GatewayRedbirds.com

I'd feel better if ghostrunner had moved it.

slide_into_first wrote:I'd feel better if ghostrunner had moved it.

How do we know he didn't? Maybe thrill just split it.

thrill wrote:

vinsanity wrote:No where in the report does it say "McQueary saw what was happened and turned around unnoticed and let it continue."

This is a good example of why I and others have asked people to know the facts before commenting. From page 7 of the grand jury report:
Warning - Graphic description of alleged rape of a child within the spoiler.

[SHOW]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... 52011.html

The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both
Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.

I'm sorry, but that is a sworn statement that doesn't leave much room to interpretation. Nowhere does it say he intervened.

It leaves open a lot of room for interpretation. It absolutely amazes me that the assumption that so many people here come to is that the act continued when Sandusky was caught.

Read the grand jury report after this all goes to trial (you'll find I was the one that split & moved it).

cpebbles wrote:

thrill wrote:

vinsanity wrote:No where in the report does it say "McQueary saw what was happened and turned around unnoticed and let it continue."

This is a good example of why I and others have asked people to know the facts before commenting. From page 7 of the grand jury report:
Warning - Graphic description of alleged rape of a child within the spoiler.

[SHOW]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... 52011.html

The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both
Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.

I'm sorry, but that is a sworn statement that doesn't leave much room to interpretation. Nowhere does it say he intervened.

It leaves open a lot of room for interpretation. It absolutely amazes me that the assumption that so many people here come to is that the act continued when Sandusky was caught.

Who thinks that? No one thinks that. I assume it stopped (as I clearly said in the thread). I just don't think it's clear whether McQueary's role was active or passive in making it stop. Again, what is clear is that McQueary did not go to the police afterward. He also shared access to the PSU facilities with Sandusky after the incident. That doesn't and shouldn't sit well with anyone who reads it.

thrill wrote:Who thinks that? No one thinks that. I assume it stopped (as I clearly said in the thread). I just don't think it's clear whether McQueary's role was active or passive in making it stop.

My issue was with the suggestion that McQueary did something wrong because he 'left the boy in harm's way' (and that asking for clarification whether or not we know either for certain was unjustified). I don't feel comfortable persecuting the guy on that end until the whole story comes out.

His complacency with Sandusky on campus for another 7 years is another matter.

thrill wrote:

cpebbles wrote:It leaves open a lot of room for interpretation. It absolutely amazes me that the assumption that so many people here come to is that the act continued when Sandusky was caught.

Who thinks that? No one thinks that. I assume it stopped (as I clearly said in the thread). I just don't think it's clear whether McQueary's role was active or passive in making it stop. Again, what is clear is that McQueary did not go to the police afterward. He also shared access to the PSU facilities with Sandusky after the incident. That doesn't and shouldn't sit well with anyone who reads it.

This entire sideline in the thread arose from people expressing disgust that McQueary allowed the act to continue. I personally don't think any less of a guy for not going and punching Sandusky, or whatever people wanted him to "actively" do to stop the rape, I just care that it was stopped.

Should he have called the police? Clearly. Should he have separated the kid from Sandusky? Sure, but people almost never function well in traumatic situations.

I thought the disagreement in that thread was whether or not it's rude to impatiently ask people to read the grand jury report rather than posting things like "maybe there's some relevant info in that report I didn't read but I haven't read it and here's my opinion."?

Internet tough guy syndrome has ran rampant during this case. We all want to think we'd rush into that shower, headbutt the naked rapist, pick him up over our heads and jack-knife power bomb him onto the tile, but most of us would probably stand there in shock.

I don't know if this has to do with my comment, but complicit means unreported.

holy crap. all I said was everyone should read the grand jury report to be fully informed. I wasn't being short or dismissive. I certainly wasn't suggesting that people shouldn't post in the thread. If that's the conclusion someone drew - well, than I don't know what else to say.