Penn State Goings-On

[crazy canuck]

Why didn't the witness call the cops?

Why didnt any of them.

[Rasputin]

finally on the what happened to the ga question, ga's in atheletic departments typically only have one or two year terms and then they graduate in their program and move on naturally

Apparently that is not what happened to this guy though.  One wonders...

agree; that's a new fact to me and it that seems to suggest that he might have been complicitous at one time, and has more recently decided to blow the whistle; very curious indeed

this is especially troubling considering that the whole perjury case is built on his testimony being more credible to the grand jury than schultz or curley's ...curley would have therefore been his ultimate boss at the time of their respective testimony

[The Brain]

Why didn't the witness call the cops?

Why didnt any of them.

I don't know.

[grumbler]

Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.

Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it?  Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible.  And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.

[Barrister]

Just a resonable hypothesis, but I suspect the GA was removed from the university at some point.  It's typically how big institutions try to hush up these kinds of allegations.

Not quite.  Now he is their Wide Receivers coach and Recruiting Coordinator.  One of the highest ranked assistant coaches.

Or maybe he was, it seems he has removed himself from the team right now.

Ah yes - another common tactic - bribe the witness.

[Barrister]

Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.

Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it?  Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible.  And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.

More than that, can you truly believe that Paterno's principal assistant could be raping boys for years without him coming to know somethign was up?

However, at least legally speaking, we can not assume anything.

[Rasputin]

Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.

Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it?  Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible.  And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.

to the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that other(s) with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover or that he didn't need to know depending upon the outcome

[crazy canuck]

Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.

Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it?  Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible.  And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.

I dont see why Paterno would be involved in an investigation of that incident.  He did not witness it he merely passed on what he was told.  We also dont know what Paterno was told of the results of the investigation - if any.

What we do know is the main witness ended up with a much sought after coaching position and nothing happened to the alleged perp.

[Rasputin]

Second, based upon the known facts, there is nothing that establishes Joe Pa's knowledge of the 1998 investigation. I agree that if Joe Pa knows about the earlier allegations, then it's a game changer.

Do you truly believe that Penn State could undertake an investigation of Joe Paterno's principal assistant without him coming to know of it?  Barring information to the contrary, I don't find that assumption credible.  And, that assumption dismissed, you do concede the game is changed from what it is if that assumption is made.

....What we do know is the main witness ended up with a much sought after coaching position and nothing happened to the alleged perp.

i agree; thety whole thing is both far more complicated and far smellier than first appears

[Barrister]

finally on the what happened to the ga question, ga's in atheletic departments typically only have one or two year terms and then they graduate in their program and move on naturally

Apparently that is not what happened to this guy though.  One wonders...

agree; that's a new fact to me and it that seems to suggest that he might have been complicitous at one time, and has more recently decided to blow the whistle; very curious indeed

this is especially troubling considering that the whole perjury case is built on his testimony being more credible to the grand jury than schultz or curley's ...curley would have therefore been his ultimate boss at the time of their respective testimony

I'm peicing things together - sounds like another boy was invetigated at first (who was described as Victim 1), and then the investigation widened to Victim 2 and the grand jury cam a-knockin.  It doesn't sound like anyone at Penn State blew the whistle at all.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm peicing things together - sounds like another boy was invetigated at first (who was described as Victim 1), and then the investigation widened to Victim 2 and the grand jury cam a-knockin.  It doesn't sound like anyone at Penn State blew the whistle at all.

I assume the Victim I investigation started recently?  Do you know why?

[Rasputin]

finally on the what happened to the ga question, ga's in atheletic departments typically only have one or two year terms and then they graduate in their program and move on naturally

Apparently that is not what happened to this guy though.  One wonders...

agree; that's a new fact to me and it that seems to suggest that he might have been complicitous at one time, and has more recently decided to blow the whistle; very curious indeed

this is especially troubling considering that the whole perjury case is built on his testimony being more credible to the grand jury than schultz or curley's ...curley would have therefore been his ultimate boss at the time of their respective testimony

I'm peicing things together - sounds like another boy was invetigated at first (who was described as Victim 1), and then the investigation widened to Victim 2 and the grand jury cam a-knockin.  It doesn't sound like anyone at Penn State blew the whistle at all.

hmmmm

[grumbler]

to the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that others in the adminstration with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover

Your assumption requires not only that the administration shield JoPa, but also that every cop and investigators and clerk with knowledge of the case also shield JoPa from knowing, to the extent of not even interviewing him as part of the case.  I don't think I buy the idea that such a conspiracy is reasonable.  Possible, yes, but not at all likely.

[crazy canuck]

to the contrary, I believe that it's highly probable that others in the adminstration with knowledge of the investigation may have purposefully shielded joe pa from knowledge of what was going on thinking they were helping give him cover

Your assumption requires not only that the administration shield JoPa, but also that every cop and investigators and clerk with knowledge of the case also shield JoPa from knowing, to the extent of not even interviewing him as part of the case.  I don't think I buy the idea that such a conspiracy is reasonable.  Possible, yes, but not at all likely.

You are using the word "investigation" in a different way than the rest of us.  There were no cops involved (That is the whole point!).  This was an internal investigation - if one occurred at all.

[Barrister]

I'm peicing things together - sounds like another boy was invetigated at first (who was described as Victim 1), and then the investigation widened to Victim 2 and the grand jury cam a-knockin.  It doesn't sound like anyone at Penn State blew the whistle at all.

I assume the Victim I investigation started recently?  Do you know why?

Everything I know is from reading the report.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2011/1107/espn_e_Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

Looks like Victim 1's mother became aware of what was going on, who told the boys school, who finally reported it to the police.  This was in 2008.