<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt it.</p>
<p>“That has always been my point- wait do not guess.”</p>
<p>I guess wait and do not guess only apply to the rest of us but not to you.</p>
<p>No it also applies to me. Where have I said Paterno, Curley etc are innocent or guilty.
I have said there may be explanations that are human error for many decisions but that is about it.
I have said I will make my decision on their moral failing when I have more information.
I have said when asked that I believe Sandusky is guilty.</p>
<p>What I mean is that you have no problem assuming certain statement by Paterno even after I pointed out that it is not at all substantiated. To me, that is guess and not wait. If you insist that there are several reports, then I simply ask for one tiny one and I will stipulate.</p>
<p>Well actually I only posted that in connection to show Schultz now says Paterno knew. I did not post that in support of Paterno because I have no idea whether he knew or did not know. So I will correct it for you-Paterno’s son says he did not know. It makes no difference to my post. That was not the point of the post anyway. Schultz has now said Paterno knew of the 1998 incident.</p>
<p>"I doubt it. "</p>
<p>No kidding. Plausible deniability is always going to exist unless we have full confession or admission of guilt.</p>
<p>Story in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette quotes the detective who investigated the 1998 incident as saying he believed they had enough evidence to go forward with criminal charges but the DA just dropped the case without explanation. He defended the DA, however, as the best prosecutor he’d ever worked with.</p>
<p>Sounds like pretty good detective work. He set it up so that the boy’s mother had Sandusky come to her house, twice, while he and another detective listened in on their conversations from the next room. As he describes those conversations (which he says he “scripted” on the mother’s side to get Sandusky to talk), it sounds like Sandusky not only admitted all the details of lathering up the boy, giving him a “bear hug” from behind, etc., but also admitted that he had showered with other boys, refused to promise that he wouldn’t continue to shower with boys, but then finally at the end of the second conversation admitted he “was wrong.”</p>
<p>That sounds pretty compelling to me, unless the detectives’ retelling of what they had heard would somehow be inadmissible. But even then, I don’t see how the DA can just drop the matter and let this predator go free to continue to lure young boys into showers. </p>
<p>Story here:</p>
<p><a href=“Detective: Charges warranted in '98”>Detective: Charges warranted in '98;
<p>From the same taped conversation with the mother:</p>
<p>“I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.” - Sandusky</p>
<p>Pretty powerful statement on Sandusky’s part along with admission of wrongdoing. And the investigation was dropped with no charges. Strange.</p>
<p>Actually, as best I can tell, these quotes are not from the taped conversation, but are the detective’s recollection of what the tapes contained. That’s not the same thing.</p>
<p>
Because it was a case of he said/he said. It would have pitted Sandusky - Pillar of the Community against a “troubled” child in a court of law. They were after a confession - they came close but didn’t get it.
Also - don’t forget the first Boston Priest pedophila scandal didn’t break until 2002. At that time most kids just were not believed. When that case first broke there were plenty of folks who thought it just could not be true but then victim after victim came forward - then it became obviously more difficult not to believe.</p>
<p>In the 1998 case, Sandusky was never arrested. There was an investigation that was designed to produce a confession but that failed. Without the confession the DA felt he did not have a case to prosecute. </p>
<p>While it all looks cut and dried, this case was not easy to put together. There were lots of people who knew or suspected something about maybe one case - but no one was able to put it together until the GJ. The state police spent hours and hours on Penn State football message boards as rumors would occassionally pop up about Sandusky. One such was a message that a coach might know something - that Coach turned out to be McQ. After he was tracked down he met with the investigator in an empty parking lot at night where he unloaded his story.
You just can’t make this stuff up and someday this will make a very sad and interesting book.</p>
<p>
And Jim Boeheim saw Bernie Fine’s pattern of bringing young boys around, as well. Yet Boeheim is still coaching - even after he called these victims liars in the press - something Paterno never did.</p>
<p>Quotes from the article linked post #3707. The detective who taped the conversation is Schreffler:</p>
<p>"During the second conversation, Sandusky’s response changed, Schreffler said.</p>
<p>" 'I’ll never forget this. He said, ‘I would ask for your forgiveness, but I know you won’t give it to me. I wish I were dead.’ "</p>
<p>Sandusky also told the woman, " ‘I understand I was wrong,’ " Schreffler said.</p>
<p>"Hearing him make that comment, I just felt there was more there. He was upbeat when he came in, and she started hammering him. I often wonder what he would have done if I’d stepped out from around the corner.</p>
<p>‘It’s something we’ll never know.’ "</p>
<p>Schreffler is also quoted in the article:</p>
<p>“At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors,” Schreffler said last week after Sandusky waived his preliminary hearing on 52 counts of molesting 10 boys over several years."</p>
<p>Would you suspect somebody of being a pedophile for bringing young boys around, without something more?</p>
<p>So according to Pittsburgh Post-Gazette above, the lead investigator, Schreffler, was quoted in saying:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But in an earlier NYTimes article, Gerald Lauro from state welfare department is quoted saying:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/aftermath-of-1998-sandusky-investigation-raises-additional-questions.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/aftermath-of-1998-sandusky-investigation-raises-additional-questions.html</a></p>
<p>So was Schreffler really diligent like he said he was or is Lauro trying to pass the buck and gives bogus reason why he did not follow up with the case?</p>
<p>“And Jim Boeheim saw Bernie Fine’s pattern of bringing young boys around, as well. Yet Boeheim is still coaching - even after he called these victims liars in the press - something Paterno never did.”</p>
<p>If I knew as much about Boeheim as we now think we know about Paterno, I would think it an OUTRAGE that he is still coaching.</p>
<p>Only if they also soaped them up.</p>
<p>It’s amazing to me that with all the testimony, all the police, the kids, the moms, everyone, saying one thing, and paterno denying he had a clue, that some believe paterno above all else. Interesintg</p>
<p>Accusing everyone of embellishing the truth, false memories, etc, and the only one in this whole sorted mess with perfect recall, total honesty, and no reason to not be suspected of doing anything wrong isnsupposed to be paterno? What is it about this old man that is so Nobel? From the stories finally coming out about him, seems he was a tyrant and a bully and he was in charge.</p>
<p>i agree it is disheartening, with all the under oath testimony we have read, that there is still some holdout argument that not enough people at Penn State knew enough to make sure Sandusky was charged with child abuse. If not in 1998, then certainly in 2002.</p>
<p>I understand there has not yet been a trial. But, to me, the only thing that would absolve PSU officials from this whole hot mess is if Sandusky is innocent.</p>
<p>What did Spanier do wrong?</p>
<p>At least enough to get him fired.</p>