What the GA witnessed turned from Anal rape to Sexual Conduct to Disturbing to Inapprporiate to Horsing Around to an accidental grab of testicles to Not that serious to Nothing Criminal
Damn if it went any further the incident of child rape would of turned into nothing more than a innocent game of Connect 4 in a shower with a child.
A very disgusting read to say the least.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
What the GA witnessed turned from Anal rape to Sexual Conduct to Disturbing to Inapprporiate to Horsing Around to an accidental grab of testicles to Not that serious to Nothing Criminal
[/quote]
its like that game “telephone”
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]awesomeguy1234 wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]awesomeguy1234 wrote:
there were people picketing and rallying calling for mike vicks head on a platter because he participated in the murdering of dogs, while joe paterno ignores the molestation and rape of young children at the hands of one of his top assistant coaches and people create mobs and riot in his defense…!?
[/quote]
Totally different (kind of) people. I don’t like this line of thought.
“If it rains, people complain! If it’s sunny, people complain! People are crazy and don’t know what they want!”.[/quote]
what do u mean ‘different kind’ of people?
they are both prominent public figures in athletics who knew of illegal activity going on under their watch and let it continue, granted vick participated and paterno did not, but i think its a more than fair comparison.[/quote]
How can you compare Vick to this issue…
Vick - Before his illegalites he was an erratic QB and excellent athlete who does not represent professional football and the best that it had to offer, he was simply a popular player and represented nothing off the field to many.
PSU (Paterno) - Was looked upon as all that is right with College Sports, was looked as the moral minority who turned his nose at other Universities for their questionable behavior, Paterno represented all that is or was right with Colgiate Athletics, he was loved and reveared for his reputation. To have known about these atrocities destroys his legend and what he represented.
Vick was not a living legend at the time, and when he was caught for his callous and horrible acts was just a professional football player. Even with this there were the “just a dog” people that still believed he received a raw deal.
At times no matter what the behavior there are people who are blinded by loyalty wether it be Vick or Paterno…
Just look at Michael fucking Jackson, he was viewed as the PERPTRATOR of fondling and sexual conduct of young boys yet there were and are jackasses still extolling his virtues!
The vick issue is a totally different and much smaller animal (pun intended)
EDIT: I guess under the general terms of your comparisons (i.e. Athletics, public figures, illegal activity) you can correlate the two…but not really[/quote]
how does vick not represent professional football or the best it could offer? you said it yourself he was an incredible athlete, endless potential, inconsistent, but he found ways to win and coaches and analysts would spend endless amounts of time discussing how to defend him let alone hopefully contain him. if you could create a quarterback you would pick him to have all of vicks physical tools, period.
granted paterno and psu never had any recruiting scandals, but vick before his jail term was extremely important and meant a lot to the city of atlanta and african americans as a role model along with being a source of pride for both and was very near considered a living legend among blacks, but i guess our opinion doesnt really count in these situations.
people supported vick in spite of those who took the case as an opportunity to not support animal rights but to express their hatred for wealthy successfull black athletes, especially one that played quarterback. there was no unfair treatment of joe paterno or bashing of his character in his firing, the riots completely disregarded the victims and the root of the problem which was paternos negligence in stopping ‘callous’ and ‘horrible’ acts of sexual abuse, not dog killing, SEXUAL ABUSE.
look back at your post and you yourself just took it as an opportunity to bash vick, trumpet about how great a man paterno is despite what we know now, and in the end admit that it is an understandable comparison.
all i am saying is that the focus should be on the fact that paterno ignored sexual abuse going on within his program, people ignored vicks accomplishments and how important he was in the black community in order to make an example out of him, paterno should be treated as such and his acclompishments and status as a public figure should be ignored and he should be made an example of how sexual abuse is allowed to flourish especially in sports because no one wants to step up and talk about it and be the whistle blower, instead its been about how he donated money for a library and won a national championship over 20 years ago.
p.s. separate topic but serioulsy he hasnt actually coached his players for over a decade. arugably even longer, the dude was a glorified mascot on the sidelines in terms of game management and coaching.
