I said similar things in the McMartin Preschool and Duke Lacrosse cases. The public eventually came out to understand that these were false accusations. But almost no one defends Sandusky or Penn State.
Jerry Coyne says Malcolm Gladwell mentions the issue, without defending Sandusky, but notes:
1.) “The boy in the shower”, the linchpin of the case against Sandusky, swore in a written statement to Sandusky’s attorney that no sexual contact had occurred. After he hired a lawyer, the boy (now older) recanted. This may be because he wanted a slice of the generous settlement offered by Penn State to Sandusky’s victims — a settlement that turned out to be about $140 million, making any claimed victim a multimillionaire.There was probably better evidence against the Salem witches.
2.) None of the eight boys who eventually said they were molested by Sandusky ever told anyone about his misconduct before they spoke to police, and many continued to associate with him in the interim.
3.) Some of the accusations, like Sandusky locking a boy in the basement for three days and repeatedly raping him, with Sandusky’s wife, one floor above and oblivious to the screams, strain credulity.
4.) Some or all of the boys (it’s not clear from the piece) were subject to “recovered memory therapy”, and didn’t remember the molestations until therapists “helped” them remember the details.
The above is only a sample of other exculpatory data offered by Crews.
All of the accusers invented their stories after being offered millions of dollars in Penn State settlement money. Some, such as the slimeball Mike McQueary, were obviously lying for their personal gain.
Don't expect a reasoned judgment from Gladwell. He sees himself as more of a storyteller than a truthteller.