Addressing only the first couple of posts and not the rest:
1. Palatine's post is weirdly old. I thought this was an old thread.
2. If you're following the trial on the specific issues addressed in this thread, you should realize that not only was the former AG and now Gov. apprised of the 1999 case, he was the one that squashed it despite the protests of PSU university police detectives. Furthermore, the person that relayed the AGs wishes to DA Gricar at the time is the current prosecutor against Sandusky. This is really a small world they have over there. Now, the current Gov. may be feeling some exposure over this, but given the statement of the original psychologist and the testimony of victim #6 absolving Sandusky, I'm not certain what they had to go on.
3. The AG claims that Schultz was withholding evidence in a secret file. The fact is, the evidence was sourced through ex-FBI director's investigation for PSU as they found computer files (emails) on a PSU server. Schultz is long retired. He doesn't have access to PSU servers. In fact, ex-President Spanier has been trying to get access but has been denied. This is purely PSU property. Are these secret files? Seems to me they are old emails recently discovered.
4. The leaks about the emails so far show that Sandusky was not reported in 2001 because Spanier said the "humane" thing to do was to avoid reporting. This decision appears to have been arrived at after PSU conducted an investigation, consulted psychologists, legal experts. That's what the leaks say. My questions: who are these psychologists, legal experts, investigators, and what ties do they have to PSU that would make them part of the cover-up? I'm not doubting that they may have indeed conspired, but they certainly put their reputations at risk, as did the psychologist in the 1999 case. A lot of people knew about this stuff in 1999 (the AG, assistant AG, DA, PSU police chief, investigators, child services). Did they all drop the ball?
5. If PSU reported Sandusky in 1999 but not in 2001 when he was no longer coach then what is the difference between the two? Can we say that when he was reported in 1999 (and was still coach) that they were less concerned with the status of the football program than in 2001 when he wasn't a coach anymore? That's what I've always wondered. What's the difference?
6. A lot of the conspiracy theories have now been undercut by the actual testimony. Earlier, people like Dan Bernstein of the Chicago Sun-Times surmised three conspiracies:
a. The rape in 2002 was hidden because PSU had just experienced multiple losing seasons and thus was afraid its program was going under. But, the revision of the dates of the rape shows that they had only one losing season, 2000, and the year before they were ranked #1 as late as November.
b. Paterno had a real estate deal with board members of the Second Mile that was closing in mid-2002, and therefore kept things quiet. The revision of the rape date shows that the dates no longer mesh for this conspiracy theory.
I'm waiting to see what these emails say, seems there may be a cover-up (Spanier saying the "humane" thing) but of course, the prosecution calling these emails "secret" gives me pause, especially since the governor himself has been mentioned as an actor in the case. There are political concerns here as well.
It would not surprise me if Spanier covered this though since the 1985 case of an emeritus professor molesting a teen in Maryland was presented to him in 2002, and when the boy-turned-man offered to send Spanier an audiotape of a phone call in which the professor admitted it, Spanier denied him and said keep your tape. Spanier was always in CYA mode. Wouldn't surprise me if he did the same thing with the Sandusky info in 2002.