[quote]awesomeguy1234 wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]awesomeguy1234 wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]awesomeguy1234 wrote:
there were people picketing and rallying calling for mike vicks head on a platter because he participated in the murdering of dogs, while joe paterno ignores the molestation and rape of young children at the hands of one of his top assistant coaches and people create mobs and riot in his defense…!?
[/quote]
Totally different (kind of) people. I don’t like this line of thought.
“If it rains, people complain! If it’s sunny, people complain! People are crazy and don’t know what they want!”.[/quote]
what do u mean ‘different kind’ of people?
they are both prominent public figures in athletics who knew of illegal activity going on under their watch and let it continue, granted vick participated and paterno did not, but i think its a more than fair comparison.[/quote]
How can you compare Vick to this issue…
Vick - Before his illegalites he was an erratic QB and excellent athlete who does not represent professional football and the best that it had to offer, he was simply a popular player and represented nothing off the field to many.
PSU (Paterno) - Was looked upon as all that is right with College Sports, was looked as the moral minority who turned his nose at other Universities for their questionable behavior, Paterno represented all that is or was right with Colgiate Athletics, he was loved and reveared for his reputation. To have known about these atrocities destroys his legend and what he represented.
Vick was not a living legend at the time, and when he was caught for his callous and horrible acts was just a professional football player. Even with this there were the “just a dog” people that still believed he received a raw deal.
At times no matter what the behavior there are people who are blinded by loyalty wether it be Vick or Paterno…
Just look at Michael fucking Jackson, he was viewed as the PERPTRATOR of fondling and sexual conduct of young boys yet there were and are jackasses still extolling his virtues!
The vick issue is a totally different and much smaller animal (pun intended)
EDIT: I guess under the general terms of your comparisons (i.e. Athletics, public figures, illegal activity) you can correlate the two…but not really[/quote]
how does vick not represent professional football or the best it could offer? you said it yourself he was an incredible athlete, endless potential, inconsistent, but he found ways to win and coaches and analysts would spend endless amounts of time discussing how to defend him let alone hopefully contain him.
granted paterno and psu never had any recruiting scandals, but vick before his jail term was extremely important and meant a lot to the city of atlanta and african americans as a role model along with being a source of pride for both and was very near considered a living legend among blacks, but i guess our opinion doesnt really count in these situations.
people supported vick in spite of those who took the case as an opportunity to not support animal rights but to express their hatred for wealthy successfull black athletes, especially one that played quarterback. there was no unfair treatment of joe paterno in his firing and the riots completely disregarded the victims and the root of the problem which was paternos negligence in stopping ‘callous’ and ‘horrible’ acts of sexual abuse, not dog killing, SEXUAL ABUSE.
look back at your post and you yourself just took it as an opportunity to bash vick, trumpet about how great a man paterno is despite what we know now, and in the end admit that it is an understandable comparison.
[/quote]
Understandable comparison based on general terms…
Im not a Paterno booster in fact up until to this fiasco could care less about the man or PSU.
Comparing Michael Vick to Paterno is drivel, there is no comparison Paterno, represents more to College Athletics than Vick does to the NFL. If the comparison was Paterno and say a Jim Brown and his illustrious career on and off the football field it would be a different story.
I simply called Vick an erratic qb and excellent athlete, where did I bash him? You may be overstating his “greatness” however espescially on the field with the Falcons.
It seems as if your a big fan of Vick thats fine, my opinions of him dont relate to this thread. IMO you cannot relate Vicks ordeal with Paternos…to me Paterno meant more to colegiate sports than Vick does professional football…im talking on and off of the field.
Paterno will never resusciate his image he will always be known for this atrocitie. Vick has already to an extent repaired his image and even to my own admission has done his due dilligence with the animal rights crowd.
I tell you this right now, this child abuse issue is something dear to my heart, I would Never defend a man that could of possibly saved so much heartache if he took the right actions. I am NOT trumpeting Paterno I am stating that no matter what GOOD he did for colegiate athletics it will never surpass the evil he allowed to happen…
I sat down with my 8 year old daughter today to re-iterate what is appropriate and not appropriate touching or talking. I have always been uber suspicious of some people in roles such as sandusky’s, unfortunately as a parent its how you have to be.
