Now, I'm guessing that McQueary's absence just wasn't enough to dial down the outrage, so they took the additional step of putting him on leave.

The hesitation I have about canceling this last home game and/or canceling the rest of the season is that - at least as far as we know - no players have been implicated in this, and canceling the games punishes them more than it does the coaches involved.

I think the whole thing's going to get a lot worse before this is all over, a lot of people are going to get caught up in the criminal justice system, more victims are going to come forward, people are going to turn on each other, civil suits are going to come close to paralyzing the local courts, donations are going to dry up, recruiting is going to be non-existent.

Furthermore, we have two naked people, one of whom had a prior history, and one with clothes on. So there is now way, as far as I can see, that McQ was worried about any charges against him.

He didn't witness the act McQueary told him about, and he fulfilled his duty of reporting what was told to him to authorities. The grand jury was satisfied with his account and the AG has said he's not a target in the investigation.

Sandusky was already retired, although he retained privileges, which were the product of his severance package negotiated with the university -- not granted by Paterno.

Sports Information Director Jeff Nelson said that McQueary was not in protective custody - that his characterization was not true, raising the prospect that it was an attempt at black humor that fell flat.

Also, if the suicide attempt was the product of Sandusky's actions, and a review was conducted, what part did Mrs. Sandusky play in the later coverups? If anyone was on notice, it would seem to be her. Did she just look the other way because she didn't want to know?

Unless, of course, Matt's issues that led to his suicide were not related to Sandusky and pre-existed his moving in with them. Why was he in living with Sandusky in the first place when his mother was available?  Because he burned down a barn.  His mother was only allowed to visit one day a month and for that reason, resented Sandusky according to Sandusky's lawyer.

For all we know, if he was sexually abused, it happened at his mother's home and his emotional scars from living with his mother caused him to attempt suicide at Sandusky's once he realized how a normal family lives.

Also, not every pedophile is  predatory. (See this Mayo Clinic report.)

I don't think you can assume that Matt Sandusky was sexually abused by Sandusky because he attempted suicide or that his suicide attempt was the beginning of the scandal. Maybe it was and maybe one had nothing to do with the other. I'd caution against concluding that Sandusky violated every child he came into contact with. The only witnesses to sexual attacks are McQueary and a janitor with dementia. Neither victim  has  been identified or testified.

One other thing: Matt did not attempt suicide alone. He did it with a girl who was also living at Sandusky's at the time. Since there are no allegations Sandusky molested females, what was her motivation? The day Matt attempted suicide, he wrote a letter to his probation officer saying he wanted to remain living at Sandusky's.

"I would like to be placed back with the Sanduskys. I feel that they have supported me even when I have messed up. They are a loving caring group of people. I love both my biological family and the Sandusky family."

I'm not defending Sandusky, just trying to stick to the facts as they are revealed and not make leaps based on assumptions just because newspapers do. Matt already had issues when he got to Sandusky's. Sandusky may or may not have contributed to his attempted suicide. What happened with him at the Sandusky home in 1995 may or may not have been alleged to be sexual in nature.

One last question: Matt was not supboenaed to the grand jury and has not testified. Why not if the reports from 1995 indicated sexual abuse? Maybe the concerns for his physical safety referred to aggressive physical discipline rather than sexual abuse.

From Sports Illustrated in 1999:

Matt Sandusky, 20, used to have a different last name. He was a troubled kid from a town near State College. When he was eight, he got involved with a program called the Second Mile that Sandusky had started in 1981 to help kids like Matt. But it wasn't enough to keep him on the straight and narrow. When Matt was 15 he ran afoul of the law--"I'd rather not say for what," he says--and was put on probation. Jerry and Dottie Sandusky took him in as a foster child and adopted him two years later. Result? Matt is now a junior at Penn State and expects to graduate next year with a degree in guidance.

"My life changed when I came to live here," says Matt. "There were rules, there was discipline, there was caring. Dad put me on a workout program. He gave me someone to talk to, a father figure I never had. I have no idea where I'd be without him and Mom. I don't even want to think about it...

One can only speculate on why his dad told him that, but the one guess that makes sense to me is that at the time, Sandusky and McQueary were the only adults in the building, and if it came down to a "he said, he said," Sandusky was the most powerful of the two.  He likely would have been the one who was believed if he said that it was McQueary who was really raping the child.

Why his dad didn't tell him to leave the building and call 911 I don't know, but there's been way too much "woulda coulda shoulda" in this scandal already.  I'll withhold judgment until I hear or read the testimony at the criminal trials.

By the way, I think it was entirely understandable and human that his dad was the first call that McQueary made.  His dad was the most important authority figure in his life.  I'd be surprised if the cops were on his radar at that instant.

In conjunction with helping out a middle-school science class, I have had training in recognizing and reporting child abuse.  I now know what to do.  But before I was trained, the first call I made might have been to my wife to ask her what to do.

However, the head of campus security is one of the now-fired VPs from Penn State whose responsibility by federal law (the Clery Act) was to report the rape (and any of a list of crimes on campuses).  He did not do so, so he is now facing charges.

And as for McQueary pursuing whether the report had been made, I have to wonder whether he could have done so, as this was a juvenile, and I don't think that any calls to police would have told him more than "we can't tell you."

That's my read on it.  I wish that he had done more, but on the other hand, he is the only one who seems to have reported at all -- and I have to think that over a decade and a half, others knew and did nothing.  

I also ought to note that I find the grand jury indictment a bit vague on some of these points, and perhaps that is intentional, as McQueary's testimony will be needed against Sandusky -- and it may be that we do not know all yet, as some testimony may be being withheld so as to not hand a potential defense team everything now?  As I understand it, once lawyered up, it is up to Sandusky and his defense team to do discovery.