Jesus, people, this is not complicated. McQueary clearly told the Grand Jury that he witnessed with his own eyes Jerry Sandusky anally penetrating a young boy. There is zero ambiguity about the severity of Sandusky's abuse.
As several of you have suggested I should, I've now taken the time to read the grand jury report. As I thought from the other comments in the thread, it's quite damning. If even a fraction of what's in there is proven to be true, Sandusky should rot in hell, as should all of the people who enabled him to keep doing this.
And, also as I thought, this is one side of a reprehensible story. So, let me correct your statement:
There is zero ambiguity about the severity of the abuse McQueary testified that he witnessed.
I'm sorry, but there's a critical difference between that and there being zero ambiguity about the severity of Sandusky's abuse. The grand jury report is convincing to me, but again, it's one side of the story. I honestly believe it to un-American to judge Sandusky and the other people charged without their having the opportunity to defend themselves.
I realize that's a very unpopular position in here, and that I'm ultimately asking you to hold off on condemning them for heinous acts of which they will very likely be convicted. That's not an easy thing to do, but it's also part of the genius of the American legal system. And I hope you will understand that I am in no way defending the conduct that has been alleged, nor your proper outrage if it is proven to be true, as I think is very likely. But it's in part because these charges hit home, because it is so abusive and invasive of a crime that it hits all of us emotionally, that it's particularly important to make sure of the facts.
In terms of Penn State, the only defense I'd find acceptable for their conduct is that they investigated, concluded the allegations were full of crap, and were entirely correct. In any other situation, I'd like to be able to charge them as accessories to all of the abuses that occurred after they had an opportunity to put an end to it; they're ethically culpable, even if they are not legally so. But, again, I'm willing to wait and let them answer the charges before we string them up, and I'm disappointed that I seem to be the only one who is.
Anyway, I realize that I've upset everybody by wading into the middle of a perfectly good vigilante-style pile on, so having said my piece, I'll move on. I'll come back to the thread and join in the condemnation after everybody has had a chance to defend themselves, and it's been proven that we're correct in condemning them. In the meantime, I'm sorry that we disagree so fundamentally on this, since I enjoy these discussions, and I do recognize that you're honestly baffled and/or upset at my thoughts on this one.