Paterno could have shouted his concerns from the rooftops, they were not going near the Second Mile... It appears to this day, they never touched the place...
Check out some of the comments on the blog posts I linked:
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2018/01/no-coincidence-part-2-non-investigation.html?m=1
"I think prosecutors could have made a stronger case against Raykovitz than against CSS because, unlike CSS, Raykovitz was
1. A mandated reporter of child abuse and very well paid to safeguard fatherless boys under his care.
2. A PhD child psychologist.
3. Told by Sandusky that it was a Second Mile boy in 2001.
4. Condoning Sandusky showering with boys and just advised him to wear a swimsuit. In contrast, CSS disproved of Sandusky showering with a boy and banned him from bringing boys on campus.
5. Talked out of bringing the 2001 incident to his full board by two board members (conspiracy?).
6. Working for CYS.
Number 4 especially would not have gone over well with a jury. Why not just tell Sandusky not to shower with Second Mile boys? Why tell him to wear a swimsuit if you don't suspect something improper?
As Wendy mentioned, anyone knows that a p***phile's goal is to get the boy naked in the shower so the p***phile wearing a swimsuit is not a deterrent. "