These predators are very slick in how they can somehow get into roles where parents may have their guards somewhat down and allow their children to be alone with strange adults. Its almost as if Sandusky used the parents downtrodden backgrounds and lack of support as a way to pry their children away from them.
for your reading pleasure.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I sat down with my 8 year old daughter today to re-iterate what is appropriate and not appropriate touching or talking. I have always been uber suspicious of some people in roles such as sandusky’s, unfortunately as a parent its how you have to be.
These predators are very slick in how they can somehow get into roles where parents may have their guards somewhat down and allow their children to be alone with strange adults. Its almost as if Sandusky used the parents downtrodden backgrounds and lack of support as a way to pry their children away from them.
[/quote]
That’s what makes this even worse Matty these were kids that didnt have a great dad like you. These were kids that already had a bad dealt hand in life, this fucking peace of shit preyed on the already down trodden.
The district attorney who tried and failed to prosecute Jerry Sandusky in 1998 after reports of sexual abuse emerged, has been missing since 2005 and was declared legally dead in July.
Ray Gricar disappeared on April 15 six years ago after telling his girlfriend he was going for a drive.
His body was never found, only his abandoned car and his laptop which had been tossed in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania without its hard drive.
In 1998, Gricar had attempted to bring a case against Penn State former football defence coordinator Jerry Sandusky on child rape charges.
The case of Sandusky, accused of years of abuse of boys that allegedly was covered up by school officials, has shaken the university and its football programme.
So now was he murdered? Perhaps by someone trying to cover up the Sandusky sex abuse.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The district attorney who tried and failed to prosecute Jerry Sandusky in 1998 after reports of sexual abuse emerged, has been missing since 2005 and was declared legally dead in July.
Ray Gricar disappeared on April 15 six years ago after telling his girlfriend he was going for a drive.
His body was never found, only his abandoned car and his laptop which had been tossed in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania without its hard drive.
In 1998, Gricar had attempted to bring a case against Penn State former football defence coordinator Jerry Sandusky on child rape charges.
The case of Sandusky, accused of years of abuse of boys that allegedly was covered up by school officials, has shaken the university and its football programme.
So now was he murdered? Perhaps by someone trying to cover up the Sandusky sex abuse.[/quote]
I say he is living down south america living off the millions Penn State paid him.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Trispeter wrote:
SO this means Joe Pa had reported this to the police… what more could he have done?
[/quote]
What more could he have done? Followed up and made sure this guy was punished. JoePa ran the show. He could have banned Sandusky from the campus if he wanted but he did not.
If you were the head coach and knew an assistant was caught sexually abusing kids in your locker room would you report it to the AD and Campus Police and leave it at that? See the same guy for years to come bringing young kids into your facility and not say anything further?[/quote]
A real PSUer knows campus police there is a joke. They hand out underage drinking and public urination citations (even to yours truly!)
JoePa should have walked down to centre county police with McQueary, or reported it to an even higher authority[/quote]
lol it’s not a “higher authority”. campus police have the same sworn powers as the county police or the State police for that matter. so please, let’s just agree he reported it to the “police”. although they may give you a ticket, they can still lock your ass up just like the regular police. admitted, the may be largely patrol (not sure if they have “detectives”) but that’s not different than any small town PD.[/quote]
BG, you’ve made this point a few times but it was debunked earlier in the thread. Gary Shultz was the Senior VP of Business and Finance. The fact that the campus police budget was under his purview does not make him the popo. He was not the head of campus police. IIRC, in the indictment he even states something to that effect.[/quote]
you are correct
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
Still waiting for BG to resond to my answer(s) to his request. [/quote]
stop trying to be some clever dick and learn to have a reasonable debate. i haven’t read the indictment yet. calm the fuck down. [/quote]
Quit commenting until you’ve read the grand jury report. You will be disgusted. [/quote]
I read it. I was disgusted prior. I’m not yet disgusted at Joe Pa b/c I don’t know what he knew and when. Is that clear?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
We have the benefit of HINDSIGHT and who wouldn’t do something different with the benefit of HINDSIGHT?
