That Paterno received a credible report more than 10 years ago that Sandusky was sexually abusing a young boy in the shower?
That Paterno then hired the guy who reported it to him and he worked for Paterno for the next ten years - making it look like Paterno thought he was credible?
That Sandusky continued to parade around youth from his “Second Mile” so called charity for “at risk” youth for the next ten years - while Paterno KNEW what they were actually “at risk” for?
That Paterno saw, for the next ten years, after a very credible report of shower sodomy from someone he would pursue a working relationship with over that time, Sandusky continuing to parade young boys around the campus and events in “Happy” valley?
Please be specific.
I suggest you read this first:
In addition, McQueary testified under oath that he never used the term “sodomy” or “anal intercourse” when he notified Paterno about what he saw in the shower on 1 March 2002. [p. Preliminary Hearing Transcript, p. 25] (In fact, McQueary testified under oath that he could not recall using the words “sexual assault,” when talking to Paterno, or even using the word “crime” to describe Sandusky’s behavior) Actually, McQueary’s preliminary hearing testimony substantiates Paterno’s earlier assertion (in a news release) that McQueary “at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report.” [Star-Ledger Wire Services, Nov. 8, 2011