<p>^ No question, but they didn’t want the taint on the program/school. More important to these pillars of the school and community than the disadvantaged victims.</p>
<p>My point is just that in 1998, there may not have been persuasive proof that there were victims, or that there might be multiple victims, or anything of the sort. There was an incident which aroused suspicion and sparked an investigation–which by itself might be enough for the powers that be to decide that Sandusky had to go. From what we know (or think we know) now, it looks like an inadequate response, but in 1998, they may have been concerned that they were overreacting, since there was no prosecution after the investigation.</p>
<p>Hunt,
Can a decision such as that be made without an actual in-depth investigation? </p>
<p>Were any results attained, communicated back to PSU?</p>
<p>I totally agree regarding 1998. No charges, no one knows why, but nothing can be done to find out more since DA disappeared. But, 2002 establishes a pattern, with a reliable adult witness. What McQ witnessed should have been reported in 2002. There would have been fallout, but nothing like what there is today. Not to mention the many victims that would have been spared.</p>
<p>I guess I am saying that an investigation will have a final conclusion, such as “merits legal action”, “not enough evidence discovered”, “in-depth investigation turned up no actual misdeeds”, “insufficient evidence, thus inconclusive, but parties merit a response and monitoring” and the like. Where was all this recorded? And what was communicated to whom?</p>
<p>??The attorney who did the 1998 investigation died mysteriously, and his lap-top was discovered in a creek? So that was it? Because the DA then tabled It?
Please correct me0 I may not recall it. But please explain what the correct procedures are for each step here, as I am not sure if they were truly carried out.</p>
<p>Is the codified onus on the reporter or the chain of command to be informed of this or to follow up on the results? To complete the loop, so to speak, to avoid an investigation evaporating into nothingness, suppression, lack of cooperation, and so forth.</p>
<p>I’m sure the results of the 1998 investigation were finalized prior to the disappearance, or the investigation would have been completed by someone else.</p>
<p>I have read that no one knows why the 1998 investigation led to no charges.</p>
<p>To me, if true, that is significant. A lie, in denial, a lack of curiosity… A moral failing if not a legal one- to leave it unknown what the actual conclusion was…
Was there any investigation into the death?
Any attempt to find other records beyond the damaged laptop?</p>
<p>If what is said about Jerry is true, it is extremely unlikely that the 1998 event was the first incident. And JoePa had spent 20 years in close proximity to Jerry (and witnessed the parade of “Jerry’s kids”) prior to that. </p>
<p>I can think of of at least half a dozen reasons why JoePa knew (well before 1998) and didn’t come forward. I can think of at least two explanations besides covering up (either for Jerry, for the football team, or for himself) why he never came forward.</p>
<p>??The attorney who did the 1998 investigation died mysteriously, and his lap-top was discovered in a creek? So that was it? Because the DA then tabled It?
