We are talking about a guy making $129 K when he vanished. That is a few thousand Big Macks!
The investigator spoke after the NYT story and said that there was enough to charge Sandusky in 1998.
Nobody in the administration knew about 2000. The only people that knew about 1998 and 2002 were Spanier and Schultz.
Actually, 2002 is just one witness. There is no victim as of yet. If this were just a single witness, I could understand RFG not prosecuting.
In 1998, there were two victims, three witnesses to Sandusky's admission of committing the act (which wasn't rape).
Apples to oranges. I am quite critical of the administrators who had a duty to report the act in 2002. 2002, which a more serious allegation, actually has less evidence.
By using this line, you are saying it isn't a criminal act, at any level for a grown naked man to bear hug a child in the shower.
Arguably, RFG on two levels:
1. He could have prosecuted the 1998 case.
2. He could have called a grand jury to investigate in 1998.
Sandusky fail the background check because he was being investigated. The Grand Jury had been investigating him for a year at that point.
Did you read the NYTimes story? The statements from the investigators quoted by this mainstream reporter simply disagree with you. We aren't going to get anywhere here if the point of replying to posts is simply to rebut them without considering what the mainstream media presents. I am neither a reporter on the NY Times nor an investigator working on the current Sandusky case. What I have is what I provided, a link to a story in which the
current investigators say the 1998 case was a close call (as it seems to me to be, logically). This supports Lauro's (the child welfare agent's) contention that what he learned didn't arise to child abuse. Of course RG could have gone the other way; my point (and the NY Times reporter's point, and the point of the investigators quoted in the article) is that it was a "close call," that a prosecutor could have gone either way, ethically and professionally, without abrogating his duty to the citizens of the county, one of whom was the famous and powerful Jerry Sandusky, who also deserved to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and the others who made the claims about showering, etc. It is clear, then, that a reasonable person could see either bringing the case forward in 1998--or not. It is worth remembering that a prosecution for child sex abuse is tantamount to ending an educator's career, whether found guilty or not. So it is right and fair that the accused's rights, especially in a case in which no overt sexual contact was reported by the victim, be protected along with the victim's. At that point, RG did not have any indication that a 55 year-old man revered for his work with troubled youth, had a problem with little boys. This was the first public indication of Sandusky's problem.
So we can't blame RG for not having a crystal ball to see into 2000, 2002, 2011 and know that he should prosecute. And doesn't this just make everyone who knew about 1998 and then about 2000, 2002 etc. just look worse?
We do not know who in the PSU administration knew or didn't know about the allegations in 1998, 2000, or 2002. To learn the truth about who knew what and when they knew it, there are a number of investigations under way. Two of the administrators have been charged with perjury, so they aren't all that believable. The janitor's supervisor knew in 2000, because he reported it. The PSU president knew about 1998 and 2002. That seems like enough to me.
I have no idea why anyone would think that the 1998, with no adult eyewitness, no allegation of oral sex or penetration or even "fondling," nothing more than "he said/he said," is a better case than an anal rape witnessed by an adult, reported immediately to another adult, and within one day to the most powerful man in Pennsylvania, who confirms that the witness was upset and that he (most powerful man) told those nominally above him in the food chain. So in this case, there was RAPE and a WITNESS and REPORTING. In 1998, there was he said/he said, and an ambiguous apology overheard by the police, which Sandusky has already "spun" in the media, and which will go nowhere in court. The very fact that the University Police set up a sting indicates that THEY felt they needed more. No one does a sting unless they feel they can't make a case without a confession or catching a criminal in the act somehow. Every mainstream article, every news story, reflects an awareness that the 2002 case, with the eyewitness, is the heart of the Grand Jury presentment, because it supports the allegations of Victim 1 (2008) as well as all of the other victims that were identified.
That Victim 6 (2002) has not been identified is not a plus point for anyone who knew about that rape, since it is the indifference of all of those adults that created that situation. Had Paterno or McQueary or Curley or Shultz or Spanier acted immediately, it would have been easy to identify the child, get him help and he would be able to testify.
And I have no idea if "naked hugging" is a criminal act, although it is very creepy and a clear signal (to our 21st century experiences) that an adult is far over the appropriate boundaries. To my mind, it is certainly not the same as oral sex or anal rape, which are horrific.
The issue is whether a prosecutor (any prosecutor) could have nailed Sandusky in 1998, for "naked hugging and showering" while he was still working for Paterno. The current investigators say that even today it won't be easy to convict Sandusky, with all there is now. Read the article, and you will see that. There is also the fact that current prosecutors are concerned enough to ask for a change of venue from Centre County--which almost never happens.
I agree with the prosecutors and investigators as quoted by the
NY Times. Others are entitled to their own opinions, although I frankly don't understand the purpose of making RG out to be the villain or of minimizing the 2002 RAPE case, other than to scapegoat RG and whitewash Paterno. RG can't speak for himself, being deceased, so I am willing to present the expert opinions of others in his defense.
