I can't stop mulling it over while reading Posnanki's biography and, on the side, reviews of it--like the infuriating one by Paul Campos (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/23/paterno_bio_disgusting_and_disgraceful/). Campos insinuates that you'd have to be extremely gullible to believe, as Posnanski seems to, that Paterno was NOT lying under oath to the Grand Jury when he said that he did not have knowledge of the 1998 investigation. It seems to me that the plausibility of the prevailing view, as represented by the Freeh Report and expanded upon by the NCAA in their declarations, hinges on reviewing the relevant facts in outline and not looking closely at the details of what happened--all the weird things, the things that don't really make sense on the prevailing view.
For example, if Paterno had been willing to lie under oath to the Grand Jury (as Campos thinks is obvious), why would he not lie about the content of what McQueary told him in 2001 rather than lie about his knowledge of the 1998 investigation? Were he and Curley/Schultz just hapless co-conspirators, unaware of how to lie in their own self-interest? I don't get that.
Also, Campos floats the theory that the cover-up in 2001 was motivated by their belief that they would lose their jobs if Sandusky were arrested then (in spring 2001), and it came out that they all had known about the 1998 incident, but had not stopped subsequent abuse. But given that Sandusky was not charged in 1998, after a month-long investigation of the incident, does it at all seem reasonable that they would have been concerned about their jobs over the way things had been handled before?
Finally, what seems so strange to me about the conduct of Paterno, Curley and Schultz after 2001--on the hypothesis that they were co-conspirators of silence--is that they did not treat Sandusky like kryptonite. The Freeh Report even cites an email from Schultz in 2007 or 2008, encouraging local bank officers to meet with Sandusky and get involved with the Second Mile's programs with kids (!). Did he somehow forget that he had been a co-conspirator in shielding Sandusky's serial child abuse? It's details like this that leave me completely at a loss to compose a narrative of events that would make sense according to the prevailing view.
I wish I could stop thinking about all this stuff, but if anyone has thoughts on the points raised, I'd appreciate hearing them.