The best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour.
After all, if no records were made at all, then how do we know about the decision not to make a log entry?
After enough reports and enough meetings with enough people, records of the 1998 incident were made, but clearly early on the Chief was trying to keep it off the record. That is what the record shows, isn't it???
If the Chief of the University Police in 1998 could justify making no "crime log entry" [a euphemism perhaps???] because of "lack of clear evidence of a crime", even though he had the mother and her son ready to testify, how much easier would it have been for the Chief to subsequently justify making no "crime log entry" in 2001 until he finds his "clear evidence".
Would the Chief consider McQuery's witnessing of the incident alone as "clear evidence of a crime", or would the Chief say that he has to also speak with the boy before having before him "clear evidence of a crime"???
“The best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour.”
Yes, but one single incident is not necessarily representative of past behavior as a whole. That’s cherry-picking.
“After enough reports and enough meetings with enough people, records of the 1998 incident were made, but clearly early on the Chief was trying to keep it off the record. That is what the record shows, isn’t it???”
Ah, so there was a record, just not for that one meeting. So, clearly, one can’t extrapolate that any time these things were reported to the campus police, there would be no record.
Either way, all of that is pretty tangential, since this should have been reported to the real police. You can claim they were all just following the “chain of command”, but taken as a whole, it seems that everyone involved wanted to wash their hands of the affair rather than make sure that Sandusky couldn’t continue to molest children.