Originally Posted by joseephuss
The whole premise is that Paterno did know something about Sandusky earlier than the 2001 incident, yet here he said he didn't. That can be classified as a falsehood.
So you're saying you know that Paterno heard a rumor?
He may or may not have been informed about '98 after '01, that's up for debate, but there's never been a single source to show that he knew of '98 before then.
The biggest problem with people reading the Freeh report emails is that they assume "the first incident" refers to the '98 investigation. Again, that may or may not be the case but people read into that what they wish.