I disagree. It’s not as simple as that.
When I was in my early teens there was a guy involved in my school in some sort of teaching/tutoring capacity - probably around age 20 or so - who liked to rub our legs under the table and the like. We were creeped out, and made the expected jokes and snide remarks about the guy behind his back, and to the extent possible we avoided sitting in a position that would allow for this, but that was about it. I don’t bear the guy any ill will today (he was a nice guy apart from that issue) and while I wouldn’t be absolutely shocked to find that he later became a hard core molester, I think the overwhelming likelihood is that he grew out of it (he was not in a relationship at the time).
And I remember seeing a middle-aged guy who used to tutor a kid in a public place (a library of some sort) and he used to put his arm around the kid in a way that made me uneasy. I wondered at the time if I should track down the kid’s parents and report it to them, but I had nothing really to put my finger on, and in the end I didn’t.
And so on, for any number of situations.
The point here is that there’s not a hard and fast line between “evil molester who should be tortured to death” and “fine and upstanding man” - there’s a lot of gray area in between, and a lot of room for different corrective measures.
And to the extent that - to JP’s knowledge - there was ambiguity in this particular case, then the question is whose job it was to sort it out. I would say it was not JP’s job. He was the coach of the football team, and his job was to coach football - apparently a pretty time consuming job, from what I hear. And Sandusky was out of his employ for three years by this time. By passing it along to people whose job it was to manage this type of situation, he did the right thing, both legally and morally. And if he didn’t see Sandusky being led away in handcuffs the next day? Well, maybe it turned out that this was not warranted based on the evidence in this situation. Happens sometimes.
But again, this depends on what he knew. If he knew enough to know that his superiors had obviously been derelict in their duties, then he should have followed up. But if his knowledge was such that he could reasonably believe that proper procedures had been followed, then he did the right thing.
So far, there is no evidence at all that he knew the extent of what had happened. The grand jury report does not claim that he knew this, and he himself has denied it. The only evidence that he knew what had happened is the speculation of frenzied witch-hunters. I say let’s wait for actual evidence instead.