The Freeh report cost Penn State $6.5 million; the haste with which it was accepted by the Penn State Board of Trustees has infuriated a large portion of alumni, some of whom have said the trustees and university leaders failed in their fiduciary duty to protect the university. McGinn would not say how much this inquiry had cost the Paterno family, but its price tag likely ran into seven figures.

The Paterno family report also finds: Joe Paterno never concealed or knew of allegations related to Sandusky during the initial 1998 criminal investigation, which a local district attorney later closed; Paterno reported to his superiors what Mike McQueary had told him he had seen Sandusky doing with a young boy in the Lasch Football Building showers one night in February 2001; Paterno told the truth when asked questions during a seven-minute grand jury appearance in January 2011; he took full responsibility for his actions publicly and privately. The report also concludes that there is no evidence that Paterno attempted to hinder any investigation in an attempt to avoid bad publicity.

When Freeh released his report, he hailed the inquiry's exhaustive nature, telling reporters that his investigators had interviewed 430 people and had reviewed 3.5 million documents. But the Paterno family report says the Freeh report's conclusions were based on 30 exhibits and 17 emails, none of which were written or received by Paterno (who almost never used email).

Thornburgh also reveals that the Freeh report never noted that a Penn State computer system overhaul wiped out records of all emails prior to 2004. The emails and other documents relied on by the Freeh investigators actually had been found in a file kept by university vice president Gary Schultz, sitting in a desk drawer. Thornburgh calls this one of the Freeh report's "most significant failures," adding, "the Freeh report ignored contrary evidence that Mr. Paterno did not have such knowledge."

The Paternos' expert, James Clemente, a former FBI profiler and child abuse prosecutor, criticized the Freeh report for failing to consider that Sandusky was a "skilled and masterful manipulator, who groomed an entire community to obscure the signs of child abuse, using a variety of proven techniques." Clemente says that Sandusky fooled qualified child welfare professionals and law enforcement, as well as "laymen inexperienced and untrained in child sexual victimization like Joe Paterno."

When the Penn State Board of Trustees hired Freeh on Nov. 21, 2011, an engagement letter between the university and Freeh's firm, Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, laid out the scope of Freeh's inquiry. Freeh was "to perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently published allegations of sexual abuse at the facilities and the alleged failure of PSU personnel to report such sexual abuse to appropriate police and government authorities," the engagement letter states.

The Paterno family report's experts argue that Freeh's report was far from full and complete because Freeh investigators' access to critical documents and principal witnesses was severely limited. "These limitations, which were understated or ignored in the report, call into question the legitimacy of the entire report," the Paterno family report says.

The most damaging documents in the Freeh report to Paterno are a handful of emails and notes that Freeh investigators found in March 2012. Freeh's investigators said the emails suggested Paterno, university president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and Schultz were all aware of the 1998 criminal inquiry of Sandusky, who had showered with an 11-year-old boy, and were trying to conceal it. In emails in May 1998, Schultz says he had "touched base with" Paterno about the alleged incident. Days later, in an email with the subject line "Jerry," Curley emails Schultz, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

Freeh concluded "Coach" was a reference to Paterno and that Paterno, Schultz and Curley were beginning to engineer a cover-up of the incident.

But the Paterno family report calls that an "unsupported opinion" and "a fallacy." The report says Freeh failed to confirm "Coach" was Paterno when it could have referred to Sandusky or another coach; Freeh's investigators did not interview Curley or Schultz to explain what was meant by the emails; Freeh offered no evidence about what Curley meant when he wrote the email and what, if anything, he "conveyed to 'Coach''' and "what 'Coach' said in response." The Paterno family lawyers interviewed lawyers for Curley and Schultz, who are awaiting trial for perjury later this year.

The Paterno family report strongly refutes Freeh's assertions about the 1998 emails because if Paterno did not know about the initial Sandusky inquiry, key findings of the Freeh report, including the conclusion that Paterno "was an integral part of this active decision to conceal" Sandusky's crimes, would fall apart.

There is another troublesome email implicating Coach Paterno that the Paterno family experts challenge. In February 2001, Spanier, Schultz and Curley met to figure out an action plan about the McQueary allegation that he saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the shower. The options, according to Schultz's notes: report it to the Pennsylvania Department of Child Welfare, tell the chairman of the board of Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile, and tell Sandusky "to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg."

Two days later, Curley reported he had changed his mind about the action plan "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday." Curley decided to talk with Sandusky: If Sandusky was cooperative, they would inform The Second Mile, and not alert authorities. And if he was not cooperative, Curley said then, "We don't have a choice and will inform the authorities."

Spanier agreed to this approach, saying, "The only downside for us if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."