I do hope some people read the article and come away realizing that there was no evidence to show that Paterno was involved in any kind of attempt to cover up the information he had been given.
..and the article most certainly dealt in fact. Whether you chose to believe it or not is your opinion, but this was the former deputy AG, who had access to all the information and evidence gathered for the entire case.. and said that in all the evidence there was zero that implicated Paterno in the cover up with the other three men.
That is a fact.. again, what you chose to believe is up to you.
I think most people realized that Paterno was not legally responsible back when this started. Early on, people wondered why Paterno was not arrested and Curley and Schultz were arrested. Then it was explained why.
The real outrage against Paterno was that:
1. He knew about it.
2. There was evidence that he likely knew about Sandusky more or less admitting to molesting a boy in 1998
3. He admitted that McQuery told him that he saw Sandusky 'fondle' a boy in the shower
4. He claimed he didn't know what sodomy was.
5. He did the absolute minimum
6. And he did not bring up anything when Sandusky continued to have an office at PSU and continued to have young boys around him at the university.
The other outrage came from the lame defense used to excuse Paterno like 'he did talk to the police.' Schultz has *zero* arresting authority in the state of Pennsylvania.
I don't know of anybody that was expecting an 84-year old man to beat up Sandusky. I know some people thought McQuery took the coward's way out. But, I think people do believe that Paterno ignored the fact that he was told that Sandusky was fondling a boy and it seemingly didn't bother him that nothing happened to Sandusky to the point where he could not even bother to simply question law enforcement as to what happened with the situation.
YR