The grand jury was only determining legal guilt.Mmmm... I think that the GJ was 'led' a little bit by the DA. The old saying, "A good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" may apply here. I read the GJ report. It's full of gaps between what Person A "said" versus what Person B "heard". Little attempt was made to get at the inconsistencies. The GJ must determine if a crime was committed, and who to indict. I think that a reasonable person could conclude that Paterno lied, as well as violated the law in much the same way as Spanier, Curley & Shultz.
To evaluate the Paterno response in 2002,
the response to the 1998 Sandusky showering w/boys in the football bldg. is helpful imo. Because of the alert mom of victim 6, Sandusky was investigated by detectives with the university police, the State College police, and an investigator from the Pa Dept. of Public Welfare to whom Sandusky admitted being naked in the shower w/boys, touching them inappropriately, and that doing so was wrong. Paterno's son claims Paterno knew nothing about the 1998 incident, which is absurd, especially since heir-apparent Sandusky suddenly decided at age 55 to "retire" soon after. Paterno knew in 1998 and 2002 and shares responsibility for Sandusky's evildoing by turning a blind eye. I hope Paterno is gone asap and takes his fellow coward McQueary with him.