[/quote]
How can an adult male, given the facts in the grand jury summary, not have the FORESIGHT to realize that if appropriate action wasn’t taken, a sexual predator would continue to prey upon children? [/quote]
and if there was a cover-up, how do you know the limits of information did not extend to joe pa? do you know what he knew and when? he reported it. what if he was lead to believe afterward it was baseless? that doesn’t change your opinion about what he should or shouldn’t do?
it’s a simple concept. what did he know and WHEN. not with the benefit of HINDSIGHT. [/quote]
Granted, the information comes from the grand jury summary and not the actual transcripts of the testimony. Whoever composed the summary had to decide which facts to include and how to interpret them. There is certainly room for disagreement as to how this second hand account could be interpreted. I don’t think there is so much room that an interpretation that includes a justification for Paterno’s action can fit.
Curley and Schultz were questioned with regards to exactly what McQueary told them he had witnessed. There is no indication of any similar questioning of Paterno. There is mention of Paterno’s testimony as to what he told Curley had been reported to him by McQueary, not what Paterno testified McQueary told him. I don’t think that distinction is pedantic, it’s why he wasn’t charged with perjury.
The only mention of the contents of what McQueary told paterno is in a sentance on page 7:
“The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home, where he reported what he saw.”
Exactly what McQuery reported isn’t known from the summary. Why wouldn’t someone make the natural inference Paterno was given the full details? The facts that it was the next morning and a Saturday, conveying some sense of urgency were included. Would McQueary have an urgency to give Paterno a watered down version of what he witnessed? If he did give a diminished version, wouldn’t there at least be some hint of it? it’s hard to believe the people responsible for the report were oblivious to the importance and ramifications of that sentence. It would have been composed with great care. Someone reading it can’t be oblivious to the political and career pressures weighing on the people responsible for it. That’s true for the entire summary, not just that particular sentence.
Also, there is this sentence from the Nov. 10 NY Times:
“A person familiar with his[McQueary’s] account said McQueary did not spare the details when he met with Paterno.”
The reliability of the source is not known, but it lends credence to the belief Paterno knew the details and McQuery did address what he reported to Paterno in his testimony.
From page 7 of the grand jury summary:
Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley [“Curley”], Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistanthad seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.
An aside, previous posters have mentioned McQueary may have been designated a “whistleblower”. The fact McQueary, unlike everyone else, except obviously the victims, is not named, the term “graduate assistant” is used, supports this.
In the quoted paragraph above, there are no specifics to " the graduate assistant’s report". The phrase “Paterno called Tim Curley… to his home” speaks to who has the real power in their relationship.
There is no mention of “horseplay”. You mentioned a chasm in an earlier post. I agree there is a critical chasm between “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” and horseplay. On one side is the indefensible, on the other the plausibly defensible. There is no way the people responsible for the summary did not appreciated that chasm.If Paterno mentioned horseplay at that time it would be in the summary. “Horseplay” was only introduced in Paterno’s recent public statements. Under oath, Paterno only testified to the indefensible.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
What the GA witnessed turned from Anal rape to Sexual Conduct to Disturbing to Inapprporiate to Horsing Around to an accidental grab of testicles to Not that serious to Nothing Criminal
Damn if it went any further the incident of child rape would of turned into nothing more than a innocent game of Connect 4 in a shower with a child.
A very disgusting read to say the least.
[/quote]
And my point is that given the above, how do you know such misinformation was not reported back to Joe Pa? A man that wants to engage in a cover-up for his buddy does not summon his superiors to his home the very next day. He calls his buddy and starts QBing the thing. I read the indictment. You guys act like Joe Pa’s fingerprints are all over victim 2 and they are not.
All there is is SPECULATION he should have done more. Why is it SPECULATION? Because we do not yet know what he knew, when he knew it (sounds like I’m beating a drum I know, but it doesn’t make it irrelevant). Some of you forgot the man ran a huge football program and act like he was God-like and knew every thing that occurred on campus.
