bored

so im reading this grand jury paper.

key info:

"Curley specifically denied that the graduate assistant reported anal
sex or anything of a sexual nature whatsoever and termed the conduct
as merely "horsing around.". When asked whether the graduate assistant
had reported "sexual conduct" or any kind by Sandusky, Curley answered
"No" twice. When asked if the graduate assistant had reported "anal
sex between Jerry Sandusky and this child," Curley testified,
"Absolutely not."

pretty solid evidence for case closed for JoePa. but then, JoePa does
say that assitant told him that Sandusky was "fondling or doing
something of a sexual nature to a young boy."
First, why the hell didnt the assistant call the police? You
seriously see someone ass raping a little boy and you call your dad
for advice, as a 28 year old man? and then your dad tells you to come
over and then advises you to talk to the coach...

this Curley guy didnt talk to any police agency, just took Sandusky's
keys to the locker room and told him he wasnt allowed to bring boys on
campus, and Curley told the persident who agreed with the steps
taken..might have been more steps but not mentioned.

ah, gets murkier. another guy, Schultz, said that this assitant said
there was genital groping by sandusky on the boy while wrestling, but
he and Curley decided the allegations were "not that serious" and had
no indications a crime had occurred."

man, Schultz oversaw the university police and didnt file any report,
nor even inquired about an earlier (1998) police investigation on
Sandusky and inappropriate sexual conduct. eah dude, his charges are
legit,

I'll asy though, Joe Paterno, there's really a low probability chance
he did something wrong. not one person said the assistant told them of
this ass raping. so to Joe, he informs his supervisor of this
misconduct and even meets with the overseer of police, not sure how he
could be expected to do anything more. (unless he sees the guy around
with little boys after hearing of it, then thats a red flag, but in
all instances did Sandusky ensure he was alone with the boys and
during times that no one would or "should" be around). thats a
failure on a higher level, not his. anyone would expect the overseer
to take all necessary action.

after reading this report, Id say this Sandusky is definitely guilty.
it'd be quite the ruse to have 7 victims all claim similar stories.
no way he's innocent, no way.

no idea if curley and schultz should be charged with perjury, i
wouldnt say they were lying, but they probably failed to perform
lawfully-required task of informing police and/or child protection
services..definitely for schultz, curley could be considered for
perjury on this but who knows. seems like way too much credence is
given to this assistant's words, what he saw and what he informed were
clearly two different events, no idea why he wouldn't tell them the
graphic details but it seems pretty clear he didn't. grand jury
doesn't agree with that assessment, but i wasnt the one interviewing
these people.