I think what has happened is that the prosecutors put their heads together & asked the question: "Can we find a dozen jurors in this state who would convict Joe Paterno?"
When the obvious answer of "no" came back, they decided upon other targets.
Let me see if I can say this in a way where it's not like me screaming "I told you so."
Colofornian, as you know, I've been saying since around November 7 that I read legal documents at least twice. Once for what's in them and once for what's not in them. From the beginning, it was clear that the Grand Jury presentment had a huge hole. Although it detailed each conversation between Party A and Party B, describing in detail what Party A said he said, and what Party B claims he was told, once link was clearly left out of the chain. The presentment never said what McQueary told Paterno.
I said this was because the DA did not want to publicly state what McQueary said he told Paterno; it would be embarrassing given Paterno's inaction and was Paterno said he was told.
I took a lot of flack from PSU and Paterno supporters, but as an attorney, it was a huge hole and it was clear from the beginning that the DA did not want to prosecute Paterno, but that Paterno was not telling the same story about what he was told as the story McQueary was telling about what he told Paterno.
So the answer is: Yes, Paterno likely could have been charged in perjury too. But the DA showed him respect as an 84-year-old, as the Penn State head coach, as an icon, and as a man he knew he couldn't convict.
Paterno lied. That's why there was a hole in the presentment.
I said it until it became annoying even to me. It was like the one missing piece in an othetwise-completed jigsaw puzzle. You saw exactly what it was shaped like.
Yep. This story confirms it.