Mostly, I've been focused on the behavior of Mike McQueary whose conduct, as described in the grand jury report, was terrible.
According to fresh news reports, he is claiming in an email that not only did he "stop" the assault on the kid, but he also talked to the police about the matter.
Just what did he do to stop the assault other than witness it and get seen by Sandusky witnessing it? Did he say something? Did he shout, "What are you doing?" or "Hey, cut that out!" before leaving the scene to call his father? Is that his idea of "doing the right thing"?
When did he talk to the police about what he witnessed? Within five minutes, five hours, five days, five months or five years?
Why would the grand jury and the attorney general leave details out of their report about McQueary's behavior that would have put their star witness in a better light?
As for Jerry Sandusky and his now famous interview with Bob Costas, the man denied being a pedophile, denied ever touching a kid for sexual gratification or in sexual intent. He will be denying things for the rest of his life. If he expects to be found not guilty in a court of law, however, he will have to be more convincing than he was with Costas.
UPDATE: Sandusky's lawyer is claiming that the boy in the shower with Sandusky that night, is now grown up and will deny that any sexual activity took place, let alone, a rape.
Sandusky, the lawyer said, recalled providing the name of the boy Penn State officials who confronted Sandusky with the allegation of something inappropriate happening in the shower. If, as I have suspected all along, that McQueary didn't provide them with the graphic details of an alleged rape, maybe the reason was that he didn't actually see what he says he saw.
Certainly that would better explain why nobody, including McQueary, immediately called the police. There are three other possibilities.
1. The alleged victim is ashamed of having been victimized and doesn't want to admit it, even today.
2. McQueary saw a rape in progress but having failed to rescue the kid, sugarcoated what he saw when reporting it to Paterno and others.
3. There was a rape and McQueary reported the full details of what he saw to Paterno and the others, who covered it up. But of all the sexual activity and fondling alleged by the accusers in the grand jury report, only one rape is alleged, and that is the one allegedly seen by McQueary. So far, I don't think any other accuser has alleged being abused in such a forceful and painful way.
It seems to me that the reason the grand jury found McQueary so credible on this point is because saying what he saw and what he did and didn't do afterward, put him in such an unfavorable light. Why would he tell a lie that made him look so bad himself?
The more these guys talk, the more questions they raise.