Maggie Lizer
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 672
I can hardly een read the updates - sick, sick, sick. All of the adults involed should be hanged.
No human being worthy of life would have walked out of that locker room and left the boy in the shower with his rapist. Full stop.
Of course..in theory. But we don't know WHAT McQueary saw. He probably rationalized that the boy was "of age". Maybe he just saw arms and legs then ran out of the room.
The only acceptable reaction when he witnessed what he testified that he witnessed was to pull Sandusky off the kid and call 911 right then and there. Walking out of the locker room and leaving that kid with Sandusky, calling his father, and then telling a useless piece of garbage football coach what you witnessed after the fact is not "doing what he had to do".
No human being worthy of life would have walked out of that locker room and left the boy in the shower with his rapist. Full stop.


I would love to see every person who was part of this locked in a barn and then have the barn set on fire. They are all irredemable pieces of garbage from Sandusky and his wife to anyone who know at that school or charity.
When that evil old coot Paterno kicked the bucket I danced a little jig. I was happier to hear of his death than I was Bin Laden's and I hope to break out the dancing shoes when Sandusky gets a broom handle in prison and McQueary gets a little street justice from someone (fingers crossed).
The only acceptable reaction when he witnessed what he testified that he witnessed was to pull Sandusky off the kid and call 911 right then and there. Walking out of the locker room and leaving that kid with Sandusky, calling his father, and then telling a useless piece of garbage football coach what you witnessed after the fact is not "doing what he had to do".
No human being worthy of life would have walked out of that locker room and left the boy in the shower with his rapist. Full stop.
Yes we do, it is on the record as sworn testimony. Have you read it? It is quite clear that even in the moment he knew that the act was sexual and estimated the boy as 10 to 12.
I will reiterate that seeing what McQueary says he saw (not what we interpret that he saw but what he swore under oath he saw) the only acceptable option is to pull Sandusky off the kid. Maybe if he had left and called 911 I would give him a small semblance of a pass but he didn't. He called daddy and then did nothing until the next day at which time a bunch of other people did nothing.
There will always be child molesters and pedophiles in the world. It is a sad fact but still a fact. When the rest of us turn a blind eye and not only ignore it but help to facilitate it we are truly doomed as a society. That is what happened in this situation. I've seen more outrage about pool hopping and reusing refillable mugs from previous trips than I have about the systematic rape of children by some of the PSU/JoPa apologists in this whole ordeal. They are all guilty of what happened to those boys and God himself couldn't convince me otherwise.
I'll save my anger and disgust for the perpetrator. Everyone else is either stupid, and enabler or whatever, no matter, these people are smart enough to get away with this kind of crap like Sandusky did for years. After he is punished, THEN I'll villify the others.
I completely agree with FireDancer.
I am about as far removed from this situation as one could possibly be but I am, and have been, so angry over this horrible situation and I don't know what to do about it. Every time I see that monster's disgusting smirk I want to vomit.
Regarding McQueary, another person who makes me want to vomit, there are no excuses for his cowardice. By walking out of that room and leaving that boy there, he condoned Sandusky's behavior. I can say with 100% certainty that if I walk in on a similar situation the perp wouldn't know what hit him. I would protect the child at all costs.

I wish just ONE person would accuse him of the same thing, "isn't it TRUE, Mr. Defense Attorney, that you took on defending a known pedophile for MONEY?"
![]()
I'll save my anger and disgust for the perpetrator. Everyone else is either stupid, and enabler or whatever, no matter, these people are smart enough to get away with this kind of crap like Sandusky did for years. After he is punished, THEN I'll villify the others.
What bothers me is the way those victims are going to be beaten up by the defense. I know they have very few choices to defend him but the money part is so pathetic. I know many abused children who are now adults and reliving it is bad enough without being browbeaten by some overpaid creep in a suit.
I wish just ONE person would accuse him of the same thing, "isn't it TRUE, Mr. Defense Attorney, that you took on defending a known pedophile for MONEY?"
![]()
I get what you are saying, but when you think about it, by definition, they are all perpetrators. In my mind if they knew it was going on and did nothing, or only handle it internally, they may as well have been the ones raping the boys.
I agree with you about the trial.

But today the judge reportedly said that the prosecution's case was weak????
The only acceptable reaction when he witnessed what he testified that he witnessed was to pull Sandusky off the kid and call 911 right then and there. Walking out of the locker room and leaving that kid with Sandusky, calling his father, and then telling a useless piece of garbage football coach what you witnessed after the fact is not "doing what he had to do".
No human being worthy of life would have walked out of that locker room and left the boy in the shower with his rapist. Full stop.
For the first time, I am really concerned about the outcome of this trial.
I always believed it would be a slam-dunk. Reliable witnesses, multiple victims, and at least one attack that was eye-witnessed.
But today the judge reportedly said that the prosecution's case was weak????
How the heck stronger does this case have to be?
Is the cult of Penn State so pervasive that the judicial system in the entire state cannot see the truth?
I don't have a good feeling . . .
That's not entirely true. He was talking about how he previously felt, not how he currently feels. He was referencing how he felt months ago.
http://gma.yahoo.com/jerry-sandusky-trial-judge-had-doubts-case-115820530--abc-news-topstories.html
"I've been concerned about this since the beginning," Cleland said. "There were very broad representations made by the Commonwealth on the bill of particulars. Since then, the Commonwealth has submitted an amended bill of particulars, and amended their information, which I believe now meets the standards of due process. Although early on I certainly was not persuaded that that was the case."
Is he really allowed to make ANY comments at all regarding a current case? That just doesn't seem right at all.