Of course, football isn't only important in the South; it's also important in other parts of the country, including State College, PA.
RFG was an outsider and a non-football fan; however, by 1998, he surely knew what PSU football meant to the people of Centre County. Perhaps he knew the chances of securing a verdict of guilty were slim to none and he wanted to the spare the victim the ordeal of testifying and the possibility of public scorn.
Even if that's the case, however, it's still troubling that RFG seemed so incurious about the validity of the accusation. I don't know what to make of that lack of curiosity.
BBM and shorten for clarity.
This is exactly what I have been thinking.
Heck, even a rape case with an adult who has a "pristine background" is a long and hard case today. If the perpetrator has a record or other unsavory background that makes it a bit easier for the prosecution. Defense attorneys always put the victim threw h3!! and going to court requires an emotionally strong person to be able to withstand having their entire life put under a magnifying glass and torn apart.
Now think of that in context with a child and re-wind back to 1998. One of the hardest things to do is not put todays values and perceptions about who can be a child abuser onto the past. 1998 was, in regards to acceptance of who could do such a thing, didnt go much beyond the stereotype that a pedophile was that scurvy looking guy who lived in his mothers basement. Now, we all known, or at least most do, that they also include that great teacher, that nice man (even women) who lives on the corner, or your churches priest, and yes even a popular and beloved coach.
Today, perceptions about child abuse are much different than they were in 1998. With the popular Sandusky and the god like worship of anything football at Penn State; that child and his mother would have been torn to shreds and vilified beyond belief.
Yes, there were laws on the books that gave RG grounds to prosecute, but he would have had to still deal with the people and I believe it was his understanding of how the people and "their perceptions" of what child abuse is along with the lack of understanding how a victim is groomed that ultimately drove his decision not to take this case to court.
There also may have been the feeling that Sandusky himself, having been questioned about his actions with this child, would have recognized the writing on the wall, and would not dare to continue this behavior.
My opinion is that Penn State officials should have been accountable from that time forward to insure that Sandusky would no longer have access to children again, at least with anything to do with the college or affiliate programs. I wont even go into my thoughts on the officials at Second Mile.
Here is more food for thought.
Freeh Report on the Child Abuse at Penn State
Source:
http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
Page 19 is where time line starts
Page 39 is the report on the 1998 investigation that would include RG
This stood out to me: Page 46 of pdf.
D. Late May 1998: District Attorneys Decision to Not Prosecute Sandusky
"Sometime between May 27, 1998 and June 1, 1998, the local District Attorney declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions with the boy in the shower in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998. A senior administrator of a local victim resource center familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was severely hampered by Seasocks report."
Local victim resource center ????
Is that the Centre County Victim Advocate Office were PF worked? Who would have been the senior administrator in 1998? Also this report does not make it clear if they are referencing the 1998 time period or current time period regarding the senior admin.
Further down on page 46
E. June 1, 1998 University Police Speak with Sandusky
"No notes or records reflect that Schreffler or Lauro consulted with the District Attorney during or after the interview" [referring to the June 1, 1998 interview with Sandusky]
Page 49
"Harmon (of the University Police) provided an update to Schultz on May 8, 1998 that Lauro indicated that it was his intent to have a psychologist who specializes in child abuse interview the children."
To me it looks like the report of Counselor Seasock, who had a contract to provide counseling services with Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) and who later became an independent contractor under the employ of Penn State in 2000 and the determination by Lauro with the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) were the two main reasons that RG did not take any further action.
I have to wonder why a CYS person was used to do the evaluation in the first place, since that in itself should have been a conflict of interest, especially since CYS had a contract with 2nd Mile and the actions in question involved Sandusky, the founder of 2nd Mile.
That brings me to the question of why Seasock was the one who was assigned to this case to begin with. I think it is important to note that he was not a psychologist nor did he have any special training in child abuse. Chambers, an actual psychologist who was brought in by the mother of Victim #6 was qualified, but Seasocks report was given more weight. Why?
It appears that in the end it was Seasocks report and the fact the Lauro did not bring up any question in regard to his professional ability to properly make an evaluation that shut down any further investigation into the allegations. This then had a direct impact on RG not taking the case any further.
I'm not happy about that.