The man was informed. He immediately reported it. Now what followed next is not known. What if Joe Pa was told it was unfounded, or a misunderstanding?
If it comes out he knew more, I’ll join the lynch mob. Not sure there is anything I can possibly add other than some of you are stretching his powers beyond reason - like the power to know everything, whether he was informed or not, or what he was informed. Some of you act like running a football program of that magnitude is not a 24/7/365 enterprise that stretches that man very thin.
I didn’t need to read the indictment to be “disgusted” by the way. Such acts are disgusting without further description. But I didn’t see anything there that yet let’s me make a conclusion about Joe Pa.
[quote]awesomeguy1234 wrote:
all i am saying is that the focus should be on the fact that paterno ignored sexual abuse going on within his program,
[/quote]
can you provide the factual basis, sans speculation, for the above conclusion?
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
I sat down with my 8 year old daughter today to re-iterate what is appropriate and not appropriate touching or talking. I have always been uber suspicious of some people in roles such as sandusky’s, unfortunately as a parent its how you have to be.
These predators are very slick in how they can somehow get into roles where parents may have their guards somewhat down and allow their children to be alone with strange adults. Its almost as if Sandusky used the parents downtrodden backgrounds and lack of support as a way to pry their children away from them.
[/quote]
Amen to that.
My boy is 5. Not even sure where or how to begin that disgusting conversation. It’s a sad fucking world.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The district attorney who tried and failed to prosecute Jerry Sandusky in 1998 after reports of sexual abuse emerged, has been missing since 2005 and was declared legally dead in July.
Ray Gricar disappeared on April 15 six years ago after telling his girlfriend he was going for a drive.
His body was never found, only his abandoned car and his laptop which had been tossed in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania without its hard drive.
In 1998, Gricar had attempted to bring a case against Penn State former football defence coordinator Jerry Sandusky on child rape charges.
The case of Sandusky, accused of years of abuse of boys that allegedly was covered up by school officials, has shaken the university and its football programme.
So now was he murdered? Perhaps by someone trying to cover up the Sandusky sex abuse.[/quote]
Now that is weird…
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The district attorney who tried and failed to prosecute Jerry Sandusky in 1998 after reports of sexual abuse emerged, has been missing since 2005 and was declared legally dead in July.
Ray Gricar disappeared on April 15 six years ago after telling his girlfriend he was going for a drive.
His body was never found, only his abandoned car and his laptop which had been tossed in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania without its hard drive.
In 1998, Gricar had attempted to bring a case against Penn State former football defence coordinator Jerry Sandusky on child rape charges.
The case of Sandusky, accused of years of abuse of boys that allegedly was covered up by school officials, has shaken the university and its football programme.
So now was he murdered? Perhaps by someone trying to cover up the Sandusky sex abuse.[/quote]
I remember that disappearance. Not sure he was “stable” if I remember correctly. Never read a peep about any connection to any case at the time either. Seems to be a stretch.
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]concrete wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
We have the benefit of HINDSIGHT and who wouldn’t do something different with the benefit of HINDSIGHT?
[/quote]
How can an adult male, given the facts in the grand jury summary, not have the FORESIGHT to realize that if appropriate action wasn’t taken, a sexual predator would continue to prey upon children? [/quote]
and if there was a cover-up, how do you know the limits of information did not extend to joe pa? do you know what he knew and when? he reported it. what if he was lead to believe afterward it was baseless? that doesn’t change your opinion about what he should or shouldn’t do?
it’s a simple concept. what did he know and WHEN. not with the benefit of HINDSIGHT. [/quote]
Granted, the information comes from the grand jury summary and not the actual transcripts of the testimony. Whoever composed the summary had to decide which facts to include and how to interpret them. There is certainly room for disagreement as to how this second hand account could be interpreted. I don’t think there is so much room that an interpretation that includes a justification for Paterno’s action can fit.
Curley and Schultz were questioned with regards to exactly what McQueary told them he had witnessed. There is no indication of any similar questioning of Paterno. There is mention of Paterno’s testimony as to what he told Curley had been reported to him by McQueary, not what Paterno testified McQueary told him. I don’t think that distinction is pedantic, it’s why he wasn’t charged with perjury.
