(As for those who are coming forward now, plausible explanations that leave Sandusky innocent include: they, too, plan to sue; or, they have a grudge against Sandusky for something non-sexual that happened when he mentored them; or, they suppose that merely inappropriate activity is actually criminal activity.)
McQueary's testimony can be considered honest but inaccurate.
But what can explain the testimony of the janitors? Why, if Sandusky is innocent, would they allege child abuse of alleged victim 8 to the Grand Jury? The Presentment actually provides a clue as to why they might have done so. Perhaps the janitor who claimed to see child abuse was offended by such behavior as Sandusky first showering with a boy and then walking hand-in-hand down a hallway with him. Perhaps this elderly gentleman believed that Sandusky was abusing boys, and decided to put a stop to it. So he lied. But after lying about Sandusky to his coworkers, lies accompanied by an impressive act--methinks the janitor doth protest too much!--it occurred to them that they might lose their jobs if they reported the matter, so they decided not to report. I realize this explanation of the janitors' actions is almost entirely speculation. But not total speculation. Why believe that a man of such age and experience would be so greatly shaken if he witnessed a sample of humanity's unsavory sexual activities? Is it conceivable that he was greatly shaken? Yes. Is it likely? Not so much.
Conclusions.
Based on the Grand Jury Presentment, it appears to me that: (1) the testimony of all witnesses alleging crimes by Sandusky is sufficiently doubtful that it is not obvious that Sandusky is guilty of any crimes; and (2) Curley and Schultz are innocent.
End
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
