For those with strong stomachs, here is the link to the grand jury report, which makes mention of RG's decision not to prosecute Sandusky:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/documents/sandusky-grand-jury-report11052011.html
Herewith, a timeline with flashbacks and flash forwards.
Victim 1--meets Sandusky in 2005 or 2006, at age 11 or 12.
Victim 2--the one whose assault was witnessed by a Penn State Ga, in 2002.
Victim 3--testified to physical contact with Sandusky in 2000.
Victim 8--2000, sexual assault, witnessed by janitor, reported to janitor's superior but never reported to police.
None of these incidents of abuse and/or sexual assault were reported to LE prior to the current investigation (2008 or 2009).
Victim 4 1996-7
Victim 5 1995-6
Victim 6, the one whose mother reported Sandusky to LE in 1998; knew V. 5
Victim 7, same era
First, since Sandusky formed his Second Mile charity in 1977 (the vehicle used for meeting these kids), how many earlier victims might there be that no one knows about yet?
The obvious, most interesting question for us is why RG did not prosecute? One possibility is that he did not know about Victims 4, 5, and 7. There were no eyewitness or physical or other victims corroborating the story, and of course without those things how does a prosecutor convict a powerful man?
What intrigues me is the possibility that someone contacted RG with information about one or more of these other victims and he was doing a quiet investigation at the time he disappeared. That would account for his upset emotional state (perhaps angry at himself for not acting earlier) and his interest in meeting someone at some distance away from his office and Happy Valley.
Here is a passage from a Philadelphia column:
All of a sudden, a football program where a star gets a new automobile from a booster now and then or a player gets a free tattoo in exchange for memorabilia doesn't seem that bad. Penn State administrators are accused of failing to act on allegations of sexual assaults on children. Top that, Ohio State. Beat that record, Miami.
And the best question is this: If Penn State athletic coaches and administrators could look the other way when a 10-year-old is sexually assaulted on campus by a prominent former coach, what wouldn't they do? What could possibly be beyond their capability to accept in order to protect the "good name" of the program?
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/bob_ford/20111106_Bob_Ford__Vick_a_factor_in_McCoy_s_emergence.html
There is no evidence of course that this sex abuse scandal is the reason for RG's disappearance, any more than there is evidence that he walked away. We just have clues, at this point, and interpretation. If the powers at Penn State were willing to cover up the abuse (and it is clear that they were), and the records were expunged per policy at CYS, then RG was one of the only people who could have connected the dots.
Had RG had an eyewitness or other complainants in 1998, Sandusky could have been indicted then.
