I cannot say that Jerry Sandusky is guilty of the crime of which the grand jury has accused him. He deserves his day in court. I can however address the actions (or lack thereof) by McQueary.

Apparently if you are accused of a crime you deserve a presumption of innocence, but if you are not accused of a crime you deserve to be judged on incomplete information and then publicly accosted. Good to know.

I expect it to be deleted, but here’s a copy/paste:

“I have read the grand jury testimony”

- No, you haven’t. You have read what is referred to as a Grand Jury presentment, which contains little to no actual testimony and is instead a summary, carefully crafted by the prosecution, to set out enough evidence to bring charges without including too much information that would give the defense attorney something to exploit.

“I can however address the actions (or lack thereof) by McQueary.”

- Along the lines of what I said above…are you sure you can address these things? Do you know what McQueary saw or didn’t see? Do you know what he did or didn’t do? No…you know what someone in the PA Attorney General’s office decided to characterize in their summary.

“He states that when he entered the shower room to investigate, he witnessed former coach Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a young boy.”

- Does he now?

“Upon witnessing this crime against humanity, McQueary did not rush in to stop it or even shout out "What the hell are you doing you sick bastard?!" Instead, McQueary walked away.”

- Are you sure this is what happened? Are you sure he didn’t yell that or something else? Are you even sure that HE was sure that what he saw was a sexual assault? Are you sure Sandusky and/or the kid didn’t say “hey Mike, we’re just horsing around?” and grab towels and leave the area? No. You’re not.

You never heard or read a word of McQueary’s testimony. YOU READ A BARE BONES SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE PROSECUTOR FOR A JUDGE TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST A DEFENDANT. If he said or did anything, it wouldn’t have been included. So how do you know, then?

“According to his own words, he abandoned a child in distress at the hands of pure evil. He walked away from a situation he could have easily stopped, even with the simplest of actions.”

- Wait, so you actually heard McQueary’s words? With your insistence, I’m starting to think you may have. If so, I apologize.

No? Well then, you might want to steer away from claiming he said ANYTHING in his own words, or “walked away” from something that was “easily stopped”. You are a published writer. I’d like to think you know better.



The stuff you wrote about Penn State and cults, I’ll leave alone for the most part. Consider this charitable on my part, since it’s all pretty laughable. Consistent with pretty much everything else you wrote in the article, you clearly don’t really know what you’re talking about at all.

“I had no idea who he was until a month ago, and I loathe him. His life is ruined, and I believe justly so”

This is pretty strange… What if it turns out that he wasn’t sure what he saw or heard in the locker room? That he DID in fact stop whatever was happening? That he was confused because it wasn’t as black and white as it appears to everyone now, and he decided to still report it because he felt uncomfortable about it? What if he DID speak with police at some point before or after talking to Paterno and the school administrators?

You do realize that all of the above “ifs” are still in play, right? Because we don’t know what he said to the grand jury, only what they chose to summarize and include. Everything he said to the prosecution wasn’t included, let alone everything he’d say with a defense attorney asking him more specific questions. To take the summary as gospel belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what we’re dealing with.

Listen, I knew who McQueary was before last month, and I didn’t really like him that much. But I think that the fact that you’ve taken such a strong stance based solely on information that was pre-packaged and organized by someone with a clear agenda (the AG, whose aim is to bring charges against Sandusky and eventually get a conviction) is pretty ridiculous. I understand that you are not religious, but pretty much every religion or moral code has some sort of wisdom on the propriety of judging others on incomplete understanding. But hey man, stand in judgment if you think yourself fit. Do what you want.

You’ve had a month to follow the story and go beyond speculation and the parroting of irresponsible stories that came out 3 weeks ago. It’s disappointing that people are still writing this drivel.