I saw that McQ testified this time around that he never used the term "horseplay" and that he was clear it was sexual. But, he also testified he did not see it. And, Curley and Schultz both testified that they did not get the impression from McQ it was molestation and never conveyed that to Spanier. Who knows who said what to whom?
We can parse words all day long but would any of us typing here not come to the conclusion, after the 98 incident, after the 01 incident and continually seeing this guy with kids around all the time not know something was up. Especially when the 98 and 01 incidents show he clearly took these kids into a situation (shower facilities in gyms after hours when he believed no one else would be present) what thus guy was up to.
Well, I think if any of us where now in any situation even slightly resembling this one we all know exactly how we would act and react. But, we are all educated about this now. You keep coming to the conclusion that this was absolutely a cover up because there is no other explanation. Maybe that's what happened, but I'm not convinced that there is no other explanation. In fact, I have a really hard time believing this was a cover up.
I'm inclined to think that that the more likely explanation is they didn't want to believe it and convinced themselves it wasn't true. In Sandusky you have a guy who was 50 years old, had been running a charity with children that had been checked out continuously by the state, who had been allowed to foster and adopt kids which also requires a lot of checking and involvement by Child Youth Services and various social workers and other professionals, and who had been a pillar of the community for many years and who they knew personally. How could it possibly have been that they and they alone were aware of him maybe molesting a kid? How had it never come up before? If you these guys back in 2001, not knowing everything you know now, which seems more likely? That McQ was wrong or the guy who had the charity and the foster kids and was the big local hero was a pedophile? Which would you believe? Which would you want to believe? Do you call the cops and risk ruining his reputation with an accusation that you're not sure of? Sure, something was raised in 1998 but the DA said "nothing to see here, no charges filed". So, maybe this is just another misunderstanding? Because, how can it be that PSU officials - who have minimal contact with him and the various kids he's involved with - are concerned about this and no one else seems to be?
I'm not offering that as a defense of their actions, or inactions. I think - and I've always thought - that someone needed to notify the proper authorities and it's baffling to me that they didn't considering they all had children and even grandchildren. The standard of care should have been "what if it was my kid?". But, that aside, I don't need to paint them as evil or involved in some massive conspiracy to hide this to understand how maybe this happened. They screwed up. There should be accountability for that. But, the need to paint the picture that they had to be worried about their reputation is, to me, an attempt to try to prove to ourselves that if it were us in that situation things would have been different. Maybe they would be. Hopefully. But, I don't think any of us are as perfect as we like to believe. These guys made a mistake. A big one. And, much as none of us want to admit it, I think it's possible any of us could have made the same big mistake.