c2w? wrote:
I find it very notable that the GJ does not specify what McQueary told Paterno. And that includes not specifying whether or not he told Paterno he witnessed "fondling or something of a sexual nature," btw. Paterno told that to Curley, per the GJ. But all they report about what McQ told Paterno was that it was "what he had seen."
You are correct. This is a detail I missed and am glad to have pointed out to me. It provoked a new examination of the GJ document, and looky here:
In order of number, paragraph # 3 of the secion titled Victim 2 begins " Joseph V. Paterno testified . . ." In that paragraph, we are told what Paterno told Tim Curley. Tellingly, as c2w? noted, we are NOT told precisely what Paterno says he was told by McQueary. We get Paterno's characterization to the GJ of what McQueary allegedly told him.
The next two paragraphs, numbers 4 and 5, pertain to what McQueary reported about the incident to Curley and Schultz, and what Curley then told McQueary a couple of weeks afterward concerning actions taken. It is not 100% clear here, though one can surmise, McQueary is the source of the claims. Given that part of what the GJ reports Curley and Schultz were told was that McQueary "witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy", we can reasonably conclude this info came from McQueary, since later Curley and Schultz will deny they were told this specifically [in different ways, but both deny it].
In the subsequent paragraphs, the GJ is VERY CLEAR about what Curley and Schultz reported they learned from their meeting with McQueary. The perjury charge against them stems from the GJ believing they are lying about that. Curley and Schultz were grilled about this. The fact that the GJ grilled them on this, and that they were held to account for the difference between what the GJ believes McQueary told them and what they claim they were told, AND the fact that Paterno was either not asked by the GJ what McQueary specially told him, or that information was not put in the report, is quite problematic and has to be accounted for.
c2w? wrote:
The reason I find that very notable is that I find it very implausible that McQueary did not tell Paterno (his former coach, longtime mentor and all-around figure of trust and respect exactly what he saw.
I don't think its as implausible as you do. I can very much imagine a scenario whereby McQueary begins to tell Paterno what happened, and before he gets to the key details Paterno stops him and says "Stop! I don't want to hear anything graphic or specific here, there's no need for that. I can see you're very upset and that it sounds like you saw him fondling the boy or something else of a sexual nature was happening. I'm glad you brought it to me and I'm going to report it to Tim right away. [Of course, he has Curley over "the very next day" which is not right away, a perhaps key detail, but we'll leave it for now].
Paterno is a conservative, depression-era catholic, and I could certainly see him taking a puritanesque, Archie Bunker-type line on this sort of disclosure: "Tell me what happened, but don't make it dirty". Or at least: I can certainly see this explanation holding as a reasonable cover story, regardless of whether it actually describes Paterno's own personality. It's a personality type he could be expected to instantiate.
Of course, this approach would also serve him well if ever it came to a question of what he SPECIFICALLY knew [as it now has].
Having said that, yeah, it could well be the case that Paterno is being protected by the GJ and/or the DA, who presumably controls this GJ process. If anyone knows whether its common for a DA to the supervise the writing of a GJ report closely, I'd be glad to know. Did the DA perform edits? Is this standard?
c2w? wrote:
I read the GJ presentment as indrectly confirming that hypothesis [my note: the hypothesis that would be unlikely for Mcqueary not to tell Paterno exactly what he saw] in a number of ways, primarily by not getting specific about what McQueary told Paterno.
I regard that as confirmation because the only reasonable explanation for the absence of more detailed information on this point in the GJ presentment is that the prosecution went out of its way to keep the grand jury from hearing it, as part of a tacit deal with McQueary (and possibly Paterno).
You might be right. But if this is right, then there are members of the GJ who perfectly well understand this happened, whether they were told it or not, as they would of course see the huge difference in the inquiry re: what Paterno knew and what Curley and Schultz knew.
I wonder what those GJ members would say about this.
c2w? wrote:
To me, that makes perfect sense, because I would expect:
(a) McQueary to have both a personal and professional interest in protecting Paterno; and
(b) Prosecutors to have some reservations about their chances of convicting one of the most revered and beloved men in the Commonwealth on the charges in question.
Furthermore, I am certain to the point of no reasonable doubt that if McQueary had testified that he told Paterno he saw Sandusky raping a child, the GJ would have recommended charging him in the presentment, due to that being their legal obligation, just as it would be the legal obligation of the DA's office, IF THEY OFFICIALLY ADMITTED TO KNOWING IT.
And so here's the big rub: NOT asking the question of Paterno on the record is a blinking red light. This question has to be asked, and if it isn't, speculation would quite reasonably go to whether the DA didn't ask it BECAUSE SHE KNEW THE ANSWER.
Consider: would not McQueary have told the investigators back in 2010 EXACTLY what he had told Paterno, since he would be concerned at this point about his own hide (or at least, unburdening his soul)? Would not those investigators have told the DA what McQueary claimed he specifically told Paterno? In this likely scenario, the DA has to know what McQueary claims Paterno was told. I imagine there is a report somewhere detailing just what McQueary told those investigators? If the Paterno info is left out of THAT, then we can be damn sure there's a cover-up to protect him and that the DA is in on it, though it would still of course be circumstantial.
Other possibilities:
1. At some point in the future the DA will claim that Paterno was given immunity for his participation in the investigation [not likely, since he's hired a criminal attorney, unless that's a cover, too, and anyway, what would be the justification for giving him immunity? Paterno wasn't materially a key witness. McQueary is the key witness];
2. That Paterno somehow had wind of the 2010 investigation, and due to a sweetheart arrangement with the DA's office, McQueary was not asked about what specifically he told Paterno? Yet how do you defend that failure if you're the DA?
c2w? wrote:
In short: I reason that they saw to it that there was no record of their official cognizance on the issue. Not only would there be no advantage to suppressing that now if it was going to come out later anyway, it would be highly disadvantageous, insofar as it would totally fuck up their chances of convicting Curley and Schultz if it came out in discovery that they'd given Paterno a pass for the same crimes.
ERGO: THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC INFO IS THE UPSHOT OF A STRATEGIC, INTENTIONAL COLLABORATION AMONG THE PROSECUTORS AND THEIR COOPERATING WITNESSES.
I'm so sorry that I can't say that simply. I wish that I could.
To the contrary, along with most of the rest of the world I can only aspire to your eloquence. But if what you suspect is so, the DA has given herself away by not having the GJ subject Paterno to the same scrutiny Curley and Schultz had to withstand. The secrecy of the collaboration won't hold if there remains real scrutiny on this case, because the GJ "oversight" w/r/t is glaring under close scrutiny. I'd like to hear from others who go back and review those paragraphs to see if they agree.
I'll close on this with by reflecting on this key section from the NYTimes piece of yesterday:
State College is a close-knit community. Word would get around that a Penn State coach had met with investigators. So investigators set up a meeting in an out-of-the-way parking lot, according to those with knowledge of the case.
There, one day a little over a year ago, McQueary unburdened himself, the two people said. He needed little prompting.
He told of a horrific scene he had stumbled upon as a graduate assistant one Friday night in March 2002: a naked boy, about 10, hands pressed against the locker room wall of the Lasch Football Building, being raped by Sandusky. McQueary was explicit and unequivocal, the people said. He had told Paterno, the team’s longtime and widely beloved head coach, about the incident the next day, but he was filled with regret that nothing had happened.
Same vague terms used to characterize what McQueary told Paterno, but just who were the investigators trying to keep the investigation hidden from?? Sandusky, for sure, but Paterno also? More answers still needed.
And I'll list some of these questions on the questions resource thread later.