Please correct me0 I may not recall it. But please explain what the correct procedures are for each step here, as I am not sure if they were truly carried out.</p>
<p>This is incorrect. The DA to whom the charges were forwarded decided there was not enough evidence to charge anyone, and closed the case. The PSU police (headed at the time by Sandusky’s neighbor) then closed their open case as well. Months later, the DA did in fact go for a drive and never returned, and his computer hard drive was found weeks later in the river. His car was found parked in a shopping area. There was no evidence of foul play (not much evidence of any kind) and the DA was --at his daughter’s request, for legal reasons – declared dead just last year, as per PA law.</p>
<p>The reason “nobody knows” why the 1998 investigation was closed is, apparently, because the DA didn’t tell others why he concluded what he did, and now he’s not around to clarify. But it’s pretty clear that those at PSU who did know about the investigation in 1998 must have been told that the DA had decided not to pursue any charges. This left PSU with limited options–and what they chose to do was to quietly get rid of Sandusky. Again, their big mistake was in not completely getting rid of him.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is conspiracy to cover up the 1998 incident or at least there is not much evidence to indicate such undertaking. The PSU police was involved in the investigation so I would think that PSU would know about it, and there is still probably the report in a file somewhere today. PSU lawyer, namely Wendell Courtney, was reported to have had access to the file and was also Second Mile lawyer for all these years but recently resigned when this whole thing came out. He is not talking to anyone at the moment.</p>
<p>The DA disappeared many years later something like 6-7 years later, so I don’t think it has any relation to the 1998 case. I believed I read that he was involved in investigating several mob crime cases so there could easily have been a result of other cases that he was involved in. I would like to see the release of the 1998 report and see what kind of evidences are there against Sandusky. I also wonder if such a report could be used as evidence against Sandusky in his current trial.</p>
<p>Thanks for the correction in the chronology, greenbutton.</p>
<p>Still, just wondering how these things are required to be communicated, then handled.</p>
<p>Is the DA required to inform the reporter, the parties involved in an investigation, the employer of an investigee, the public his reasoning, the results?</p>
<p>It is not months later, more like 6-7 years later. Gricar disappeared in 2005. I don’t think the Sandusky case is very active at that point.</p>
<p>tt- I just linked the first statement I found. There are other reports that Paterno claimed he did not know. You can google yourself. Now maybe the report is inaccurate. I am just saying what I read and there were reports that Joe Paterno claimed not to know.</p>
<p>Of course Paterno saw Sandusky’s pattern of bringing young boys around.</p>
<p>From the NYT interview;
In the interview, Mr. Sandusky, the longtime defensive coordinator at Penn State, said that his relationships and activities with Second Mile children did cause some strain with Mr. Paterno, but only in that Mr. Sandusky worried that having some of the children with him at hotels before games, or on the sideline during games, risked being seen as a distraction by the demanding Mr. Paterno.</p>
<p>I would have dreams of we being in a squad meeting and that door fly open and kids come running through chasing one another, and what was I going to do? he said. Because, I mean, Joe was serious about football.</p>
<p>Personally I think Sandusky’s statements about Paterno’s reaction to him bringing boys around were distorted, but he readily admits that he brought these boys to hotels for games where everyone saw this. He was hiding in plain sight. I believe that is an accurate admission, he’s that stupid to admit this. Paterno had to see this for years, albeit he may not have known what Sandusky was doing to the boys.</p>
<p>Sorry, it seems that this claim come from that only statement by Paterno son who is btw a lawyer. I already googled for such a report but it is no where to be found. I see a lot of blogs and discussion forums but no actual quotes or statements from Paterno. I am sure you read a lot of stuff, maybe you have mistaken it as actual statement by Paterno. If you find a link, then please feel free to share, oherwise, I can’t see how one can assume that.</p>
<p>I read that Sandusky felt Paterno wanted him gone because he was making the charity a priority over his coaching responsibilities.</p>
<p>I found this in the Miami Herald and I recall reading other statements. Now maybe the reporter is wrong but I had seen it several times</p>
<p>Paterno, a control freak like all coaches, and administrators claim they didn’t know about the 1998 police report,</p>
<p>If Paterno truly did not know, it should not be a very difficult thing to find nor should it be a difficult thing for him to say publicly. Moreover, that statement is plainly false, Shultz already said he knew, the PSU lawyers also knew, how can one say the administrators claim they didn’t know? So no, that does not look like a denial by Paterno that he did not know. At the very least, I don’t see how you can make it a fact that Paterno has made a claim that he did not know.</p>
<p>ttparent- I think you missed my point. I was the first one here who posted that Schultz now claims he knew about the 1998 incident. I mentioned Paterno’s claim not to know in connection with Schultz now saying he did know. Not in support of Paterno because I do not yet know the complete story. You could be correct and maybe the only statement is from Jay but there are a number of reports that say Paterno claims not to have known. I really do not feel like searching through all kinds of blogs. I saw a few newspapers that wrote Paterno did not know. Who cares we will find out sooner or later what he knew or did not know. That has always been my point- wait do not guess.</p>