It is probably because I am a lawyer, but I am incredibly disturbed by your (and others in the media) conflagration of fact, rumor, anger and certitude. Most of the time I can excuse this because the issues are (relatively) more trivial. But, as we all recognize, there is nothing trivial about the ongoing matters at Penn State. You wrote:

As one reader noted, if a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry had been found in the showers buggering a ten-year-old, the cops would have been called immediately. But an assistant coach and likely successor to the great Paterno? Immune.

This statement is provocative and yet false. In 2002, when the events identified in the Grand Jury Report took place, Sandusky was a former assistant and had no chance of succeeding Paterno.