The only two individuals who know exactly how that conversation occurred are McQueary and Paterno (maybe McQueary's father).
If McQueary couched this report in language of "I'm not certain of this, but I think I saw Sandusky acting inappropriate with a boy in the shower", then Paterno certainly should ask for clarification; however, that does not automatically imply that McQueary then responded with, "I certainly saw Sandusky raping the boy".
Given the prior incident in which the DA did not move forward on the charges, I do not see this as negligent. The fact that McQueary left the scene, went home, and called his Dad provides the possibility that McQueary was unsure of what to do and, possible, unsure of how to express what he saw. It is possible that his Dad instructed him not to make an outright accusation against Sandusky.
There are many possibilities here and very little facts of how that conversation actually occurred. To simply pick how you think that conversation occurred so that you can assert that Paterno is morally bankrupt is just as irresponsible as picking any other possibility. Hopefully, an investigation will bring light to that situation and what was information was actually relayed to Paterno. If it turns out that McQueary was very clear in asserting that he saw Sandusky rape the boy, then there is something inconsistent with Paterno keeping McQueary on staff and "allowing" Sandusky access to the facilities.
