That relates to the Sandusky investigation, not the drug ring.
It wasn't a "confession" but an admission to activities. Further it only relates specifically to one charge in the 1998 case, which is a
misdemeanor. There are ten
other charges into that incident 4 felonies (which might be different degrees for the same action), and 6 other misdemeanors, none of which require "gratification" or "arousal."
The felony is here:
§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he is
intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement
officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed
the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an
activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the
person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is
within this Commonwealth:
(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31
(relating to sexual offenses).
(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating
to open lewdness).
(3) Prostitution as defined in section 5902 (relating to
prostitution and related offenses).
(4) Obscene and other sexual materials and performances
as defined in section 5903 (relating to obscene and other
sexual materials and performances).
(5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312
(relating to sexual abuse of children).
(6) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in
section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children).
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html
I bolded the "Open Lewdness" clause, because of its legal definition:
§ 5901. Open lewdness.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he does
any lewd act which he knows is likely to be observed by others
who would be affronted or alarmed.
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.059.001.000.html
I could make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to would
not constitute "open lewdness." Some might disagree with that argument.
I could make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and washing back and hair his would
not constitute "open lewdness." Many might disagree with argument.
I could
not make an argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and bear hugging him would
not constitute "open lewdness."
Anyone want to make that argument that a naked 55 year taking a shower with a naked 11 year old that he's not related to, and bear hugging him would
not constitute "open lewdness?" I'm open to listening.
And you don't even need the child to testify it happened; four adult witnesses said he admitted to it.
As for the CYS worker:
A. He said in the press that he had not known about the prior admission; it is unclear if he knew about B. K. or the admission of Sandusky showering with other young boys.
B. It was not his responsibility to prosecute the case.
C. We are not sure if he made his decision before or after RFG made his decision not to prosecute.
Now, that said, there might be an explanation. RFG might not have had the text of the statute in 1998 (it was less than 5 months old) or he just might have been focusing of the "arousal" aspect and missed the "open lewdness" requirement. Like everyone else.
(And I never thought I'd be talking about open lewdness in the Gricar case!)