Skip to comments.Questions on Sandusky Are Wrapped in a 2005 Mystery (Penn State)
Posted on 11/09/2011 10:32:36 PM PST by TigerClaws
One of the questions surrounding the sex-abuse case against Jerry Sandusky is why a former district attorney chose not to prosecute the then-Penn State assistant coach in 1998 after reports surfaced that he had inappropriate interactions with a boy.
In 2005, divers searched the Susquehanna River in Lewisburg, Pa., for Ray Gricar, who was a Centre County prosecutor. The answer is unknowable because of an unsolved mystery: What happened to Ray Gricar, the Centre County, Pa., district attorney?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Wanted me to log in....
Pedophilia is a heterosexual abuse of a child. this is pederasty, man on boy. Think NAMBLA. But you are onto a good lead.
It smells for sure. The grad student incident occurred after Sandusky retired. That and the ‘98 investigation were stifled. Why? The DA is now missing and declared dead. More questions than answers and Paterno not much more than a distraction.
Synopsis of the grand jury report from another thread:
‘The victims are in reverse order, i.e., Victim #1 is most recent, Victim #8 oldest.
#1 - Everything was witnessed off campus at a high school by a wrestling and football coach around 2007, complaint filed by mother.
#2 - Witnessed by the grad student in 2002, AFTER Sandusky was retired and was named professor emeritus with full on campus privileges.
#3, #4, #5, and #7 - had no witnesses to sexual conduct. #4 did testify that in May 1999 Sandusky came home distraught that Paterno would not make him head coach. These were all between 1994 and 2000.
#6 - Was reported by the mother and investigation was launched that ended in June 1998 with no charges filed.
#8 - Was witnessed by two janitors one directly and one indirectly, The one who saw it directly was very shaken and reported it to his boss, who told him who to report it to up the chain. The janitor never went any farther with it and now has dementia.
The only part that questions Joe Pa was #6 and the investigation. Not sure what Joe Pa was supposed to do if the police wouldnt file charges. What he did do is having him out the door within a year after that.
He immediately reported the incident with the grad student but that was AFTER Sundusky retired. Paterno had no authority over him and no authority to deny him access to the campus. Again, that investigation was also stifled.
So there is nothing here about Paterno covering anything up. The most damning was the year it took to get rid of Sandusky and letting him retire instead getting fired. What could you fire him for? The authorities said there was nothing there.
In fact there was no threat of retaliation - when Paterno was approached by the grad student with his story, he took him to the authorities. He basically gave the higher ups implicit authority to boot the guy off campus for good. No cover up due to intimidation by Paterno. This thing lies with Shultz, Curley, the campus police, the in-house attorney, and the DA. Paterno is fairly incidental.’
This link got me there.
Very interesting article.
On March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant ("graduate assistant") who was then 28 years old, entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus on a Friday night before the beginning of Spring Break. The graduate assistant, who was familiar with Sandusky, was going to put some newly purchased sneakers in his locker and get some recruiting tapes to watch. It was about 9:30 p.m. As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.If anyone is confused about what to do when you see a 10 year old being raped - CALL THE POLICE! And feel free to shoot if you have a gun handy...
Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley ("Curley"), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.
Get thee to a dictionary.
To you yes, but PSU may have trained it employees to follow the chain of command. Hindsight now is 20/20 but even where I worked if we see something you don’t run to the cops, you report to your boss.
The grad student was actually the 2nd employee to witness misconduct with that child. I missed that in the first read. Curley and Schultz had legal obligation to report it to the police but didn’t - twice.
The difference between pedophilia and pederasty is whether or not the child has finished puberty yet.
Some of these kids were only seven.
That makes it pedophilia.
The reason I'd like to see paterno publicly destroyed, is so that it is made more clear to people that they have a moral responsibility to deal with these situations, and not turn a blind eye.
Not likely still a match for a fire fighter though.
It isn’t just what wasn’t done that night.
How many times did Sandusky show up at the facilities after that? With a boy?
So let me get this right....a bunch of guys hold meetings discussing unspeakable depravity in 2002.
Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, that same monster showed up on campus in the company of boys.
Did no one feel uncomfortable about that?
Heck, the monster showed up last week! Even after everyone knew about the investigation. Even after they had given sworn testimony against him.
Did they wave at him in the parking lot?
No guys, I didn’t work for the govt. I worked for Walmart for many years and they were emphatic that you didn’t go to the police and you didn’t talk about it to anyone but your boss, and you don’t ‘follow up’ because it’s confidential and they can’t tell you jack. I don’t agree with it but that’s the way it is in this over-litigated world.
Would I have done something? Yes, even if it cost me my job or worse. Should they have? Yes, though I imagine like most people they thought their bosses would take care of it quickly and effectively. I know the most well intentione and nicest people who in situations do the dumbest and wrong things and thought they were right the whole time. But there’s a bigger point here.
That was the only incident involving Paterno. There were many others outside of Paterno’s sphere of knowledge and influence that were reported to Curley and Schultz and the university police AND the missing-now-declared-dead DA, and nothing happened - repeatedly. Paterno deserves to go but they were the real gatekeepers and they were neck deep while Paterno was - so far - boots deep.
What I’m saying is the media is doing a reverse-Alinsky. The are freezing and polarizing Paterno and LETTING THE BIG FISH GET AWAY. I know the Spanier the president was fired too but it’s still bigger than that. This may be a ring and if we let the media bait us into a feeding-frenzy on Paterno the real players may get away.
Don’t let the big fish get away.
Good idea, if ever in a situation where one needs to get attention fast.
There are a lot of people with a lot of bravado about what they would do if they were in that situation. Most of them would crumble like the grad assistant and the janitor. I was in that situation, followed the company policy, reported that I was contacted by the accused and the incident was properly handled. I was told by the boss that I had followed the policy perfectly and as a result, the accused’s lawyers folded their cards. I was also told that if I hadn’t followed policy, I and anyone else who tried to wing it would be dismissed. Multimillion corporations with multimillion lawyers who have expensive risk policies and strategies that they teach every year to their employees don’t look kindly on wildcatters.
You excised an important part of the story.
What important part did I excise, and how does it affect the point?