You actually have to look at them.
http://prospect.org/article/no-touchdown-paterno-biography
Paterno's key failure was not in 1998. Sandusky, after all, had been cleared by the authorities. Paterno's knowledge of the 1998 investigation was relevant not because Paterno could have stopped him at that point but because it should have made the urgency of contacting the authorities in 2001 even more compelling.
Yes, Paterno should have immediately contacted the people above him in the Penn State administration, people like the athletic director and the head of the university police, for example. After all, Sandusky was gone from the football program nearly 3 years at that point and was no longer working for Paterno. So Paterno, no longer Sandusky's boss, and not being a cop or an investigator or a prosecutor himself, should have contacted the appropriate people who would certainly do something to find out what the heck was going on.
“I don’t see the facts
“You actually have to look at them.
I couldn’t disagree more.
I am not willing to hang a man and disregard +50 years of a good life based on innuendo.
Waco Freeh was. You are. You have that right. I expect more of “rule of law” conservatives, but I’m an idealist.
We disagree.
If there is any merit to your claim, then we will see it tried in civil court. There is no criminal trial because there is no evidence of criminality. I also doubt a case can be successfully made in civil court - using actual evidence versus innuendo - that will result in a jury making an award.
That is, unless there are jurors who do not care about facts and prefer innuendo, as you argue here.
Still, I doubt it will happen.
Time will tell.