You know, JJ, when you chop posts up to refute sentences, you miss the point of what posters are saying and in this case, you twist the argument I am making. Usually I don't protest when you do that, but in this case, I will.
Obviously I know (and know that others on WS are smart enough to know) that football is big money and programs and universities have massive incentives to keep a pedophile's crimes quiet. Penn State didn't need evidence to get rid of Sandusky. He was an at-will employee and simply bringing a child onto campus and into the shower would get most college faculty or coaches fired. However, a prosecutor has to have evidence: witnesses to wrong-doing, DNA, photos and the like.
There is no indication in the GJ report or the media that RG had that stuff on Sandusky; the Child Welfare officer has said, publicly, that he (Child Welfare) didn't have enough to make an abuse case.
That statement is inaccurate. In the 1998 incident, there were
two victims, that are also witnesses. There are also three witness to Sandusky
admitting to the conduct. I don't know anyone else on this board who would even claim that there were no witnesses in this incident.
Sandusky was not an "at will" employee, at least from what was stated. He was a tenured professor and may have been under contract.
According to what Lauro said, he didn't have the information. According to the investigator from the University Police, Schreffler, there was enough evidence to charge on some grounds in 1998. The AG
has charged Sandusky on that incident, with
less evidence.
So how would a case have held up in course against Sandusky? Right now, the PSU alumni are cranking up the "poor Joe Paterno" media machine in defense of a guy who had to have known what Sandusky was up to.
As an alumni, I will agree that
some have, regarding the 2002 incident. There is no evidence Paterno knew about the 1998 incident, or that RFG knew about the 2002 incident.
If Paterno didn't know in 1998 that his defensive coordinator was a child molester, he should have; Sandusky was a coach in college, would have access to younger kids at for-profit football camps, etc. And there was the documented attempt to dump him on the D-III branch campus at Altoona. Head coaches are PAID to know about the character of the people they hire. And I speak as someone who FIRED an individual who was over the boundaries with a "kid" who was NOT underage. Head Coaches, department head, deans are supposed to know.
Why
should he have known. He can only know if he sees it or if someone tells him. What are they suppose to tell him, in 1998. The DA and child services
don't think there is any wrongdoing?
It is of course possible that RG was like Paterno and the others.
That would be a bit different because Paterno was not the chief law enforcement officer of Centre County. RFG was, in 1998.
If our real concern is how and why he was murdered (as you know, I think walkaway is ridiculous and suicide is highly unlikely), then the question about the PSU scandal is whether this is the case that got him killed, and if so, by whom and why?
I, and I hope everyone else here, are not interested in proving a theory. I am interested in answering the question, "What happened to Ray Gricar?" That answer might be murder, but I'll be unwilling to only focus on murder.
Was RFG someone who'd cave before the semi-legendary Sandusky in 1998 and turn a blind eye to his activities, as you've indicated is
possible. Was he part of the culture of cover-up? I will agree that it is possible.
Could he have made an honest mistake? Right now, I think
that is possible as well.
We've had question put by other posters, "Was Gricar an honest man?" If the answer is no, that answer could lead to murder or to walkaway.
I already had someone, very familiar with the case, asking me if I thought Sandusky paid for RFG's walkaway to Slovenia. There is no evidence. I have people, in some cases who knew RFG, asking me similar questions.
Because either RG was killed by someone in his personal life, by someone linked to his professional life, or in a random crime. I might not be so suspicious about this particular case if someone in an official position hadn't come out and said it couldn't be linked to RG's disappearance about 73 seconds after the story broke and with apparently no evidence.
There
is no direct evidence, but no one was looking, at least in the BPD (nor was I).