If JakkL is referring to the 2001 case when he talks about Curley and the grand jury, that seems about right.
Tom, I don't know what you mean by "a lot more than that". The reaction seems to be consistent with Curley's interpretation, reported in the presentment, of "horsing around" in the shower. (I don't see how advising Sandusky to wear swim trunks if he is going to sexually assault a boy would be a sensible response otherwise.) Heim is adamant in the Ganim piece that TSM was told "nothing inappropriate" happened.
This is the "boundary issues" interpretation that was floated around a lot when the story broke. Sandusky wasn't a pedophile, he just didn't respect boundaries when showering with kids!
Re-reading the presentment for the umpteenth time, it is evident that McQueary conveying that he saw anal sex served as framing for the rest of the GJ's interpretation of the evidence. Curley and Schultz both deny that it was characterized that way to them, although Schultz was said to agree that the wrestling with the boy and possibly grabbing his genitals was inappropriate sexual contact.
That's either the "lost in translation" or "sweep this under the rug" moment.
McQueary stood pretty firm in the trial testimony, even if he didn't say he saw anal sex:
“I described it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on,” the assistant coach, Mike McQueary, testified of the suspected assault by Sandusky, a longtime top assistant to Paterno. “There’s no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry in the showers, and that it was severe sexual acts, and that it was wrong and over the line.”
TSM hunting is a red herring. There can be no hope that if TSM somehow undergoes the "right" amount of scrutiny, the anger at Penn State will recede.
Why the allegation about 2001 didn't get to the right authorities is the question for Penn Staters. It seems to get lost with Curley, Schultz and Spanier.