Goaliedad
I agree that we both feel that certain members of the BOT and senior leadership should be gone. That is without doubt.
I also firmly believe that the Freeh report is NOT the last word on this. I too still have some reservations concerning it, but probably not for the same reason as you (although who commissioned it is a valid reason). My reasons include:
1. The fact that all testimony was not given under oath. That people sometimes have reasons to lie, especially true if they feel they have to say certain things to keep their job.
2.It has been my experience that internal investigators sometime make curious decisions that just make you ask “why did they do that”.
3.The lack of completeness. They failed to interview certain characters involved in this such as McQueary, Paterno, et al.
As such I do read the report with caution.
I am also mindful that while I believe Penn State will want to settle any lawsuits as quickly as possible, they still may find themselves in litigation. If any evidence that comes out of such trials contradicts what is found in the report, then yes, you would have to question its accuracy and value.
That sums up why I am doubtful that this report is the last word.
I did notice that Penn State Student Association changed the name of their tent camp to Nittneyville.
I'm sure that this won't be the final report on this scandal. Next up, the Paterno Family report. Probably won't be any more reliable, once again consider the bias of the source and the above items you mentioned.
The sad part is that people are buying these "reports" as something other than what they are - someone's opinion who carried out a flawed process and biased by the funder of the process.
IMHO, the first investigation needs to be of the 1998 incident and whether there was undue influence on the state investigation by people in high state office. From the outcome of this (although we will never truly everything given that Joe Pa cannot defend himself), we may very well see that there may have been an ongoing conspiracy to keep Sandusky's actions secret and who may or may not have been in on it.
Those persons would have a presumed motive to cover up the subsequent actions by Sandusky.
There has been a lot of talk about how much Joe Pa knew about the 1998 affair and whether he had any influence on the decision. And as you mention, this not being taken under oath makes it just that - talk.
One thing that is certain, once Sandusky was retired from PSU, Joe Pa was in no official position to stop what Sandusky did. It was the Athletic Department that controlled access to the facilities (although Joe Pa's name is on the building, he doesn't own it). Joe Pa couldn't fire Sandusky, he wasn't an employee anymore.
Now if Joe Pa had influence on the decision to retire Sandusky in 1998, one has to ask if he was aware of the "quality" of the investigation that was(n't) performed (I'd have a hard time believing he could order a faulty investigation). If the law enforcement officials say, "we can't prove it enough to prosecute", you have to ask whether there was a case for firing with cause, or whether retirement was the lawyers' exit to a messy situation.
Rolling the clock forward to the McQueary incident, Joe Pa clearly fumbled the ball following up on his bosses' actions. I'm sure he had regrets there. His hindsight became 20/20. He discovered his feet of clay.
I have found this whole affair an interesting insight into how Americans love to build heros and tear them down. Joe Pa didn't go into coaching to become a hero, but like it or not (probably the latter, as he never was one to seek the limelight) he was made one and now is being torn down like one. He helped create a great and powerful PSU athletic machine and perhaps was caught up in the machine defending itself.
Could he have said NO and stopped it? Quite possibly, although once again we don't know how much he had to do with the 1998 stuff. Yes, he could have smeared Sandusky publicly after Sandusky was let off. That may have led to he and the University being sued and the program being destroyed without necessarily changing the outcome (I don't think anyone was thinking that Sandusky would continue doing this stuff on the side after being retired for doing it the first time). This is the biggest mistake - underestimating the pedophile. He wouldn't be the first. Let's hope others learn.