Penn State Goings-On

[Rasputin]

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.

i don't believe that my assumption requires that at all

[grumbler]

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

The idea that a GA would end up as a coach isn't at all complicated, as far as I can see.  The majority of coaches are former GAs.  This is normal career progression.  There are only 2 GAs per team, so one of them getting a perm job isn't unlikely.

[grumbler]

i don't believe that my assumption requires that at all

Only if you assume that JoPa didn't know about the 1992 investigation.  If you assume he did know, then you need not assume a conspiracy to keep him from knowing.

[crazy canuck]

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

The idea that a GA would end up as a coach isn't at all complicated, as far as I can see.  The majority of coaches are former GAs.  This is normal career progression.  There are only 2 GAs per team, so one of them getting a perm job isn't unlikely.

You would fail at being an investigator.

[MadBurgerMaker]

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.

The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police.  University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston.  The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead.  They found his computer in a river.

[Barrister]

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.

The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police.  University Police and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston.  The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead.  They found his computer in a river.

Whhhaaaaaaaaaaaa??????

[MadBurgerMaker]

Whhhaaaaaaaaaaaa??????

No shit, man.  Apparently they declared him legally dead either this year or last year.

Edit:  Here he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Gricar

Declared dead on 25 July 2011.

[The Brain]

What kind of law suit is Pedo State looking forward to? How much?

[Sheilbh]

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.

But surely if you're told that someone saw your deputy rape a child you follow that up.  If you get told that they've been fiddling their expenses you kick it upstairs and leave it at that.  But with this sort of thing surely you'd want to know what's going on with the investigation and what's been found.

[alfred russel]

Isn't there a simpler explanation?

The GA sees the incident, and reports it up the chain. He doesn't put things as boldly as in the grand jury testimony, maybe because he then wouldn't be believed considering it was such a respected figure and was frightened by the implications.

The coaches and administrators that hear the story don't launch a full investigation because of a combination of they don't want the scandal and they can't believe the worst.

Everyone involved (except Paterno perhaps) is a sycophant, which explains how a senile 84 year old man too weak to stand on the sidelines during games is allowed to stay in charge of a multimillion dollar business. It is also how the GA is able to get promoted (as opposed to a payoff). The GA knows what he saw, but thinks he has already spoken up. So no one rocks the boat, but when called to testify the GA tells the truth. In his mind, he probably never lied and was doing the right thing.

[Rasputin]

i don't believe that my assumption requires that at all

Only if you assume that JoPa didn't know about the 1992 investigation.  If you assume he did know, then you need not assume a conspiracy to keep him from knowing.

what 1992 investigation?

i'm not assuming anything

I'm analyzing what conclusions should be reached from the known facts

to do otherwise can lead to false conclusions

[alfred russel]

Another possible factor: Penn State athletics (and college sports in general) are so concerned about bad publicity that as standard operating procedure they look the other way when presented with evidence of wrongdoing that could embarrass the program. Maybe it started with routine fights that they would keep hushed up, then maybe a DUI, maybe some recreational drug use, possibly even a sexual assault, and then when child molestation comes up that just falls into the preestablished pattern.

[Rasputin]

Isn't there a simpler explanation?

The GA sees the incident, and reports it up the chain. He doesn't put things as boldly as in the grand jury testimony, maybe because he then wouldn't be believed considering it was such a respected figure and was frightened by the implications.

The coaches and administrators that hear the story don't launch a full investigation because of a combination of they don't want the scandal and they can't believe the worst.

Everyone involved (except Paterno perhaps) is a sycophant, which explains how a senile 84 year old man too weak to stand on the sidelines during games is allowed to stay in charge of a multimillion dollar business. It is also how the GA is able to get promoted (as opposed to a payoff). The GA knows what he saw, but thinks he has already spoken up. So no one rocks the boat, but when called to testify the GA tells the truth. In his mind, he probably never lied and was doing the right thing.

very logical but it doesnt explain the university's disposition in 2002 which leads me to believe that there may have been an actual 2002 investigation that got buried on the hopes that they could distance sandusky from the school

[crazy canuck]

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.

The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police.  University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston.  The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead.  They found his computer in a river.

Was the 1998 case the one witnessed by the witnessed by the GA?

[Rasputin]

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.

The 1998 investigation absolutely involved police.  University and State College police, and detectives named Shreffler and Ralston.  The District Attorney involved in that one is missing and assumed to be dead.  They found his computer in a river.

Was the 1998 case the one witnessed by the witnessed by the GA?

no his was the 2002 incident