The Paterno 3 did indeed coverup for Sandusky. A coverup is not a crime, in and of itself. The jury found there was not a conspiracy. A coverup and a conspiracy are two different things.
§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.
(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime."
Coverup, which is not a legal term, is:
"1. an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime."
Spanier, not telling the BOT fully about the 2001 incident, covered up the Paterno 3 lack of action regarding Sandusky. It was not a crime to do so.
"Curley and Schultz, in lengthy colloquies with current case prosecutors Laura Ditka and Patrick Schulte, acknowledged receiving McQueary's report and interfering with or preventing its transmission to police and child welfare officials.
They conceded a legal duty to do that and as a result of that inaction, the men admitted, prosecutors could show Sandusky continued to have access to boys and, in fact, abused another boy in Penn State's football facilities before his eventual arrest in 2011."
Paterno's failure here is not one of law, but of morals and ethics, and given his stature as the face of Penn State, his culpability is indeed quite serious. The police were aware of an incident involving Sandusky as far back as 1998, but the decision to not press charges was the now-dead DA's, not theirs. And we'll never know why that DA did not pursue the case further. But that's not the point.
Tell me: Do you really believe Joe Paterno was not aware of that accusation, especially considering Sandusky had been his top lieutenant for 30 years to that point and then suddenly "retired" a year later even though he was only 55 years old? So Paterno knew about Sandusky's tendencies at least that far back, then four years later McQueary tells him he had just witnessed Sandusky molesting a child, and all you feel Paterno has to do is tell Curley? Paterno then continues to allow Sandusky to bring children to practices as late as 2007, but Paterno is not supposed to wonder what happened to that allegation of child molestation? Paterno is supposed to look the other way even though Sandusky is still hosting overnight camps at branch campuses as late as 2009? If so, why?
What a "stupid" post like this one demonstrates is the outsized role Paterno always felt he had at Penn State. It illustrates his willingness to protect the football program and his legacy even in the face of policies made by people at the university with ostensibly more authority—people who bent to his will when he wished to exert it (e.g. the firing of Vicky Triponey). It doesn't make him Stalin or Hitler or Manson, but it also doesn't make him just some adjunct English professor who's supposed to tell his department chair about an unruly student. And, sorry, every Penn Stater I know wore that "we're not like other big programs because we don't get into trouble" bit as a badge of honor. But the ones with half a brain now see this for what it is—for the abject moral failure on the part of pretty much everybody at Penn State, Paterno included.
Bottom line: The insular culture Paterno created—even as he sold the rest of the world on the notion that Penn State always did the right thing—is precisely why his moral complicity here matters. Whether Paterno deliberately looked the other way or did so out of indifference is not the issue. The fact that he knew about Jerry Sandusky and did not see he was stopped from preying on additional victims is. And, yes, it's enough to soil his legacy forever.
INTERVIEW: JOSEPH V. PATERNO
The date is 10/24/11; time 12:17 p.m., interview of coach Joseph Vincent Paterno, 830 North McKee Street, State College, PA. Scott Paterno is here representing his father. Randy Feathers is also present.
SASSANO: Coach are you aware that this statement is being taped and do you give me permission to tape this statement?
J. PATERNO: Yes.
SASSANO: Did Mike McQueary, some years ago, come to you, report to you an incident that he observed in the shower between Jerry Sandusky and another individual most likely a young boy.
J. PATERNO: Yes he did.
SASSANO: Okay, and can you tell me what Mike McQueary told you please.
J. PATERNO: Mike McQueary came and said he was in the shower and that Jerry Sandusky was in the shower with another person, a younger, how young I don’t know and Mike never mentioned it, that there was some inappropriate sexual activity going on.
Paterno just described Indecent Assault, which in fact Sandusky was found guilty of.
