Wouldn’t this be independent of Gricar’s activity?

Obviously, showering with young boys is “inappropriate” it is not exactly “illegal”. While knowing what we know now, we’d think oh wow, investigate this further, the police had no reports of rape. They probably taped the conversations to see if he would admit further guilt and lead to things that may be illegal, but his quotes sounded more like a man mortified about crossing over an uncomfortable boundary with the boy. Again, clearly probably not the case, but from working with children of abuse and knowing the laws somewhat well, I can understand why this wasn’t pushed further.

Everything is one-degree around here. (“Here” meaning Happy Valley)

use of titling in a news article. The title sure makes it sound like Sandusky and Mr Police Chief were neighbors when this investigation was going on and the investigation was compromised as a result.

Just adds to the confusion. If you have insider knowledge of Sandusky’s darkside why would you allow your 11 yr old son to hang out at his house?

That settles it, I'm movin to the big city where the rapists, muggers & murderers don't personally know you.

I mean, has anyone actually ever seen the two of them together??!!

That Gricar went for a nap amongst the fishies

and it seemed logical to me. What else could it be?

that maybe the chief gave him the benefit of the doubt and just assumed that Sandusky did something inappropriate without really thinking about the implications of it and was remorseful about it, and not thinking he was a child predator. Then you have the DA telling you he cant really make a case out of it, so your options are to keep digging and possibly embarrass your neighbor and a respected man in the community, or let it go. I dont think it necessarily stinks, but I do see how it would look bad.

Thanks for clarifying jesse

Mr. Lauro also was invited by the university police to eavesdrop on a conversation between the boy’s mother and Mr. Sandusky. He declined and asked Detective Shreffler to get back to him with what he learned. He recalled that Detective Shreffler told him they extracted nothing new from the conversation. So University Police closed their case and Mr. Lauro followed suit.

But Mr. Lauro said he was not privy to the entire conversation that police listened in on. He did not know that the mother had asked Mr. Sandusky if his private parts touched the boy and that he had responded “I don’t think so … maybe.”

But he could not say with certainty if it would have been enough. It would depend, he said, on “context.” “I don’t recall him ever telling me that. It could have changed my thinking. I could have dug around and found something else,” he said.

Others who have worked in child welfare have said that Mr. Sandusky’s showering with the child — even without contact — was enough to indicate a case. And child welfare workers can, and frequently do, indicate a case even if a prosecutor declines to pursue it.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1196149-455-0.stm#ixzz1gMdEP0IB