Just making sure I understand your post...allow me to summarize...
"Don't believe ESPN or other media outlets because they're liars and sensationalists. Allow me to offer you a handy conspiracy theory to be taken as fact."
Riiiight. Got it. Now, go re-read Luigi's post. His contention is correct. Paterno knew Sandusky was a pederast, and did meet his legal obligation (after not disturbing their weekends) by eventually telling his boss(es). Where he failed, as the big cheese, was in not telling Jerry Sandusky to stay the hell away from every PSU athletic facility. Instead, Sandusky used them for years to come.
How do you explain that failure?
Are we going to play the "he did the legal minimum, so let's all exalt his character" game again?
OK, tell me how does Paterno know that Sandusky is a pedophile? He has an assistant coach come in and make an accusation who may or may not have an axe to grind (we don't know the past relationships between these 2 individuals). Perhaps he had heard about an investigation that went nowhere many years ago which may say there is more or may say that there is a smear going on. Point here is that Joe Parterno was not a direct witness to anything. He is not in a position to make a police report himself, nor take direct action against Sandusky, as Sandusky has not reported to him in years. Taking him to the AD and the officer in charge of the University Police force was an appropriate way to deal with an accusation to which he had nothing to add.
As to telling Sandusky to stay away from PSU facilities, that would be the job of the AD or University President. As much as people would like to think that Joe Pa had authority above the University President, that was not the case.
My personal (without any particular evidence to back it up) thoughts on why this thing went the way it did (only based upon my observations of how a powerful people acting out of bounds get away with things at institutions of higher education) is that the football program at PSU is an institution that drives a lot of the image of the school as well as its fundraising. Officers from the President down through the AD view it as their mission to protect the image of that football program from all threats. I wouldn't be surprised if Sandusky's leaving in 1998 was negotiated to avoid the negative publicity of the situation at that time with Sandusky receiving the "normal" rights to use of facilities to avoid the perception of a scandal.
Sandusky then set up business again knowing that the cover-up up the food chain in his original departure would be enough to give him free reign. McQueary's accusation was the thing that made that whole arrangement come unglued.
Getting back to Joe Paterno, I don't believe he was in on the original handling of the 1998 issue (his repsonsibilities are only as coach). Unfortunately, he was the messenger of the bad news (Sandusky being up to it again), and once the administration couldn't bury it again, they shot the messenger. Of course, a few responsible individuals were also dismissed, but ultimately I believe there were even more complicit parties to the failure to investigate both times.
And of all the parties involved in the scandal, he has been the most forthcoming since the events, which to me says more about the truth of how he has presented things than any of the other parties. Everyone else seems to have lawyered up pretty good.
As much as people want to call him an enabler, what did he provide to Sandusky as part of or after his original departure? If he were truly trying to avoid "hurting" Sandusky and trying to "protect" something, wouldn't he have done less - not even gone up his food chain and leave McQueary to deal with it by himself?
I can accept his admission that he wish he had done more given how things turned out. I'm sure there have been a few stories like this in the military where known "bad actors" weren't stopped earlier because someone assumed the CoC was handling the investigation thoroughly once someone had reported seeing bad behavior.