[Colofornian]

No he didn't. You're clueless. The assistant himself wasn't clear about what he saw. You are aware, aren't you, that the shower incident was the one incident Sandusky was ruled "not guilty" on? Of course you aren't - - you're clueless.

Per the Grand Jury Presentment (2010): McQueary reported that he saw: 'fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy'
[language of Grand Jury presentment, p.7]

#1: So your "wasn't clear about what he saw" is perhaps a distinction of sodomy/rape vs. "fondling" or other sexual abuse.

#2: Remember that some of the jury that convicted Sandusky were diehard Nittany Lion fans. So, of course, they would vote for a "not guilty" on the one charge that was closest to the dagger of the heart of Penn State and Paterno. They wanted Sandusky properly "hung"; but they wanted the controversy to be as straight-armed as possible away from Penn State/Paterno.

[Lancey Howard]

By the way, do some homework before you make a fool of yourself again. Start by reading post #26, re: “Victim #2 - the boy in the shower”.