A great man knows when an idol is no longer worthy. I want to commend you for your comments and logic based discourse on the situation. I know this is a mournful time for you in seeing the debasement of a man whom you believed was great. My compliments again, and well written.
I hate to accept compliments in this situation, and I'm afraid that my replies have gotten snippy. I don't understand how people can read this and not understand JoePa's role.
In my profession, I have to read documents like this twice. Once, for what's in them. Once, for what is missing from them.
It's like putting together a large jigsaw puzzle. In the beginning, you look at pieces and match them based on what you see. Later, you look at the puzzle and see the missing spots and find pieces to fit those missing spots.
I was bothered when I read the presentment and, later, the report. I was sickened when I re-read them for what was missing.
That's when I realized that every conversation from the moment McQueary called his dad through McQueary's multiple meetings with Curley and Schultz were documented. With respect to one meeting, the report states what McQueary says he said, and what Curley says he was told, and what Shultz says he was told. It report all three viewpoints of the conversation.
In fact, following four men - McQueary, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz (and later, the Penn State president), the presentment and report detail each link in the chain of conversations from both sides.
Except one time.
The presentment and report are carefully written so that the topic of what McQueary told the investigators that he told Paterno is missing. It's the hole in the completed jigsaw puzzle. We know what Paterno says he was told (none of the details). If McQueary said that he told Paterno details, it would be even more devastating that what we know. And both documents carefully come to that hole and walk around it.