"if you examine Mike McQueary’s subsequent testimony, which was given on 16 December 2011 at the preliminary hearing for Penn State’s former Athletic Director, Tim Curley, and its former Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz, you’ll see that McQueary is steadfast in his assertion that he never saw “insertion.” Twice, McQueary asserted the essence of this sworn testimony: “I did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling, so I can’t sit here and say that I know 100 percent sure that there was intercourse, but that’s what I said to myself and that’s what I believed was happening.” [Transcript of Preliminary Hearing, pp.13-14, p. 72] When he was asked if he saw “the look of pain on the boy’s face,” McQueary said, “no.”[p. 97]"Later, under cross-examination, McQueary was even more emphatic: “I have never used the word anal or rape in this—since day one.” [Transcript, pp. 71-72] Thus, the reader must doubt the grand jury presentment every time it summarizes McQueary’s testimony by asserting he saw something “anal.”
The Second False Assertion:
"After falsely asserting that McQueary “saw a naked boy…being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky,” the author who summarized the grand jury presentment made a very misleading assertion when he wrote that: McQueary “went to Paterno’s home, where he reported what he had seen.” [Grand Jury Report, p. 7]
"Obviously, by linking the false assertion that McQueary “saw a naked boy…being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky” to the assertion that McQueary “reported what he had seen” to Paterno, the author who summarized McQueary’s testimony wants American readers to believe that the grand jurors believed that McQueary went to Paterno and told him that he witnessed Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a young boy. Perhaps, the jurors did.
"In addition, McQueary testified under oath that he never used the term “sodomy” or “anal intercourse” when he notified Paterno about what he saw in the shower on 1 March 2002. [p. Preliminary Hearing Transcript, p. 25] (In fact, McQueary testified under oath that he could not recall using the words “sexual assault,” when talking to Paterno, or even using the word “crime” to describe Sandusky’s behavior) Actually, McQueary’s preliminary hearing testimony substantiates Paterno’s earlier assertion (in a news release) that McQueary “at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report.” [Star-Ledger Wire Services, Nov. 8, 2011]
(AMPU, I'd pull this quote if I were you...how many witnesses of a rape actually see specific "insertion"???...a ridiculous degree of actually disclaiming a rape...and a dangerous one...and one not worthy of Christians to introduce)
Wow! AMPU...far from you to be introducing the thought that there's "nothing wrong" with men taking showers with boys -- with no one else around.
"Later, under cross-examination, McQueary was even more emphatic: “I have never used the word anal or rape in this—since day one.”
Tell us, AMPU: How many men are in jail -- or were placed there -- for molesting boys minus any actual rape? Why are you going to the nth degree to make distinctions without distinctions in this particular matter?
Given that you don't seem to deny that Sandusky bared himself before a boy, and that McQueary heard slapping sounds along the lines of intercourse as the two were close in a shower, is that something we as Christians should be promoting as "acceptable" in any way by defending the firsthand eyewitnesses and secondhand earwitnesses of this?