That’s fine.
But in cases where the grand jury does not hear from witnesses, assertions that the grand jury found these witnesses to be “extremely credible” don’t carry nearly as much weight as in cases where they do. And this is worth noting if someone - in this case the prosecution - is going to make a point of the grand jury’s assessment of the witness.
It seems just as likely that someone made a typo and typed “33” instead of “30”.
I can’t figure out what you’re saying.
To repeat the earlier quote (emphasis added):
Are you saying that the indictment was actually written by the 30th grand jury and they misidentified themselves via a typo? Or is there some typo in the ESPN article? Or what?
I’m not claiming anything. You are the one that seems to find suspicion in a claim that the “wrong” jury said he was credible. I’m saying it seems just as likely that the claim about his credible was accurate, but mis-attributed to a different jury because of a typo.
And I’m asking you to specify what supposed typo you’re referring to? Who made the typo?
How the fuck would I know who made a typo? The typo is “30” instead of “33” or maybe the other way around.
Did you read my earlier post?
I’m not asking for the name of the guy who made the typo. I’m asking how an indictment report written by one grand jury gets misidentified as having been written by another. What manner of typo would have accomplished this?
ETA: It’s like me suggesting that maybe your post was really written by Starving Artist but “there was a typo”. You need to be more specific than that.
Which part of typing 33 instead of 30 do you not understand?
What part of “answer a simple question” do you not understand?
Where - as in: “in which document/source/report” - was this supposed typo?
I don’t fucking know. YOU said there was article/report saying that the 33rd jury had some assessment of McQueary’s testimony, but if the comments were made it couldn’t be that jury’s assessment because a different jury actually heard the testimony.
So, wherever YOU said the discrepancy exists, then that would be the place where there MIGHT have been a typo made.
You need to read more closely.
I didn’t say that a discrepancy existed. I quoted an article from ESPN in which they said a discrepancy existed. So that couldn’t have been a typo.
Can we please get back to discussing cardboard tubes? Thanks, guys. 
TWEEEEEETTTT
Pardon my interruption, but would F P mind telling me why he/she resurrected this better-dead thread for such a trivial piece of news? Did you really think it matters one fucking bit that there may still be some uncertainty about Victim 2?
Now back to the silly misunderstanding.
It makes no fucking difference. Then ESPN noticed what is very possibly a typo … somewhere. Do you imagine that there is some nefarious reason for a claim that one jury rather than another jury said or didn’t say something? Do you think that NO jury reported that McQueary was credible? Or someone lied about what the jury thought or didn’t think about him, and deliberately named the wrong jury number to cloud an issue?
The subject of this thread is not Sandusky, it’s Paterno.
And the case against Paterno rests on Victim 2 and the credibility of McQueary.
[I’m aware that there are some who are more interested in cardboard tubes and such, but this was a long thread, and there may be others who are interested in the ostensible subject itself.]
That’s extremely far fetched. If a grand jury issues an indictment it’s not like you can just confuse it with another grand jury.
But beyond being a far-fetched suggestion to begin with, you’re also factually wrong. Here’s a link to the GJ report They identify themselves as the thirtythird GJ in the first sentence. And the statement about McQueary being extremely credible is on top of page 8.
No one lied about anything. The 33rd GJ did say he was extremely credible. However, since they never heard him testify, the value of this assessment is lessened.
I’m curious to know how, if it turns out McQueary was mistaken or even made the whole thing up, it will retroactively absolve Paterno for his inaction. Was he able to read minds, and therefore knew the accusations were false?
Yeah, sorta kinda. But not in a courtroom sense. This thread was about condemning Paterno for failing to report to relevant authorities, and failing to follow up on, the statements/testimony that McQueary made directly to Paterno about Sandusky. There seemed to be a consensus (excepting a couple of dissenting posters) that McQueary’s statements to Paterno should have been credible enough for Paterno to report them and follow up with something other than searching for a way to bury them.
The thread was hijacked into a debate about whether Sandusky could have performed an actual rape, given McQueary’s observations as stated. This led us into all sorts of valuable insights related to paper towel tubes, and into debates about trial evidence sufficient to convict, on this incident and the others. And indeed, a conviction at trial would certainly hinge on credibility issues. But that was merely a distraction from the original contention, which was that Paterno had failed to live up to his responsibility in reporting Sandusky.
Exactly. Paterno’s reputation was as a stand up type of coach who would do the right thing, even at personal cost.
Looking at technicalities at all is a non-starter. If he was actually as moral and ethical as his reputation, he would have/could have/should have done more than his bare minimum legal responsibility, if he did even that much. His well deserved Pitting was not in failing to perform his minimum requirements but failing to satisfy the standards he supposedly set for himself and for which he allowed himself to be lauded.
I don’t know how many times that exact point has been stated and restated in this thread, but I guess it needs to be stated again.
The degree of Paterno’s responsibility was deternined by what McQueary told him at the time. Our primary source of info about what McQueary told him at the time is what McQueary is saying about it now. If McQueary’s credibility is low, then that takes a hit as well.
Ditto for what actually happened in the shower. The primary significance of what actually happened - in the context of this thread - is in what McQueary said about it at the time. To the extent that there is some doubt that McQueary saw the kid being unambiguously molested, that makes it less likely that this is what he communicated to Paterno at the time.
No. Just no.
The “unambiguously” part is still bullshit. McQueary reported observing something that a number of “mandated reporters” declared to be more than sufficient for making such a report. Only if Paterno had judged McQueary to be totally non-credible, a raving loon, a person known to be given to flights of fancy, would his testimony directly to Paterno been insufficient to obligate Paterno to report. Even Paterno’s own recounting of what he heard from McQueary was more than sufficient to obligate him, so we need not judge McQueary’s later statements ourselves for their own credibility.
The standard was met, as even Paterno recounted it. Paterno shirked his responsibility.