My original post
Hypothetically ----
What if RFG possibly overheard someone talking or someone told him about an incident (and did not know names) but the description and story was like deja`vu to him; it had to be Sandusky.
If it was me, and I had felt at the time I could not successfully prosecute that person, I would feel pretty rotten knowing that this man had continued with this sick behavior and damaged more children. I also would be quietly poking around to what else I could find out before I would "officially" re-open this particular Pandora's box.
How would RFG react to that possibility?
Your response J.J.
If he thought he could not prosecute in 1998, he obviously could not prosecute based on a rumor. If he decided that Sandusky was just too big in 1998, in 2005, Sandusky was much diminished. Keep in mind that, at any time, between June 1998 and April 2005, RFG could have prosecuted on the 1998 incident.
Prosecute on a rumor, no of course not.
Rumors, however, often contain grains of truth and one has to do due diligence to seek out those truthful parts. Considering the difference between 1998 and 2005 of where Sandusky stood within the God-like persona of the entire PSU football family it could have been the catalysis that RFG would need to take a shot at him, and actually be winnable. Although technically RFG could have prosecuted on the 1998 incident, having an additional incident(s) and with a better chance at getting an educated jury about how grooming works in child abuse, he would virtually be able to strip any positive remaining attitude about Sandusky away.
Your response J.J.
There was no suggestion that he was revisiting the 1998 incident. Why not talk to Sloane, at least after he recovers, or JKA? Why no searches on Sandusky or TSM?
[Again hypothetically] RFG would be working on trying to substantiate a rumor. He would not be looking at the 1998 stuff. He was already familiar with that. Going on how I would go about something of this nature, I would be more inclined to not speak to anyone that would be remotely connected to PSU or the office staff about it. I also would not be documenting anything about this rumor where it could be easily found. In my experience, there are very few people who never ever not tell someone else something even when they are asked to keep it to themselves.
Part of my original post:
Could this be a reason for his distraction in the weeks before he disappeared? Could this also be a reason he went to Lewisburg so he could meet with someone out of Happy Valley to gather additional information? Could this also be a reason that he would have his laptop with him because he had started to build a new case against Sandusky?
Your response J.J.
It would not explain some key elements, i.e. the lack of assets and the desire to get rid of the computer. That laptop is important in this regard; we know RFG wanted to get rid of the data on it, and then looked at the more extreme measure of destroying the hard drive. Why would he keep notes for a potential prosecution on something he wanted to never see the light of day?
The issue with RFGs lack of assets, until we have more information about possible financial losses, any established trusts or other estate planning is simply a point that cannot be fully explained.
The desire, and his very openness in that desire to get rid of data on the computer could originally very well have been just the normal wanting to make sure you dont leave sensitive personal/and or personnel information where others can get their hands on it. Since RFG hadnt used the laptop for work in some time, who would think that he was currently using it now. Other than PF bringing it to LE attention, did anyone else even mention the laptop? We also dont know who actually tossed the computer and drive into the river only that is where they ended up.
Your response J.J.
RFG had no problem going on campus for something in 10/98. There would be other places to meet much closer to "home" than Lewisburg. For example, when the police contacted McQueary, they met in a parking lot in State College.
When you dont want anyone to see you meeting with someone, you dont meet somewhere that has a significant chance of being recognized by people who know you, even if its just simple recognition of your face.
Your response J.J.
There is another problem. On 4/15/05, at least some of the people involved in the case, Paterno definitely, and McQueary, possibly, were at a football practice. I would suspect that Friday was not an overly good day for most of the people there to be at a secret meeting
Again, if it were me, I would try and choose a day and time when I knew that the people/person I was gathering information about would be somewhere else. Meeting on a Friday in the early afternoon would be a great time to meet with a variety of people. Anyone with a job who may have been able to take a half day off at the end of a work week would not raise any questions work wise or interrupt any family plans. A mother with children in school would have enough time to get back to meet the bus.
The only way this would even begin to make sense is if RFG managed to attract the attention of someone (Who would that someone be?) who did not want the Sandusky case to come back into play, and then that person on the guise of helping RFG arranged to meet with him; then disappeared him.
Could RFG have been threatened enough that he would disappear himself?
Of course this is all just pure conjecture on my part to fit a hypothetical scenario that has been bouncing around in my brain in a attempt to come up with a reason why this man went missing
