Doyell now after Boeheim

[upstater]

This is quite a paragraph. Do you have a source for this information? You say Sandusky told "investigators" the name of the boy in the shower? What investigators? There was no investigation of the 2002 shower incident unless you consider Curley and Schultz to be investigators. Moreover, this directly contradicts the Grand Jury's finding that it did not know the identity of the boy from the 2002 incident and that there was no investigation conducted by any institution. Sandusky's lawyer even said that the Atty Gen and GJ didn't know the identity of the boy. Yet, you're saying the boy said nothing happened? He said this to the Grand Jury? Sorry for all the questions but this is all news to me and I thought I'd followed this case pretty closely. Please provide a link for this information.

BTW, all Grand Jury transcripts are kept under seal. Information about GJ testimony comes from a Grand Jury Presentment (as in this case) or by way of anonymous leaks. Where are you getting information that "surely [is] in the unreleased GJ transcripts?"

This info comes from Curley and Schultz's lawyers. I offer it but then qualify that I think they are lying. Yes, Schultz investigated, in the same fashion that he investigated 1998, but in 2002, he didn't go far beyond talking to Sandusky and banning him from bringing children to campus. Yes, the lawyers say Schultz was given the name of the child and he interviewed him. I know this stuff is new. It was on the PSU BWI website in the last week. Also, I didn't say the boy testified. The attorney made it seem as though Schultz testified to this, and now claims are being made by Sandusky's attorney that the same boy with the same name given to Schultz will appear as a defense witness for Sandusky. I don't know the timeline for all this in terms of when the boy was interviewed by Schultz or whether it could be he same boy. I don't believe Sandusky at all.

That being said, I only asked the question as a hypothetical to show that the lack of criminal charges in 1998 or even the possibility he could get off for 2002 does NOT absolve Paterno of his wrongful choices. PSU fans are making it out that Paterno will be absolved when the proper information about the investigation (and lack of criminal evidence) comes out. As people who aren't serving on a jury, we can judge the people in charge without determining criminal intent or complicity.

 

[Huskymaniac]

Bah! A bunch of bunk. Look in the mirror, end your denial.

It ain't just a river in Egypt! He is scared to death that Syracuse basketball will fade into obscurity. If the ACC pulls the plug on them, they are screwed.

 

[freescooter]

I have to say that I don't see how Boeheim survives this with any credibility in tact. In fact, if Fine is led out in handcuffs, that will be his last day on the job. Even if there is a failure to prosecute on some technical reason, statute of limitations stuff or something, he is gone. But no matter how it comes out, I just think his credibility is totally shot if any of the ancillary stuff is true. I mean players sleepin gwith a coach's wife, ball boys sleeping with a coach...even if it isn't illegal, it creates a perception of a program that is totally out of control. It is in many ways reminicient of the St Johns scandals that cost Javis his job. A sleaze factor so to speak.