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
Then it seems obvious to any football fanatic numbnutz that Paterno thought Sandusky was giving the boy a friendly massage - while naked in the shower - according to a VERY credible blog you linked to!
Paterno showed so little interest in the matter that over the next ten years - Sandusky being the head of a charity for “at risk” youth- and McQueary being an assistant to him -that many more “at risk” youth were sodomized - many of whom were no doubt seen in the company of Sandusky by Paterno over the next ten years.
Either the guy was a total moron - or he knew what those youth were actually “at risk” for - and did nothing.
Considering the standards at Penn State - maybe they are ALL just total morons - rather than blind eye turning facillitators of total evil.
“What specifically are you claiming I alleged that was not true?
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.”
And all you could come up with was that it wasn't clear to Paterno exactly WHAT was in the very credible report from McQueary, the person he hired for the next ten years - but that it was apparently serious enough to not want Sandusky on campus with young boys anymore?
Kind of hard to thread the needle that Paterno hired McQueary and worked with him for the next ten years - knew that Sandusky shouldn't be on campus with young boys - but somehow was unaware that Sandusky’s children at the “Second Mile” were really “at risk” of another shower incident that was to be avoided in on or around Penn State (but not elsewhere) via the mechanism of forbidding Sandusky from bringing MORE young boys around Penn State.