Penn State Goings-On

[crazy canuck]

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.

I would want to know what occurred in either event.  Which is why I think Rasputin's scenario makes the most sense.

[MadBurgerMaker]

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

No, it was the one involving the kid coming home and telling his mom he had taken a shower with Sandusky.  The one McQueary walked in on was in 2002.

[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 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?

Was looking up the missing DA, found this page which talks about the '98 incident.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/06/2976046/gricar-had-final-say-in-ending.html

[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?

no his was the 2002 incident

That is what I thought.  So I stand by my assessment.

[alfred russel]

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

I think it does if you consider the investigation didn't involve the cops. What is an investigation without the cops anyway? It could be you tell the VP Finance that you saw child molestation, the VP of Finance asks a few people if they saw anything, doesn't find any major red flags, but tells Sandusky not to bring kids on campus just in case.

[Rasputin]

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.

I would want to know what occurred in either event.  Which is why I think Rasputin's scenario makes the most sense.

based upon what's known thus far mine seems most consistent with the objective conduct of the players involved and my own observations as to how instituions handle complaints of sexual misconduct (although I readily concede that I've never been privy to allegations this heinous)

[MadBurgerMaker]

That is what I thought.  So I stand by my assessment.

They were talking about the 1998 incident and whether or not Paterno would have known about it.  There were police and a district attorney involved.  I'm pretty sure it can be called an "investigation."

[grumbler]

You would fail at being an investigator.

You would fail at the internet.

[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?

Was looking up the missing DA, found this page which talks about the '98 incident.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/06/2976046/gricar-had-final-say-in-ending.html

there's no reason to believe that this investigation would have involved any one at the school beyond sandusky based upon this description, and it's clear that the prosecutor was very sensitive to filing charges without overwhelming evidence

where an investigation itself can cause damage its reasonable to conclude that the hidden microphone might have been the main evidence gathering that he did

[grumbler]

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

No conclusions can be drawn based only on the known facts.  All conclusions are potentially false.  That is why assumptions must be made explicitly, and why the only correct response to "I am making no assumptions" is "bullshit!  You just aren't admitting to the assumptions you are making."

[grumbler]

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.

That is certainly plausible, and in fact is maybe the only explanation that makes sense to me.  Of course, that makes the situation for PSU much worse, since it implies a lack of institutional control so severe the system cannot handle even severe crime.

[grumbler]

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

But no one made any effort to distance Sandusky from the school.  I think this dog won't hunt.

[Rasputin]

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

No conclusions can be drawn based only on the known facts.  All conclusions are potentially false.  That is why assumptions must be made explicitly, and why the only correct response to "I am making no assumptions" is "bullshit!  You just aren't admitting to the assumptions you are making."

i am not making assumptions

i know the difference between assumptions and fact; you've yet to identify an assumption that i've made

i will concede that i've speculated on what might be based on matters not yet known but i've not reached any conclusions and only offfered theories where i freely admit that we don't yet have enough facts

you on the other hand are uncharacteristically quick to judgment with suggestions as to what must necessarily be without regard to whether we have any fact that supports these matters as of yet

it is characteristically an argument based largely on semantics
you'

[grumbler]

I think it does if you consider the investigation didn't involve the cops. What is an investigation without the cops anyway? It could be you tell the VP Finance that you saw child molestation, the VP of Finance asks a few people if they saw anything, doesn't find any major red flags, but tells Sandusky not to bring kids on campus just in case.

There doesn't appear to have been any 2002 investigation.  Such an investigation would surely have involved McQueary, Paterno, and McQueasry's father.  They all say they were aware of no such action.  And no one told Sandusky not to bring kids on campus any more; they just told him not to take them into the locker rooms.

[Barrister]

I think it does if you consider the investigation didn't involve the cops. What is an investigation without the cops anyway? It could be you tell the VP Finance that you saw child molestation, the VP of Finance asks a few people if they saw anything, doesn't find any major red flags, but tells Sandusky not to bring kids on campus just in case.

There doesn't appear to have been any 2002 investigation.  Such an investigation would surely have involved McQueary, Paterno, and McQueasry's father.  They all say they were aware of no such action.  And no one told Sandusky not to bring kids on campus any more; they just told him not to take them into the locker rooms.

Well, the 2002 'investigation' involved Paterno telling Curley, then Curley and Schultz questioning McQueary about the incident.  The response was to tell Sandusky he couldn't bring any kids around the school.