I never wrote that Paterno approved of or encouraged Sanduskys actions. I did write that I think it is obvious that Paterno knew about the 1998 allegations and investigation against Sandusky. He also knew nothing happened to Sandusky after the later 2002 incident. It does not really matter who was dominant in the decision to keep it quiet. If Paterno knew Sandusky was getting away with repeating behavior that he was already aware of and he did nothing about it, that is shameful. Are you saying that he should have deferred to whatever Spanier said even though he knew that Sandusky was probably getting away with molesting little boys? Are you saying Joe Paterno was rightly more worried about his job than he was about doing the right thing and stopping Sandusky? I do not believe Paterno had to be forced into anything. I think Paterno was agreeable to keeping the Sandusky thing quiet to protect the football program and it doesnt matter much if he or Spanier was the one who suggested that course of action. The point is he knew about the allegations and lack of legal action against Sandusky and took no action. Silence is complicity in a case like this, in my view.
BTW, Wikipedia says the Franklin Child Prostitution Ring allegations were “a cleverly crafted hoax”. DeCamp is mentioned in their article on it. To quote the article, After investigation, the Douglas County, Nebraska Grand Jury determined the abuse allegations were baseless.
A short list of things that seem not to concern you at all include: the role of perv coddler and PSU president Graham Spanier, the role of Curley, the role of Schultz, whether the disappearance and presumed murder of Ray Gricar had anything to do with the pervert rape culture of Gerry Sandusky, whether any university trustees or political big shots were involved and, if so, whom and how? I get that you are outraged at the kiddie rapes. I don't get why the late Joe Paterno is the single target of your undeviating wrath when it should seem that many others were more responsible (assuming that Paterno failed, in any way, in his ACTUAL responsibilities, which are not to substitute his guesswork as a football coach for actual law enforcement, and not to pass McQueary's non-credible gossip along as Gospel fact. Paterno witnessed absolutely NOTHING. But, hey, what does that matter? Some folks are out there with pitchforks and torches and a blood lust that just MUST be satisfied against the dead celebrity. If Paterno's now dead scalp can be taken, by GOD, those tabloid readers will join the mob. What good is it to fix blame on the likes of Spanier and Curley and Schultz and any other co-conspirators that NOBODY has ever herd of? The only justification to go after them is IF they wre guilty in any way leading to Sandusky's criminal perversions. That doesn't satisfy the Ooompah Band, though, does it?
Ever wonder how the Salem Witchcraft trials may have gotten hand? Oh, magistrate, Goody Bradford looked cross-eyed at me two weeks ago and three days later I became ill with the flu. She's a witch, I tell you! Burn her at the stake!!! No inquiry first! None of that irritating due process tripe that those lawyers hide behind! We weren't hindered by constitution or a bill of rights. We had our suspicions. Who needs evidence??? Right?
As to Senator De Camp's book, the Franklin County Coverup, I have not read it recently but I have a copy and my recollection is that "Child Prostitution Ring" does not begin to adequately describe the goings on in that scandal.
As to Grand Juries, state and federal, we who have practiced law are inclined to observe that a grand jury can be dominated by a prosecutor into "indicting a ham sandwich." If the Nebraska prosecutor is protecting the potential defendants, he can persuade the grand jury NOT to indict by act or omission of the prosecutor. The Jon Benet Ramsay case, anyone? I once served as the paid attorney for a grand jury in a domestic murder case. My fellow grand jurors included a nun who said she could not vote for an indictment because our state might impose a death penalty (2/3 was necessary to indict) and a bunch of other folks who wanted neither discussion nor deliberation because of parking rates in an adjacent lot and their desire to leave it behind because it was Friday afternoon. Contemplating that Obozo was re-elected, that long ago experience comes to mind to explain voter negligence or perfidy. Read De Camp's book and you are quite likely to have a different take on the case in Nebraska.
Or, perhaps you are a hopeless case. The clock neareth three. Good night!