Please see the link to a video of a neutral lawyer's comments at post # 16. From what I understand him to be saying, the accused PSU officials had some knowledge of Sandusky's sexual abuse of children in the early 1990s. However, the mandatory reporting statute was not enacted until 1997.
Yes, I would say they had a moral responsibility to report Sandusky to law enforcement when they found out about what was happening. But apparently they were under no legal mandate under the Pennsylvania statutes to report it at that time.
So as much as these three may be morally culpable for not reporting, they can't be convicted for violating a statute that wasn't on the books at the time of the events in question. It may cause us to be frustrated and angry, but there are instances where morally outrageous conduct does not reach the level of criminal guilt, and this may be one of them.
You have your dates off by a decade. Also, only one (Schultz - because of his role of overseeing the the campus police department) was aware of the 1998 incident which was fully investigated by the state police and local agencies, then dismissed by Ray Gricar.
The other two were only ever aware of what Mike McQueary told them about 2001. Whether he told them there was “sexual abuse of a child” remains to be seen. They claim he watered down the story to “horse play”.
There were no other incidents or victims reported until after the charges came down in 2011.