<p>Then why do you feel there should be outrage at McQueary? All we have is the GJ report. Why is McQ the only one not held to your standards?</p>
<p>But we don’t really know what McQueary did. How can you be so sure?</p>
<p>You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>I am accepting what he said- he claims he saw a rape. He says he left and went home. He says he spoke to Paterno the next day. I am not basing my issue with McQuery on the dispute of what he told who. Not even Sandusky’s claim that there was no rape. It is only on McQuery himself that says I saw a rape. At that point he should not have left.</p>
<p>I am saying based on what he claims he did I am critical of that- not taking immediate action. I very well may be critical of the others. In fact Paterno’s statement of not wanting to disturb Curley on the weekend deserves rebuke but it is not in the same league with what McQuery failed to do.</p>
<p>Yet you won’t accept that he said he told Curley and Schultz.</p>
<p>You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>Because they dispute that. No one is disputing that he says he saw a rape because they can not dispute what he says he saw. Sandusky claims there was not a rape but that does not mitigate that McQuery believed he saw a rape and therefore should have stayed and helped. You see no one is disputing McQuery’s belief that he saw a rape.</p>
<p>Sandusky is disputing that. You can’t say we can only be sure of everything you want to be sure of, and nothing else.</p>
<p>That is not the point- McQuery says he saw a rape- even if he was wrong- he should have stayed. Once he believed there was a rape, even if there was not, he should have stayed.</p>
<p>There is no dispute between anyone about what McQuery believed he saw- unless you think McQuery is unsure of what he saw himself? So you are correct if McQuery did not believe he saw a rape but just horseplay I could see him leaving.</p>
<p>By the way your lame argument that I can not have it both ways is nonsense. I am not looking to have it both ways- no one is disputing what McQuery claims he saw and did the night of the attack. He claims he saw a rape. He walked. Sandusky claims there was no rape not that McQuery does not think he saw a rape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And with that, I’m done here for today.</p>
<p>Merry Christmas, all. And may it be with no thoughts of Sandusky.</p>
<p>Tom, I understand what you are saying. What McQueary says he saw is not in question therefore you are taking it at face value. Merry Christmas! :)</p>
<p>
This may be the source of some of the misunderstanding here. That’s not what the grand jury report is at all. First of all, the grand jury isn’t even presented with all of the evidence–only what the prosecutor chooses to show them. The report is written, at least as I understand it, by the prosecution staff and signed off on by the grand jury. It does not include a summary of all the evidence they heard, and it doesn’t include any exculpatory evidence. None of the testimony taken by the grand jury was cross-examined, and the people being questioned couldn’t summon witnesses to defend them.</p>
<p>So even when somebody says something like, “We know McQueary witnessed a rape,” we don’t know that. We don’t even know, really, what he said about it–only a summary of what he said. We don’t at all know how strongly he’d hold to the details if cross-examined, or if there are others who will contradict his testimony.</p>
<p>We may never get all the facts–and probably some of the parties will never be charged with anything and others may never be convicted of anything. If you are an innocent person caught up in something like this, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to get your reputation back. There may not be anybody innocent here, but I just don’t care for the rush to judgment. It’s un-American, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Ok, Hunt. That is an important clarification. Thank you.</p>
<p>So, is McQ’s testimony in question? Could he ultimately be charged with perjury (depending on what others say he said in their perjury trials)?</p>
<p>[Ex-Penn</a> State Coach Sandusky Reportedly Looking To Do Interviews With Wife Over Alleged Abuse | Fox News](<a href=“Ex-Penn State Coach Sandusky Reportedly Looking to Do Interviews With Wife Over Alleged Abuse | Fox News”>Ex-Penn State Coach Sandusky Reportedly Looking to Do Interviews With Wife Over Alleged Abuse | Fox News)</p>
<p>Cannot fathom how these interviews will help him. His previous two interviews made him look even worse, if that is even possible.</p>
<p>He must be trying to taint the entire jury pool. Either that or he really really really doesn’t believe he did anything wrong and is trying to convince the rest of us.</p>
<p>I continue to think he has the worst lawyer on the planet. I also suspect that he believes that his actions were innocent, and if we knew the truth, we’d think he was innocent-- but he is mistaken in this belief, and if we actually knew the truth, we’d know he is a child rapist.</p>
<p>There’s an interesting book called “The Invisible Gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us”. It’s all about selective attention (and inattention), selective memory, memory misattribution, misplaced confidence, illusions of knowledge, illusions of cause.</p>
<p>Makes for a good read to frame these conversations.</p>
<p>I’m reading a similar book, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahnemann. It’s a new book about how our subconscious mental processes sometimes lead us astray. I highly, highly recommend it. According to what I’ve read in the book, Sandusky might believe that he is a good person, and therefore he can’t possibly be doing evil things, and therefore if we knew what he knew, we would know that he wasn’t doing evil things. (That is vastly oversimplified, but it’s the general idea.)</p>
<p>I’m convinced the lawyer is edging close to a hung jury, or at least tainting the jury pool (before it even starts!)</p>
<p>It’s too bad that he can’t be forced to shut up. If he is trying to taint the pool, it would be nice if he could be stopped. Not to mention (assuming he is guilty) that every time he opens his mouth he reoffends his victims.</p>
<p>Penn State Lettermen are angry that the administration went outside of the Penn State “circle” by hiring an outsider.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Paterno himself was an outsider from Brown, same as O’Brien. But I guess that was long ago before the culture is what it is now.</p>