:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
Paterno, speaking to the four school officials only briefly that day, stressed several things
"That's all I said to them," Paterno said.
I said, "Relax. Get off my backside."
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/05359/627761-143.stm
Dr F and Concerned PaPa: you're killing me! Love your humor.
Didn't William Schreyer go along on that trip to JoePa's house that day?
RFG's record, apart from this case, was good. He prosecuted cases that, looking at them from the outside, were far more flimsy that Sandusky. He lost a high profile rape trial in 2002-03 against a Penn State football player, one that was controversial and that involved Paterno. Paterno let the suspect suit up for a bowl game and that produced controversy. RFG lost the case, but he tried to win it. He didn't drop it on a staffer; he personally prosecuted.
He was a tough prosecutor for the most part. There were a few cases like, almost impossible from the start, but he pressed forward. Even Schrieffer said that he was a top notch prosecutor.
But Friday's motion offered some of the most concrete details so far about those allegations. Most surprising was Amendola's assertion that a psychologist evaluated one of the accusers - identified in court filings as "Victim 6" - and concluded that the young man had not been sexually abused by Sandusky.
Prosecutors were refusing to turn over his findings, the attorney alleged, because it could help Sandusky's defense.
According to the grand jury presentment, Victim 6 was the boy at the center of a 1998 investigation undertaken by Penn State police, after his mother accused the former coach of inappropriately touching her 12-year-old son in a locker-room shower.
Though officers filed a long report of their findings at the time, the case was never prosecuted. Amendola has previously requested any documents from the office of former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar that might explain his decision not to press charges in the case.
In his motion Friday, Amendola did not elaborate on how he became aware of the psychologist's evaluation of the boy and did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Got to be the only time in the history of Corporate America that an underling, of a $70 MILLION business, can make 2-4 times the salary of his bosses AND tell these bosses "Hell No I Won't Go" when they come to "ASK" him to quit!
Sweet gig, if you can get it! :floorlaugh:
You don't know RG's record on this case, because you haven't seen his notes or heard from him about his decision-making. He is, conveniently for someone, missing and cannot explain.
However, I will note that the sources as to Gricar's involvement in the sting are both credible--the New York Times and the Patriot-News (probably going to get a Pulitzer for regional reporting, at least). That several mainstream news sources would have a different version of the sting story than one article that interviewed the police officer does not surprise me. It's not that someone lied; it's that two stories included Gricar's role and the other did not. It's that the stories came at things from different points of view.
And--here's an interesting new development that suggests maybe Schreffler didn't know everything that Gricar may have known:
http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-18/news/31207615_1_accusers-grand-jury-victims
This may explain why Gricar didn't bring charges, once we learn more about when, where, and how this victim was examined. If a psychologist didn't find that the boy had been sexually abused--poof. There goes the case. That doesn't mean that Sandusky wasn't up to no good. I am sure he didn't molest kids on his first or second contact with them.
When my students who are football fans used to tell that story (pre-Sandusky), it always ended with "Get off my lawn!"
Unlike Schultz and Curley, Paterno is not classified as a senior staff member—he ran the place. "He built this university, he built this town, and everybody knows it," says longtime State College resident Mark Brennan, a journalist who chronicles Penn State athletics.
In 2004, Curley and Spanier visited Paterno at his home to suggest that, at age 77 and after a 3--9 season in '03, he should retire.
Paterno, in effect, told them to get off his lawn.
They acceded.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1192198/2/index.htm
I want to make a bet this is a psychologist connected to or hired by Second Mile to "evaluate" the child and send the report to the SA once they
got wind of the investigation.
You don't know RG's record on this case, because you haven't seen his notes or heard from him about his decision-making. He is, conveniently for someone, missing and cannot explain.
However, I will note that the sources as to Gricar's involvement in the sting are both credible--the New York Times and the Patriot-News (probably going to get a Pulitzer for regional reporting, at least). That several mainstream news sources would have a different version of the sting story than one article that interviewed the police officer does not surprise me. It's not that someone lied; it's that two stories included Gricar's role and the other did not. It's that the stories came at things from different points of view.
And--here's an interesting new development that suggests maybe Schreffler didn't know everything that Gricar may have known:
This may explain why Gricar didn't bring charges, once we learn more about when, where, and how this victim was examined. If a psychologist didn't find that the boy had been sexually abused--poof. There goes the case. That doesn't mean that Sandusky wasn't up to no good. I am sure he didn't molest kids on his first or second contact with them.
Sure, and the conversation between Spanier and Curley probably went something like this as they approached Paternos door:
YOU tell him
NO, YOU tell him
Im not gonna tell him, he might fire ME
Tell ya what, lets try ASKING him real nice, OK?
Good idea! Think hell fall for it?
I dont know, just be ready to get the heck out of there!"
I am pretty sure the people covering this case for the Patriot News have talked to Schreffler at some point. And both the NYT and the Patriot News articles had a larger scope than the P-G article, which focused solely on Schreffler. If the stories were incorrect, the papers could and would correct them. If you are certain of your information--that the NYT and the P-N got their stories wrong--you should ask for a correction. I feel confident, however, that both papers were reporting from multiple sources that indicate Gricar was involved in the sting. That doesn't mean Schreffler wasn't involved, but perhaps that he sees his role differently than others saw it. we can look forward to the trial testimony, where all of this will be made more clear.
The term the article used about the participation of the psychologist was "sexually abused," not raped. that was the point Lauro made, also, that there was no abuse. If there was no sexual abuse, insofar as the experts could determine based on the child's testimony, there really could be no case.
We can see the results.
They are very good papers, but they didn't have Schreffler.
No, if you look at what is claimed regarding Victim 6, there is no rape. Victim 6 didn't claim it, his mother, and the police witnesses never claimed, Sandusky isn't charged with it in that case. It becomes does the act that Sandusky admitted to violate the law. The law, in this case is unlawful Contact with a Minor, http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.063.018.000.html
Does it constitute an act of "open lewdness" to get naked with a small child and then bear hug him. If you answer is yes, and you believe the witnesses, Sandusky is guilty.
You don't need to know the reaction of Victim 6. You just need to know that these were Sandusky's actions.
You, and Amendola, are going to have to claim that a naked, unrelated 55 year old man, bear hugging a naked pre-teen boy from behind isn't "Open Lewdness." Are you willing to claim, publicly that this isn't "Open Lewdness," publicly?
The articles I quoted and linked state specifically that Gricar was involved in and/or initiated the sting. They don't cite a specific source for that statment; they most likely got it on "background" from someone in the DA's office or law enforcement.
Because there were no charges, we can't know what statute(s) Gricar was considering--or even exactly what Schreffler had in mind.
i'm not a lawyer. I would like to see one of the certified WS lawyers weigh in on this. That said--no, I don't think anyone (adult or child) being naked in a running shower is "open lewdness." My understanding of "open lewdness" involves what I describe above. Your post indicates that it is a "lewd act" that will "affront" or "offend" an observer, like men who flash their privates or a streaker. No doubt Sandusky was counting on NO observers. All that's left is a "lewd act"--and Sandusky is claiming hugging. And the whole thing is just a misdemeanor, no? Where anal rape on a child is a felony or two or three, depending on circumstances.