OSU_Buckguy;2029654; said:
it may just be lawyerspeak, but kelly said that paterno is "not regarded as a target at this point."
That's accurate. To put it into context, here's the whole portion:
Q - "At this point, will you be able to say whether Mr. Paterno and Mr. Spanier have been cleared by your investigation, and can you comment on that?
AG Linda Kelly - "I can tell you that Mr. Paterno has been interviewed by the investigators, you can see that he has testified in the grand jury, that he reported this to individuals in the administration, being Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz, as far as what occurred that night. He's been cooperative with the investigators in this case. He is not regarded as a target at this point."
Q - "Was that the extent of Mr. Paterno's responsibilities, just to report it to his superiors, as opposed to reporting it as well to the police?
Kelly - "We believe that under the statute, he had an obligation to report it to school administrators, and he did that."
... (a couple of questions later)
Q - "You said that Coach Paterno is not regarded as a target at this point, and followed the stature by alerting higher officials. Can you say the same thing about President Spanier, is he not regarded as a target, and did he follow the statute?"
Kelly - "All I can say is again, I'm limited to what's contained in the presenment, and that this is an ongoing, continuing investigation."
Q - "Can you elaborate, though, on the statute, and maybe explain 'Why charge these two officials, but not the other two officials, who also have some high-ranking capacity at Penn State, that are mentioned in the grand jury report (Coach Paterno and President Spanier)'. How were these two singled out, under the stature, and why?
Kelly - "I can say that the graduate assistant reported to Paterno. Paterno then reported to these school administrators. They were the ones that made the decision to act as they did, and they are therefore responsible, under the circumstances, for the reporting."
Q - "Do you believe there's anybody that maybe had a moral obligation or ethical obligation to report something, that doesn't fall under statutes ...(inaudible)?"
Kelly - "I would have to say that all of us standing up here are law enforcement officials, and that we deal with facts and evidence. We have conducted an investigation and charged three defendants in connection with this case. Those of us that have been in the law for a while know that there is a difference between moral and legal guilt. Right now, those of us up here are concerned with legal guilt, and I'm not going to comment on morality now."
Q - "Is there a chance that Curley and Schultz could face more charges, like endangering the welfare of a child, other things that could possibly apply?"
Kelly - "All I can say is that the investigation continues."