50 pages. No, he doesn’t think rape occurred. He’s in fact ecstatic that he’s come to the conclusion that it wasn’t, and you should too.
Hmm…must have missed that part. No, I don’t believe McCreary saw Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy. I don’t think McQueary did either.
Do you deny, or admit, that I posted the Pennsylvania indecent exposure statute, which provides a clear basis for criminalizing a naked man touching a naked boy alone in a shower, weeks before you claimed that no one had provided you with any authority for why naked man-boy showering was improper?
Third time’s the charm, you dumb fuck.
Oh, while we’re at it, do you deny authoring those posts on the PennLive board? I guess you’ll have to lie on that one too because the “three foot tall boy” and “McQueary made the whole thing up so he could take Sandusky’s job” are ones even you can’t own up to in these precincts.
These posts:
http://connect.pennlive.com/user/pritio_metrif/index.html
If you deny posting them (why bother, but you will), do you substantially disagree with the contentions and attitudes set forth in them?
In most quarters, circumstances and evidence which strongly suggest the likelihood that a young boy had not been anally raped by a 6’3", 60-something ex-football coach would be considered good news. But, seeing as how we’re here at the Dope…
…you can fabricate entire paragraphs of bullshit allegedly proving that rape didn’t occur based off of one sentence of grand jury testimony? Yeah, weird place.
You’ve shown a casual disregard for circumstances and are presenting bad arithmetic as evidence.
This thread has become the original thread…
[Non existent “circumstances” and ipse dixit fabricated “evidence” which make it absolutely clear that a child was severely sexually molested but maybe (based on said fabricated “evidence”) the severe sexual molestation did not take the form of rape per se, again based on imagined “facts”] would be considered horrible news because on any set of “circumstances and evidence” a horrible crime would still have happened and there would be no “good news” to a sane or moral person in finding that it was one form of horrid sex crime vs. another.
What a fuckwit.
Oh, bullshit! :rolleyes: A ‘naked hug’ (or whatever was going on), while certainly skeevy and unpleasant, isn’t even in the same ballpark as large man/little boy anal rape, neither in terms of psychological or physical trauma. Equating the two is just more evidence of your hysterical lunacy when it comes to this subject.
At this point, I’m not sure any thread the significantly involves SA will escape that fate. I predict it will follow him on this board for as long as he is a member here - he’s simply become too invested in this topic.
You rightly put “naked hug” in quotes because it’s a made up phrase – no one involved in the entire investigation testified to a “naked hug.” You made it up.
“whatever was going on” was rape. That’s what’s been testified to. That’s what all the other evidence points to. I don’t put air quotes around rape or intercourse, because that is what has affirmatively and clearly been testified to by eyewitnesses under oath.
You cannnot just make shit up and substitute it for the facts. The fact that you cannot help yourself from doing this is why everyone here (and I am sure, IRL) considers you an evil moron.
Nope, not made up. Sandusky had a history of parental complaints for hugging their children in the shower.
And McQueary testified that what he saw appeared to be fondling or some form of intercourse. This means that he isn’t sure what he saw. It could have been rape, or it could have been something else - a naked hug or skeevily-motivated horseplay. Given the fact that McQueary’s testimony says nothing about Sandusky having been in a squatting posture, nor about a bottle of lubricant anywhere in sight, nor about what appears to be a blank look rather than distress on the child’s face as he and Sandusky turned to look at McQueary, all tend in my opinion to refute the idea that Sandusky was raping the boy.
Another interesting aspect that hasn’t been mentioned yet but which further tends to make child rape less credible is that Sandusky didn’t stop doing whatever it was that he was doing as soon as McQueary turned the lights on. One would expect that anyone anally raping a child - one of the worst crimes in the book- in a public venue, would stop instantly and try to put up an innocent appearance rather than continuing to pump away until he was spotted. To me this also speaks of the likelihood that what McQueary saw was - as I put it before - skeevily-motivated horseplay rather than rape.
And did Paterno know (or should he have known) about it?
In most quarters, persons who, for obscure reasons, spend days fabricating ridiculous excuses for what any reasonable person could see are circumstances and evidence which strongly suggest that a young boy HAD been anally raped by an ex-football coach, would be considered worthy of little but derision.
I’m just sayin’.
I have no idea either way.
Look, other posters have already addressed with you from personal experience that rape is absolutely possible, despite your application of “voodoo physics of rape impossibility”. Squatting isn’t the issue. Lubricant isn’t the issue. The look on the face of the child being subjected to “something of a sexual nature” is not the fucking issue. Your continuous fabrication of stories, or claims that because the grand jury testimony didn’t mention any of the specifics that you feel are necessary to make your armchair determination of rape, does not negate the fact that Sandusky was seen, in the shower, doing something of a sexual nature, to a 10 year old boy, with rhythmic slapping sounds, which McQueary has since said that he put a stop to it, and then went to Paterno to report. Which was not passed on to the police, as it should have been. Which is the ACTUAL issue. Moreso, he has been indicted for raping other children.
Yes he did stop, and if you look at reports that McQueary has made about the incident, like I posted in the other thread, he did put a stop to what was happening in the shower.
Yet here you are speculating at length about it.
And I’m just saying that I don’t believe the circumstances and evidence suggest any such thing other than on a superficial level. A closer examination of the facts suggests otherwise, which is why in my opinion the number of my opponents in this thread is dwindling, and those who remain, such as the misnomerly named ‘miss’ elizabeth and Huerta88, are becoming increasingly shrill and desperate.
You fixate on the 2002 case. What about the 1998 one? The one where they had Sandusky recorded, apologizing to the victim’s mother? The one where suddenly the architect of Linebacker U, the heir apparent, retired at the prime of his career and never got another job…but kept bringing kids on campus for years afterwards?
What happened there?
I figured it would be a waste of time to think you were being genuine, but hey, I took a shot.
And no, I haven’t been going on at length about whether or not Paterno knew of the previou naked hugging report, and am addressing it now only because you brought it up.
But of course you know that already, n’est-pas? 