It seems clear from news articles that the mother of the shower victim wanted charges to go forward, but it isn't clear whether the other boy (BK) and his parent(s) were willing to do that. There are really only a few reasons not to proceed with charges in a case like this one: A prosecutor decides there is insufficient evidence to bring charges (which may include reluctant witnesses); there is evidence but not enough to prevail against a big-bucks defense team, who might conjure up all sorts of unsavory tactics to save a guy like Sandusky; the prosecutor knows there was a crime but is pressured politically to decline to
prosecute, perhaps with assurances that "it won't happen again"; the prosecutor has doubts about the charges themselves; or the fix is in. There may be other possibilities, but these are the ones that come to mind for me.
You can subpena them and it won't be a question of being "willing to." LE knew about it already.
There was at least the same evidence in 1998 as there was today; with B. K., there might have been more than they have today.
What bugs me is that Sandusky kept the charity going after the 1998 investigation; I'd be totally shocked if there weren't earlier victims (1980s and early 90s) and more in the 1998-2008 window. An investigation into Second Mile might have stopped Sandusky in 1998. But of course we are looking with 20-20 hindsight and as yet no real information about how RG made his decision.
There
were earlier instances, well at least one, but it was not reported.
We have debated endlessly about motives for walkaway and suicide, but certainly one of the major reasons for murder--especially of a prosecutor--is to cover up a crime. And if We were looking for a sensational crime that someone could have tipped RG to in the days before the disappearance, and that would have led him to be upset, this would fit that description. It would not even have had to be planned--just someone meeting with RG and he wouldn't play ball or an argument started....
Well, you were the one who wanted to debate those reasons, until a few days ago.
We can rule a out, or at least mostly out.
1. RFG was murdered to hide a crime. In this case, he was one of six people to know about the incident, at least. The other five are still around. In just about any case he handled, the situation would be the same.
2. RFG was murdered to prevent a prosecution. Well, in this case, after seven years, it was unlikely he would prosecute. As seen in this case, that wouldn't prevent prosecution.
Now, I pointed this out a long time ago, and prosecutor is in a position to blackmail someone.
http://www.centredaily.com/2011/02/19/2531734/blackmail.html#storylink=misearch He could find out something bad about the person or even decline to prosecute in return for remuneration.
There are some problems with that:
1. Eventually, the prosecutor will leave office. He'll lose an election or primary, die or vanish. The next guy could prosecute. That's not a good motive for paying not to be prosecuted.
2. The prosecutor, if caught, will go to jail.
3. The person being blackmailed might kill the prosecutor.