<p>
</p>
<p>Come now Singersmom07, it is a bit unfair to call it the “persecutor’s” case. </p>
<p>Anyway, it sounds like your friend has unearthed information that nobody else has. Is this the same friend who faced the trumped-up charges?</p>
<p>Igloo, BUT Sandsuky did turn out this way, and the Second Mile Foundation knew as much as some of those at PSU who have lost their jobs…the coverup not only happened at PSu but also at Second Mile…</p>
<p>Now we know. Is PSU still having a relationship? Did the coordinator/liason between the two organization at PSU know about it while they were in the relationship and continued the cooperation baiting the boys to be victimized? I think we should implicate the US government, too, if we go down this path since they called it one of Thousand points of light lending them credibility.</p>
<p>I was curious about this story linked above:
[The</a> Other Penn State Cover-Up: Death Threats Against Black Students | Loop21](<a href=“http://loop21.com/content/other-penn-state-cover-death-threats-against-black-students]The”>http://loop21.com/content/other-penn-state-cover-death-threats-against-black-students)
It says that “few knew” about the death threats involved because they were covered up or swept away by the administration. I took a look at the archives of the Daily Collegian, and well, the story is a little different. The death threats were widely reported within days (I think the next day) after they were received. There was a big controversy on campus about whether the school did enough to respond, including several protests, but it certainly wasn’t covered up. I couldn’t access all the old articles, so it was hard to see if Paterno in particular had anything to do with it.</p>
<p>These are from todays Phila. Inquirer. I cannot find a link to share to the article but it was front page.</p>
<p>Governor Corbitt stated yesterday “The investigation moved as quickly as it possibly could, If during the time I was in office , we could have been in a position to make an arrest, we would have made an arrest.”</p>
<p>He went on to state he was confident Sandusky, during the investigation of Sandusky, no longer had access to children through second mile but that “no one could guarantee he was not out there touching children. There are no guarantees, unless he was sitting in jail.” “But we did what we thought was in the best interest of the investigation.”</p>
<pre><code>My thoughts:
</code></pre>
<p>It took the professionals whose job was to get enough proof to even arrest Sandusky years before they had enough to arrest him. And yet many, many people think Joe Paterno, PSU and Grahm Spanier and others could have stopped him.</p>
<p>The article quotes him as also saying “You are all jumping all over the board as to when who knew what - [but] you don’t know.”</p>
<p>Hunt. Thanks for taking the time to find additional information and the above link.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely…it took years because the authorities were not notified of the incident that the GA witnessed. It would have taken much less time to arrest and prosecute him if it had been reported in '02 and it certainly would have been much easier to find the alleged victim in that incident. The janitor would also have been able to testify as to what he saw.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Schools don’t use a college newspaper to notify their students of death threats and the Collegian is independently published by the students. The fact that the administration was unwilling to make official notification of a credible threat even after it was brought to their attention makes me wonder exactly what campus safety policies they have in place and whether anyone actually bothers to follow them.</p>
<p>Corbett is in a tough position. I suspect, and I suspect many other people suspect, that the reason this case was delayed was not that it took so long to amass evidence against Sandusky – after all, the only charge that really looks convictable has a complaining witness who walked in the door in 2008, plus a ton of corroborating evidence – but because Corbett’s campaign for governor would have been seriously damaged if he had been seen to be anti-Penn State. He could easily have lost the Republican primary or the general election had he brought charges without overwhelming evidence.</p>
<p>To be fair, it’s hard to believe that Sandusky continued his abuse once it was clear that a boy had complained and that the state AG’s office was aggressively pursuing an investigation. So there’s grounds for hope at least that more children weren’t abused because of the delay.</p>
<p>Peter Thamel has an excellent (as always) piece about the investigation in the NYT today. Predicatbly it calls into question who knew what and when, in the PSU administration. </p>
<p>Notably, for purposes of this discussion, it indicates that Sandusky principally targeted and groomed white boys from fatherless homes. So maybe the interwebs were wrong about the racial composition of the victims.</p>
<p>I never assumed the kids were minorties. All the pics of Sandusky with kids whose faces are pixelated show white kids.</p>
<p>
I don’t think you can rely on the current articles for clear statements on what the administration did or didn’t do at the time. Perhaps they didn’t make notification, but perhaps they did. But the fact that it was widely reported makes it clear that Paterno didn’t have to tell the players about the threats to make sure they were aware of them. Again, I’m not sure what happened. I’m just trying to make the helpful point that if you read one account of something, you may be missing some important details.</p>
<p>Point taken, Hunt, however I am not relying solely on current articles…see the link to the Word doc published by PSU’s Black Caucus which I posted at 2605. It was created in 2005 and chronicles the events over a 5 year period. Here is an excerpt:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The document goes on to outline events and steps that the students took to get the administration to address these issues. The same students involved back then are the ones contributing to the current articles. I just think it’s improbable that they wouldn’t know if the university made notifications since they were directly and actively involved. </p>
<p>Again, nothing in this is directly related to the current issue but I think it speaks to PSU’s overall unwillingness to take action when such events occur. It can’t always be “business as usual” when people’s lives and safety are at stake.</p>
<p>[Internet</a> posting pointed to Sandusky - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45335880/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/]Internet”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45335880/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)</p>
<p><a href=“Internet Posting Helped Sandusky Investigators - The New York Times”>Internet Posting Helped Sandusky Investigators - The New York Times;
<p>here is the longer article. a must read.</p>
<p>Thanks sax. I didn’t realize the MSNBC report was just a small portion of an original article.</p>
<p>Very disturbing about the missing Second Mile records.</p>
<p>
That document is interesting, and it’s interesting to compare its recounting of events to the contemporaneous reports in the student newspaper. It’s not unlike the grand jury report we’ve been discussing here–a document that addresses real problems, but that is supporting a particular point of view, as opposed to a balanced analysis of the situation.</p>
<p>according to the Times article, the DA wanted to charge Sandusky in the 1998 case, but didn’t think he would get a conviction with the evidence he had. The current investigators say the decision was a close call.</p>
<p>The article also says it took the investigators a long time to find the any other victims, and when they were found they didn’t want to testify because they thought nothing would come of the investigation, as the PSU football program is both powerful and popular.</p>
<p>There is this old fashioned method of societal punishment called shunning. While I it’s awful when used because ofnreligous differences in a family, i in do think at a minimum the Penn state clique could have easily shunned Sandusky. Ignored his calls, make it very difficult for him to get anything done, etc. Of course they should have done much more, but if it isnas they claim, they were powerless, hrummph, or they didn’t know the whole truth, another hrummpph, they at the very least, if one chooses to trust them which don’t, at the very least shunned the creepy guy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This makes sense to me, in view of Sandusky’s career trajectory, but I’m unaware of any other coaches other than McQuery who have come forward.</p>