The following is most of a 26-page (double-spaced) article at http://RobertLong1.tripod.com
The Grand Jury Presentment makes serious allegations and deserves careful analysis. I begin with a timeline showing when various activities by Jerry Sandusky are alleged and when Mike McQueary was at Penn State.
What certain people knew and when they knew it.
According to the Grand Jury Presentment, McQueary was shocked when, on March 1, 2002, he saw Sandusky in a shower engaging in what he thought was anal intercourse with a youth. This shock is a particular thing to note. People are not shocked when they observe a confirmation of what they already believe to be true. So McQueary, regardless of whether he had heard rumors about Sandusky or not, did not believe that Sandusky was a child molester prior to March 2002. And probably nobody else in the Penn State football program or in the school administration did either. Why would they? There was no available evidence of Sundusky being a child molester.
The Grand Jury Presentment describes a 1998 investigation involving alleged victims 6 conducted by the boy's mother, University Police, University Police Detective Ronald Shreffler, director of campus police [University Police?] Thomas Harmon, State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, and Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigator Jerry Lauro. The investigation by University Police produced a lengthy police report. The Presentment says Sandusky did all the following: put his right hand on the boy's left thigh several times while driving, wrestled with the boy, showered with the boy, and while in the shower grabbed the boy around the waist, soaped the boy's back, bear-hugged the boy, and picked him up to rinse him off under the showerhead. The investigation included another child of the same age, B.K., "who was subjected to nearly identical treatment in the shower." Sandusky admitted that some of his showering activities were inappropriate. County District Attorney Ray Gricar decided there would be no criminal charges, which is entirely reasonable since however inappropriate these actions may be, they are not crimes in and of themselves.
Perhaps some people in the Penn State football program knew of this 1998 investigation, including Sandusky's admission of inappropriate activity. Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz knew something about it. But this 1998 incident would, at least in 2002, tend in favor of Sandusky's innocence since anyone who knew only of the investigation and its outcome could reasonably suppose that Sandusky was again, in 2002, doing legal-but-inappropriate things.
The Presentment alleges child abuse of Victims 7, 5, and 4 during the period 1994--1999. If the police investigation of 1998 extended to these alleged victims, then it seems probable that the District Attorney also concluded that Sandusky's actions in these cases were not criminal. But if they were not part of that investigation, then they certainly were not known to McQueary as crimes, and probably not known as crimes to anyone in the football program or the Penn State administration, either. Probably they were not known at all.
There is no indication in the Grand Jury Presentment that Paterno knew anything about allegations regarding alleged victim 1 (2005--2009) until the Grand Jury issued its report in 2011. It is therefore plausible that the only allegation of inappropriate or criminal activity by Sandusky that Joe Paterno ever learned of prior to the issuance of the Grand Jury Presentment in 2011 is the one brought to him by McQueary in March of 2002.
What McQueary reported to various people.