All of those men believed McQueary saw something that severely disturbed him. I suspect McQueary didn't want to believe that Sandusky was a child molester, but what he witnessed was strongly suggestive of that. That's why he reported in the way he did, by downplaying it to some degree, and being truthful that he didn't actually "see" molestation, but believing that's what was likely going on. And that's why all those men reacted the way they did.
All except for Sandusky.
Among all those men, he's the only one who knew about the police warning him not to shower with any more boys back in 1998. And he certainly didn't offer that up to Curley when Curley confronted him. In fact, he even denied being with a boy in a shower at that first meeting. The fact is, you can't trust Sandusky to be honest in anything about this. Did you know he claimed that he gave Curley the boy's name when he talked to Curley a second time? Did you know he later claimed that he did not give the boy's name to Curley? He can't have been telling the truth both times.
I saw that you professed a 100% belief that Sandusky is innocent back in November. I also saw you profess a belief that an exoneration of Sandusky would exonerate Joe Paterno. I can understand how you came to believe this, but my opinion is that you are mistaken and that your efforts are misguided.
If you want to argue he didn't get a fair trial, I suggest you brush up on your facts. This should include re-reading all the trial testimony, in particular Cleland's jury instructions before closing arguments, Sandusky's post conviction motions, the denial of those motions, and the denial of his appeals. You should also understand that a perfect trial is not guaranteed. Here's some reading material on that:
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4944&context=mulr
As for Sandusky's PCRA, my opinion is that Lindsay was very sloppy. The PCRA was filled with numerous internal contradictions. I suggest you re-read it with a critical eye after reading what I've previously recommended. And if you haven't done so already, you should get access to the PCRA appendix and read that as well. There are things in it which are incredibly damaging to his appeal. Again, Lindsay was very sloppy.
You might also consider brushing up on PCRA law. Everything ultimately boils down to whether the "truth determining process" was affected. In other words, were things so distorted at trial that no one could have discovered the truth. I won't deny that police lied at the trial, but I will say that this was on full display to the jury and Cleland pointed it all. I won't deny that some victims had lawyers before the trial started, but that was on full display to the jury - it was one of Amendola's primary defense points. Was Amendola ineffective? Perhaps, but I suspect he knew he had an uphill battle back in January 2009 when Sandusky refused to take his advice about not talking to Jessica Dershem, the result of which was a finding of child abuse. Amendola attended that meeting. And not once did he object to Dershem's testimony about that meeting at trial.
The truth is Sandusky is a child molester. Amendola knew this in 2009.
Did you know Amendola has a history of declaring himself ineffective for former clients accused of rape?
The criminal justice system will decide whether he got a fair trial. In my opinion, they will determine he got a fair trial, and his PCRA appeal will be denied. And I will be perfectly fine with it. I doubt I can change your mind, but please consider reading everything I've recommended in this post. Here's some more reading material on PCRA's:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...M&ttl=42&div=0&chpt=95&mobile_choice=suppress
http://www.mcdonalddefense.com/2011/12/16/pennsylvanias-post-conviction-relief-act-pcra/
Lastly, your perceptions about how victims of child sexual abuse react and behave are so far off the mark, I don't know where to start. I will say this. It is incredibly common for victims to be inaccurate in certain details of their abuse, especially when it was years ago, and in particular when they were compliant in their victimization. This does not mean they were inaccurate in the fact of their victimization. I suggest you read all of this:
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
The last and most important quote listed at the end of this guide on investigating child molesters is appropriate in many situations, but especially here:
Regardless of intelligence and education and often despite common sense and evidence to the contrary, adults tend to believe what they want or need to believe. The greater the need, the greater the tendency.
