Click the Pic
Don't Let the FReepathon DragOn!
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will fire up $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Many thanks to JoeProBono for the Cyclops dragon graphic
Posted on 11/09/2011 10:32:36 PM PST by TigerClaws
One of the questions surrounding the sex-abuse case against Jerry Sandusky is why a former district attorney chose not to prosecute the then-Penn State assistant coach in 1998 after reports surfaced that he had inappropriate interactions with a boy.
In 2005, divers searched the Susquehanna River in Lewisburg, Pa., for Ray Gricar, who was a Centre County prosecutor. The answer is unknowable because of an unsolved mystery: What happened to Ray Gricar, the Centre County, Pa., district attorney?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Joe willfully enabled, also.
Yeah, so? He’s still part of the complicity. It still needs investigated to see what the pattern was. His role needs to be established even if you can’t punish him.
His was a fraction of the others no matter how you slice it, despite your delusional ranting about it. The grand jury report makes that pretty clear.
Not a bloodlust. Just reponding to your posts.
Just to let you know FV.
Actually it's not so much "god-like" but "brick-wall-like" powers.
You are so funny.
Then stop trying. Quit trying to make the case that Joe was not involved and we can move on.
With garbage. The great JoePa conspiracy you have dreamed up isn’t matched in the grand jury report. They pin that on Curley, Schultz, etc.
Joe is a cooperating witness. Fasten your seatbelt, this is going to be a bumpy ride.
Um again, the grand jury report. Joe wasn’t a witness to anything. There was no cover-up, when Joe was told second hand he didn’t silence it, he reported it. That’s not the meaning of cover-up. Words mean things.
Those are the facts. The facts are not on your side.
Fact: According to Joe, he was told that Sandusky had done 'something sexual' to a boy in the middle of the night in Joe's locker room.
Fact: PA law required this this to reported.
Fact: It was not reported and Joe knew it was not investigated/reported.
Fact: Sandusky remained free to rape little boys and Joe knew it.
Fact: Joe did not do what he needed to do stop Sandusky.
Did he make a written report? Nope. It was all verbal. You have no idea what went on in those meetings. Bottom line is that Joe knew it was being covered and allowed Sandusky to keep raping little boys. Paterno knew in 1998. Paterno knew in 2002.
And yet, the grand jury report doesn’t agree with you.
Since you don't cite specifics, I have no idea what you are talking about.
You have no idea either. All you have is speculation.
In ‘98 Sandusky was reported by the mother of victim #6. JoePa was not anywhere near it. The COPS, the actual police, said there was nothing. NOTHING. So how do you make the stretch that Paterno knew? You don’t know what went on in any meetings or anywhere else either.
What I do know is that Sandusky was gone a year later. I take that as Paterno suspected and basically did what he could do - get him out the door. What else can you do without any proof?
There’s nothing in the grand jury report to indicate your ‘FACT’s when down as they did. All you have is speculation.
RE: The whole Wal-Mart thingy comparison.
You are confusing corporate policy and civil law with criminal law. I can assure you the Wal-Mart policy of not reporting incidents did not apply to criminal acts. If it did they would have been sued out of existence years ago.
Under criminal law knowledge of a criminal act occuring must be reported to law enforcement. People harboring information on unreported crimes, and particulary crimes against persons (and children!!) are frequently considered an accessory to the crimes. People go to jail all the time as accessories to violent crimes because they don’t ‘snitch’ on their associates engaged in criminal activity.
In this case, imo, Joe is state-bound and it ain’t the U. A whole lot of others can/should join him in the pokey. Then Penn state can/will be sued to no end by the victims and their families.
I don’t know what position the state is in on this. It may well be an all-or-nothing because once criminal convictions come down the civil cases will quickly overwhelm Penn State’s finances. I notice a distinction has been made between what occured on campus and what occured off-campus. So I’d say the aiding and abetting is pretty thick here and goes back decades.
Due to the state’s liabilities and/or culpability a federal grand jury and FBI involvement are probably warranted.
Yeah it does. The other problem is you sign on the dotted line. They know it’s bogus of course but they try and intimidate you anyway even though I doubt it would stand in court. All big entities want to manage these incidents and their PR people in control. It’s crap but that’s the reality.
In fact I just recalled an example where one of my buddies there was a first-responder. One day a guy fell off the racks from about 20 ft. up to the concrete. He saw it and started treating him, the management came up and told him to back the hell away NOW. He immediately told them he was a first responder and if THEY didn’t back off he was going to have them all thrown into jail. They backed off, but the point was they didn’t want any employee taking things into their own hands without direct authority from them, law be damned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.