Replies

By Joepa's own words in his grand jury testimony, he admits to being told that it was of a sexual nature. He is claiming he didn't know it was rape, but he admits it was of a sexual nature. Isn't that enough to question McQuarry (the eyewitness) further on it? Not for Joepa. He didn't want to know anymore details.

Well, when told it was "inappropriate" conduct in the shower between a grown man and a child, he concluded it was sexual in nature, pretty much anyone would, but what is most damning, was that he did NOT ask McQuarry what he specifically saw, and showed, no curiosity or interest in the details, not at that point in time, nor at any point and time after.

The "don't tell me, I don't want to know" school of thought, may get you a pass on legal grounds, but it will never get you one on moral grounds. He may not be charged, but he will be shamed.

" he concluded it was sexual in nature, pretty much anyone would, but what is most damning, was that he did NOT ask McQuarry what he specifically saw, and showed, no curiosity or interest in the details, not at that point in time, nor at any point and time after."

Yeah, that was exactly what I was trying to get at but I guess I said it poorly. If McQuarry had come to me with this story, my first question would be, okay tell me exactly what you witnessed. Joe seemed to show no interest in finding out what happened. Just in kicking it upstairs and getting it off his plate. Doing the minimal and moving on. When I think of great men and women (as Joe was surely thought of before this), I think of men and women that go out of their way to do the right thing. Joepa didn't do the right thing by this 10 year old boy (who as I understand we still don't know the identity of) and all of Sandusky's future victims.