There is no evidence to back that up, just Freeh’s opinions and bizarre interpretations of the facts.
The 1998 assault claim was investigated by five government agencies.
Not one of them recommended a charge against Sandusky.
The claim that Sandusky was “allowed” to resign in 1999 is bizarre - there was NO charge against him.
The only reasonable criticism that might be directed against Paterno is that he waited 24 hours - on a weekend - to report McQueary’s shower claim against Sandusky.
Remember, Paterno’s total knowledge of the shower case was hearsay. Paterno did not witness anything. All Paterno could do was report what McQueary said to him. If Paterno had testified in court, 100% of his knowledge would be hearsay evidence.
Remember this, too - we have ONLY McQueary’s account of his conversation with Paterno. We have NO rebuttal from Paterno.
After waiting 24 hours, Paterno reported McQueary’s claim to his [Paterno’s] immediate boss and to the University vice-president in charge of the campus police force.
Suggestions that Paterno had a responsibility to “follow up” on the shower allegations are legally bizarre.
Both the prosecution and the defense would have claimed that Paterno was trying to influence the case or was trying to obtain confidential information.
No lawyer involved in this case would have told Paterno ANYTHING.
He had a MORAL responsibility to followup and find out why a former coach was in a shower with a young boy.
I know you Joe Pa apologists can't deal with that reality.