The only mention of the contents of what McQueary told paterno is in a sentance on page 7:
“The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno’s home, where he reported what he saw.”
Exactly what McQuery reported isn’t known from the summary. Why wouldn’t someone make the natural inference Paterno was given the full details? The facts that it was the next morning and a Saturday, conveying some sense of urgency were included. Would McQueary have an urgency to give Paterno a watered down version of what he witnessed? If he did give a diminished version, wouldn’t there at least be some hint of it? it’s hard to believe the people responsible for the report were oblivious to the importance and ramifications of that sentence. It would have been composed with great care. Someone reading it can’t be oblivious to the political and career pressures weighing on the people responsible for it. That’s true for the entire summary, not just that particular sentence.
Also, there is this sentence from the Nov. 10 NY Times:
“A person familiar with his[McQueary’s] account said McQueary did not spare the details when he met with Paterno.”
The reliability of the source is not known, but it lends credence to the belief Paterno knew the details and McQuery did address what he reported to Paterno in his testimony.
From page 7 of the grand jury summary:
Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley [“Curley”], Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistanthad seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.
An aside, previous posters have mentioned McQueary may have been designated a “whistleblower”. The fact McQueary, unlike everyone else, except obviously the victims, is not named, the term “graduate assistant” is used, supports this.
In the quoted paragraph above, there are no specifics to " the graduate assistant’s report". The phrase “Paterno called Tim Curley… to his home” speaks to who has the real power in their relationship.
There is no mention of “horseplay”. You mentioned a chasm in an earlier post. I agree there is a critical chasm between “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy” and horseplay. On one side is the indefensible, on the other the plausibly defensible. There is no way the people responsible for the summary did not appreciated that chasm.If Paterno mentioned horseplay at that time it would be in the summary. “Horseplay” was only introduced in Paterno’s recent public statements. Under oath, Paterno only testified to the indefensible.
[/quote]
With respect, you just posted a wall of text to prove to me what I had already known and conceded; that Joe Pa was informed of the incident. It matters not to my argument exactly what he was told, including full or partial details. What matters to me is what Joe Pa was told when the University presumably completed it’s investigation (which we now know was more a review or cover-up). What we don’t know, and this has been my continuing point all along is whether or not Joe Pa was also misled. Again, what if Joe Pa was told it was a misunderstanding or unfounded?
I realize I’m speculating with my closing but so is concluding that Joe SHOULD have known and SHOULD have done more. I’m simply saying (again) we don’t know what he knew or when he knew it. I think his good body of work deserves a full airing of the facts before we rush to tear down a legend. And, if after that full airing, the man deserves to be torn down, I’ll lead the mob. I find it hard to believe that based upon his body of work, which IS considerable, that such a man would turn a blind eye to abuse.
I allow I could be wrong. But I also maintain we don’t yet know.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The only intelligent Penn State student:
I’m starting to believe most Penn State students are awful people.[/quote]
That’s a pretty rational statement after viewing 5% of the studentship rioting and .0001% of the total student/alumni base.
You should probably base your opinion of 40,000 people based on 3 who were interviewed.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The district attorney who tried and failed to prosecute Jerry Sandusky in 1998 after reports of sexual abuse emerged, has been missing since 2005 and was declared legally dead in July.
Ray Gricar disappeared on April 15 six years ago after telling his girlfriend he was going for a drive.
His body was never found, only his abandoned car and his laptop which had been tossed in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania without its hard drive.
In 1998, Gricar had attempted to bring a case against Penn State former football defence coordinator Jerry Sandusky on child rape charges.
The case of Sandusky, accused of years of abuse of boys that allegedly was covered up by school officials, has shaken the university and its football programme.
So now was he murdered? Perhaps by someone trying to cover up the Sandusky sex abuse.[/quote]
Stop rumor mongoring. He had no charges for Sandusky on his desk. It had been 7 years since the 1998 incident was reported to him and he said matter of factly he had nothing to go on.
Townie rumor is that he’s in witness protection for an unrelated investigation.