I apologize if my post stirred anything up- I honestly wasn't asking about Sandusky; just Big 10 football in general. I'll step back for awhile if my "refresher questions" are causing any issues. I sure hope not; if there is a problem, please - anyone- don't be afraid to talk to
me, ok? The last thing I want to do is disrupt this thread.
And, FWIW, I really like & respect the keepers of the flame who've been here posting for years <hugs>
Please do
not step back. You question was perfectly proper, and as far as I am concerned, you need give
no apologies.
Your first question, and my first answer, had nothing to do with Sandusky. It was a general question. I did ask about RFG's relationship with PSU prior to 11/4/11. PSU was, and is, a large institution and, at least in 2012, more than half the electorate in Centre County were either currently attending PSU, were PSU alumni, worked directly for PSU, or were retired from PSU.
If there is a discussion of what RFG did and didn't do in 1998, I will recommend the linked forum on the PSU scandal.
I will add, at this point, that I believe that RFG's actions were both legal and well within the code of legal ethics. There is not an ethical requirement for a prosecutor to prosecute,
even if he thinks he get the case to trial. It is called "prosecutorial discretion." You can Google it and read about it; it is a current issue.
In general, I would prefer (and this is a personal preference) to discuss what RFG did, or did not, in 1998 under the PSU scandal forum. Important exception are:
1. If it relates to his disappearance.
2. His general conduct as DA.
For the first, we can ask a couple of different question and scenarios.
Was RFG trying to build a case against Sandusky when he disappeared?
The answer is no. There was no reference to Sandusky in anything that had, either at home or in the office. The Office did not even have the faxed 1998 police report. Obviously, RFG was not trying to build a case against Sandusky, and there was not a motive to kill him to prevent him from building a case.
Would his decision not to prosecute be a reason for walking away?
Again, no. We have, since 2011, seen several cases where prosecutors chose not to prosecute clergy in the Catholic Church for child molestation, two in Cambria County and one in Butler County; there was also an attorney in Lehigh C0unty who represented the Church. They have not faced either legal or ethical sanctions. The have lost clients, and one resigned from the board of a Catholic school.
RFG was planning to retire from elected office and the practice of law at the end of 2005. He even turned down Buehner's offer to show him how to handle Social Security disability cases, which he could have done on apart time basis. While the revelation of the 1998 case would have certainly cased embarrassment, it would, obviously, have had no effect on RFG politically or professionally. Further, he had no idea if the 1998 case would have ever come out.
While there
might be a general motive of not wanting to spend his retirement rehashing old cases, it would
not specifically refer to the 1998 case.
As to the second point, how was RFG's
general conduct as a DA, or his conduct regarding Penn State
in general. The Phillips case shows that he would prosecute football players, even if the case was not strong. I
commend him for running the DA's Office well and for his
innovative work in using DNA to prosecute. I think it speaks exceptionally well of RFG that he would argue weak cases, cases he had to know he would probably lose,
personally. Not only did he say to himself, **This case is not a winner,** but he did
not then say, **I'll assign it to so someone else so that I will still look good.**
I do not, in any way, defend RFG's decision on Sandusky, but it was
not typical and should
not be the sole definition of his tenure as DA.
I agree with TrackerGD whe he says [snipped]:
If we cannot explore all possibilities and scenarios, we might as well fold up camp and go home.
I will go a step further. If we cannot talk about something that might be negative regarding RFG it is the same as saying, "We don't care about what happened to Ray Gricar, so long as he looks good."