Sandusky is obvious. McQueary is the more interesting question. Was it denial? Was he instructed to keep quiet? Was he threatened? Did he think he was protecting the program? Is it obvious? I don't know how much he knew, about the process, but you have to assume he knew something if they told him not to bring kids on campus anymore. If, as the testimony suggests, he did know McQueary saw him, then he has to know McQueary turned him in. I guess he has to act like nothing happened, but that's still...I don't even know what to think about that dynamic. For McQueary's part, I just don't understand how anybody who witnessed a man raping a child could go to work, for that long, even, at the place where he witnessed it knowing the offender was walking around scott-free, often accompanied by children. Far more than his reaction in the spur of the moment, which could be influenced by fear, shock and disbelief, this is what I can't justify.