Replies

That has been bothering me, and you are the first I’ve seen articulate it.

*sigh*

In my profession, I have to read documents like the Grand Jury presentment and the Grand Jury findings at least twice. Always at least twice.

Once, to see what is in them. A second time, to see what isn't in them.

it's like working on a large jig-saw puzzle. Initially, you look at the pieces and put them together based on what's there and what the look like. Next, you look at the holes in the completed puzzle and fit pieces based on what's not there.

In this case, it's when I read the documents looking for what was not there that I became ill. Because I respected Joe Paterno.

I'll state it one more time.

The documents meticulously follow the link of conversations among four men: McQueary, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz. What one claims to have said to the second, and what the second claims to have been told from the first. In the case of one meeting among McQueary, Curley, and Schultz, they detail what McQueary says he said, what Curley said he was told, and what Schultz says he was told.

Out of all of the meetings, from the time McQueary called his father through his multiple meetings with Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, and meetings between Curley and Schultz, and those involving the Penn State President . . . there is one conversation that everybody avoids as if it radioactive.

If this is a jigsaw puzzle, the puzzle is complete except for one piece.

Nobody will address what McQueary told the investigators that he told Paterno.

There's this long chain that starts with McQueary's call to his father . . . and only one link is missing in both the presentment and findings. What did McQueary tell the investigators that he told Paterno? McQueary may not have been asked that specific question before the grand jury, on purpose. The presentment suggests it wasn't part of the DA's evidence. The findings suggest the grand jury wasn't told.