For the record, some law officials are not even sure Paterno fully met his LEGAL obligations. According to some, Pennsylvania law required him to fully and honestly REPORT everything he knew. And with Paterno himself now admitting that he should have done more, some experts are saying Paterno didn't give an HONEST and full accounting as required by law. If it is found that he minimized --or if he was disingenuous in any way-- with his accounting, he could still be in a lot of trouble legally.
I am one of those who believe Paterno definitely knew more, and didn't fully report. Here's why: Paterno's first trouble with Sandusky came in late 1998, when the Penn St campus police were brought in to investigate a similar complaint. Sandusky, only 55 yrs old at the time, resigned shortly thereafter, and was never mentioned as a candidate for another coaching job. This begs the question, was Sandusky forced to resign as part of a "deal" to sweep the event under the rug?
Fast forward to 2002, and McQueary witnesses the alleged sex act between Sandusky and a naked 10-yr old boy in the football locker room. The deal ultimately gets reported to Paterno. Are you telling me Paterno's "moral" and "legal" radar shouldn't be up after this latest incident? You gotta be kidding me. This event was apparently investigated (by Penn St) again, and nothing happened to Sandusky.
And to make matters worse --despite having all this personal knowledge of Sandusky already being investigated TWICE by Penn St officials for issues with children-- Paterno continues to let Sandusky use the Penn St locker room for his dalliances.
To me, Paterno is either part of a massive cover-up, or he's just plain stupid.
HD