them.  

While Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 counts, the single count that caused the media firestorm - the 2001 rape allegation -- resulted in an acquittal.  You will be hard pressed to find media coverage highlighting that fact.

Interestingly enough, the only other victim to allege being raped and have it result in a conviction was Victim 9.  The media dutifully reported that he was raped repeatedly and had little issue with his story -- until it came crashing down on Tom Corbett's Sandusky investigation.

After AG Kathleen Kane correctly reported that Victim 9's abuse occurred in 2009 during the Sandusky investigation, the Patriot News' Charles Thompson quickly leaped into action claiming his abuse ended in 2008.  

His testimony on cross-examination was certain.  The abuse was through his 16th birthday -- as reported by the Patriot News in its trial coverage.

Unlike Victim 5, who was trying to recall an incident from 10 or more years prior, Victim 9 was 18 when he testified to being abused two years prior at age 16.

The Patriot News editorial board wrote an op-ed that contradicted their own newspaper's  trial coverage.

CNN's Sara Ganim, a Pulitzer winner,  also got in on the action, turning back the clock on Victim 9's abuse when she wrote about his civil lawsuit.

But the hypocrisy wasn't just about Victim 9.

Victim D.F., who was identified by Kane as another child abused while the Sandusky investigation lagged, was also labeled as not credible by the Patriot News (and Penn State).

D.F. made the "mistake" of claiming his abuse took place from 2008 to 2011.  As such, his allegations were dismissed outright by Prosecutor Frank Fina and the Patriot News.

The facts are that D.F.'s lawsuit allegations are extremely similar to those of Victim 10, who was presented as a witness at the trial by Fina and who received a settlement from PSU.

In summary, the Patriot News determined credibility in these cases based on WHO it implicated, not the evidence on which it was based.    It blamed selected PSU officials, but protected those at the state government level who were truly responsible and had the information needed to stop Sandusky in 1998 and in 2009. 

Real Tragedy: PA's Kids Sold Down the River

The real tragedy of the Sandusky Scandal is that the truth became the biggest victim -- and Charles Thompson, Sara Ganim, and the editorial board of the Patriot News sold PA's kids down the river to win a Pulitzer prize.

Their recent reports aimed at Paterno are nothing more than a desperate attempts to try to prop up Ganim's factually challenged and now crumbling Pulitzer stories about a Penn State football cover-up that didn't happen.  Ganim's latest story is so far fetched that it should be on the cover of the National Enquirer.

The Patriot News and Ganim's feigned concerns about the welfare of children are the height of hypocrisy.  Their reporting failed to educate the public on how acquaintance offenders and that irresponsible reporting continues.

More Hypocrisy: I wrote about settlement payouts here back in May 2015 -- after PSU paid out an estimated $20 million to settle with Victim 9, who was originally denied compensation.  After his legal team had been awarded discovery to the Freeh Source materials, the BOT convened and emergency meeting to approve his payment.

Paterno Family Demands Full Review of the Facts

PATERNO FAMILY DEMANDS FULL REVIEW OF FACTS, REFUSES TO ONCE AGAIN FIGHT SHADOWS AND RUMORS

Because of a single sentence in a court record of an insurance case, Joe Paterno's reputation has once again been smeared with an unsubstantiated, forty year old allegation.  In response to this allegation and the subsequent media hype, the Paterno family is demanding a full public review of the facts.

From day one, Joe Paterno and his family have called for an objective and total pursuit of the truth with a full respect for due process. In 2011 and 2012 Joe Paterno was subjected to an unprecedented rush to justice by Louis Freeh and the NCAA. Time has proven that the Freeh report was deeply flawed and the unprecedented punitive actions of the NCAA were unjustified. Over the past four and a half years, numerous allegations that were taken as fact when they were initially communicated have been proven false. It is in this context that the latest claim should be viewed.

The reckless, all-out rush to accept accusations as legitimate without a full fair review of the facts, cannot be allowed to happen again. Fighting shadows and rumors on issues that are this significant is a disservice to everyone who cares about the truth. We do not fear the truth, we embrace it. And we will not allow a repeat of what happened before. We challenge anyone with evidence of misconduct to come forward and present their allegations in a process that allows a full, fair review of the evidence. We will stand by the facts, but we will never accept veiled accusations presented in a context where they cannot be objectively reviewed and analyzed.

If anything has been learned from the Sandusky tragedy it should be that rushed investigations do incredible harm. For once, a fair process should come before conclusions are reached.