Duh. Curley reports to him.
So, in other words, Curley just 'reported it to his superior' the way Joe Paterno did? Then why is everyone upset with Curley?
Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. Curley didn't call the police (wait - strike that, Joe Paterno, didn't, either).
I was being sarcastic about being sarcastic. Curley committed perjury. Although I am puzzled by the fact that he was charged with not reporting the abuse. Because he did report the abuse . . . to his supervisor, if Curley does report to Schultz.
But is anyone beginning to see why it's hard to give Joe Paterno a pass on this? Particularly when prosecutors are being so careful not to release anything regarding McQueary's statements about what he claimed to have told Joe Paterno. That one piece is missing from the GJ presentment and the GJ report. With respect to every other conversation, we know what a party claims to have said, and what the other party (or parties) claims to have been told. Paterno says he wasn't told the damning details . . . but we never hear what McQueary claims to have told Joe Paterno.
Because as an officer of the school he was required by law to report it withing a certain time frame. As an officer he can't get off the hook by passing it up the chain.
I am sure that they have it in testimony but Joe is not part of the indictment and what McQueary told Joe is irrlevant to this case prosecution of Sandusky, Curley and Schultz.