Jasef7: It doesn't sit right with me that MM spent the last 9 years knowing that Sandusky was still walking free, if he really did see him raping a 10 year old boy. That said, in the world of PSU, telling the AD and VP was the equivalent of telling your director at work and the Mayor or Police Commisioner in your city/town. I also believe MM was told by the AD that the matter had been investigated.
So MM could have been thinking one of the following:
1. The administration must be covering this up and it's a he said/she said situation unless the victim comes forward. Possible courses of action: report the crime AND coverup to the police (better have some evidence of that), or take on the investigation yourself and find the victim. Taking either of these actions would have been heroic. Not doing this and waiting for something to shake out (i.e. victim to come forward) is simply human. Other possible course of action which would be less heroic, but also probably not helpful would be to send an anonyous tip to the poice or other authorities.
2. Sandusky is guilty, but the administration investigated with the help of UP police and did not find sufficient evidence of crime. This would probably be my thought. I guess I'm just not cynical enough to jump immediately to #1. Possible courses of action: Continue to press the AD and VP on the status of the investigation and/or investigate on your own to uncover additional evidence. Stake out Sandusky and set up video cameras to try to catch him in the act. However, if your line of thinking was that this was being investigated, why would you go vigilante? It is more likely to conclude that the police tried, but could not uncover any additional evidence.
3. Could I have possibly not seen what I thought I saw? This is probably more likely than most think, especially when you add in the ramifications of either 1 or 2 above. Maybe MM convinced himself that he had over blown the incident in his mind, but with the benefit of hindsight and a GJ investigation, regained his confidence that his first recollection was actually plausible.
This all assumes that MM truly believes he was very clear to the AD and VP with what he saw. I also believe it is likely that MM is sure that he told everyone involved very clearly what he saw, when in actuality it was not so clear, and the AD and VP did not understand the true nature of the crime. This doesn't make it right, but it would explain why MM did not feel that he had to retell his story; if he believes that he told them exactly what had happened.
This goes even more so for Joe who didn't witness the event. If you somehow had a direct line to your Mayor and reported a crime of this nature without witnessing the event yourself, would you still feel the need to call the 911 operator and explain what you've just seen, or would you expect the Mayor to direct his police force to investigate?
Of course, if Joe did in fact know the DETAILS of the 1998 investigation, he should have been expected to do more. In hindsight, as Joe says, of course he wishes he did more. I'm sure MM feels the same. However, hindsight in this case seems to be much different than what the circumstances were in 2002. Of course, there was self-preservation contained in any possible line of thinking by all parties (when isn't there), and this won out over whatever evidence they had in front of them, which seems to be different for each of the them.
