Gibbons apparently not facing charges

If there's a preponderance of evidence suggesting BG's guilty WITHOUT even the first-person testimony from the young lady; then as a human being with a soul I'd hope she comes forward and demands prosecution. The current state of affairs and file of apparent evidence absolutely warrants it.

And so it completely sucks that this young woman is probably facing pressure and anxiety to simply protect basic human dignity; she's hesitant. She knows BG's best defense is to make her appear a certain way. Consensual. Meaning she'll be characterized as easy, loose, casual. That'll be her reputation to defend, written up in a legal docket.

There's a lesson of universal application to be learned from this that just never seems to stick. 18-22 year old men at their sexual peaks; most of whom will never again have such an abundance of testosterone. At the younger spectrum, male classmates biologically predisposed to acting on impulse. And male athletes with an addition of ego added to an even greater abundance of testosterone. 

of "cases from the past" flat out does not add up.  I have said it a couple of times on other threads so I won't say it again (after this), but I do want to mention it one more time.  I am not playing the "attorney card" here, but as a lawyer I am trained to spot holes in logic, explanation, what-have you.  An investigation, a close of that investigation, followed by new rules years after the "close" of that investigation would not result in the de-novo review of past closed complaints.  I am not saying I have knowledge of what transpired in this particular investigation, but that narrative does not make sense, period.  One of two things happenned, 1) the matter was NEVER investigated in 2009 due to the fact that in 2009 a complainant had to act for an investigation to commence , or 2) new information emerged in 2013 leading to the certain conclusions that were drawn in 2009 no longer holding up. 

And if this reveiw of "cases from the past" was conducted without additional information, you better believe that the football player that has played four years for the team after the incident took place would have been one of the "still no-go" pile after such a review had taken place to avoid exactly what is happening right now when the case could have remained rightfully closed based on the investigation in 2009 and all of this avoided.  Please don't tell me that in 2013, the university administration out of the blue become concerned enough about this "Gibbons psycopath" that it needed to get him off the campus ASAP after closing an investigation on him 4 years before.  Does not hold water.

and he was not a particularly important player.  That was part of the issue.  Nobody cared about Gibbons in 2009.  He has a freshman never had played in a game kicker.  If he was the starting quarterback this can of worms is likely opened up on the spot.  He was basically Joe Scmoe.  Ask yourself, when you were in college, if you were investigated and cleared of a crime, how would the school have found out if you did not tell them yourself?

and then the Watchdog article came out linking directly to the redacted police reports, and Gibbons was reviewed within a reasonable time period afterward.

Perhaps because, just ten days prior to the beginning of the 2013 investigation, the police reports were spilled onto the internet for all to see -- thereby forcing the school's hand?

I'd call that a lot of theorizing, but no offical word from the university explaining it.  not for my liking anyway.  I've read the threads and some great points brought up. 

...imagine that Sandusky had been a student instead of an employee. Maybe, to make it even more closely parallel, imagine that one of his victims had been a student, maybe someone that was admitted to the university at a young age.

I would have absolutely no problem with the Penn State equivalent of the OSCR taking action to suspend or expel him prior to the conclusion of legal proceedings if said student had brought a complaint, and the evidence supported it.

comfortable with the criminal justice system investigating criminal acts, I completely disagree with the notion that they should be the only ones to dole out penalties.

For example, let's suppose a student phyically attacks his professor during class. There are a dozen witnesses. Should the school take no action because it's a criminal case or should they be able to hold a hearing and consider sanctioning him? If a school has strict rules against drinking somewhere on campus, can they only have penalties against students of legal drinking age? After all, the underage students could be charged as minors in possession.

If we're looking at the NCAA, consider a case where a program is accused of paying a HS coach to steer his star player to the school. That's not illegal most places, but it is against NCAA rules. So the NCAA is entitled to investigate and dole out penalties, if warranted. What if instead of cash the program supplies the HS coach with prostitutes? What about blackmailing him? Commiting criminal acts shouldn't be a way out of NCAA sanctions.

What would be wrong would be to have schools or the NCAA usurping the role of the criminal justice system. I think they are careful not to interfere with official investigations and they have no power to hand out criminal penalties. They do have a resposibility to enforce their own rules and their own rules pretty much always include a catch all to prohibit all illegal acts.