This story is interesting since it reveals that it was a very serious decision considering what little they were told by McQueary and how concerned they were with doing the right thing for PSU. My take is that they determined Mike's brief observation and suspicion insufficient evidence of a crime.
Top Pennsylvania State University officials held a three-hour meeting to discuss Jerry Sandusky in 2001 over concerns about the former coach's behavior with a boy in the football showers. A law-firm billing record from that conversation describes a "report of suspected child abuse," according to a person with knowledge of an independent investigation into the matter.Now we can blame the PSU lawyers for the decision that what Mike McQueary told the administrator was insufficient to make a report outside of The Second Mile and Penn State can't we? IF the attorneys for PSU did not think it was required then my guess is they had good reason. Lawyers are notorious for erring on the side of caution. Could the liability of reporting JS on vague assumptions by a grad student be more problematic than not?
This revelation puts an entirely new spin on the diligence of the PSU administrators I think. If Penn State attorneys thought their actions legally responsible then why should they be questioned?