# It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 7, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167 "2011-11-07T14:23:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 94
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1861 "2011-12-28T22:12:46Z")
There was an earlier cite as well, but let’s go with the more convenient cite in post #1582 above. > [@](#): > > Mike McQueary, speaking for the first time in public about the 2002 encounter in a Penn State locker room, said he believes that Sandusky was attacking the child with his hands around the boy’s waist but said he wasn’t 100 percent sure it was intercourse. > [@](#): > > McQueary said he has never described what he saw as anal rape or anal intercourse and couldn’t see Sandusky’s genitals, but that “it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on.” > [@](#): > > Under cross examination by an attorney for Curley, McQueary reiterated that he had not seen Sandusky penetrating or fondling the boy but was nearly certain they were having intercourse because the two were standing so close and Sandusky’s arms were wrapped around the youth. What you’re engaging in is spin. Which is fine, and you could be right. But you’re not entitled to call other people liars because they go with the plain meaning of words and sentences and not with your spun version. And if you’ve called them liars and then discovered this testimony, you should have the decency and integrity to retract it and not just drown out the issue by attacking them on other matters even more vociferously. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1862 "2011-12-28T22:32:05Z")
Years ago, my (now) husband and I walked in on his college roommate, who was having sex with his girlfriend. Well, not as soon as we opened the door. I mean, they moved apart and were grabbing for some blankets. But they were definitely naked, and in close physical contact with one another, in bed (a twin mattress). Maybe they weren’t having sex at all. They might have just been checking each other over for lice. Or planning to cook supper or something. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1863 "2011-12-28T22:47:13Z")
Read the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1864 "2011-12-28T23:03:56Z")
Yeah. It was “showering lessons.” ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2011, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1865 "2011-12-28T23:40:49Z")
Very literal interpretations of summarized text leading to nitpicky arguments over the exact shade of grey in an otherwise black world… …or, an SDMB thread. Most people think that an adult man, naked in the shower alone with a 10 year old boy is already something questionable…add contact…_any_ sort of contact…and the line is definitely crossed. Add the details testified to by McQueary, and there’s no question the line was crossed, and it’s horrifying. Trying to nitpick whether you’re a mile over the line or a mile and an inch over it just doesn’t matter any more. Most of us feel that Paterno knew that the line had been crossed; exactly by how much is irrelevant in the context of us feeling that _he should have and could have done more_ in response to that information. At least, that’s how I see it. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1866 "2011-12-29T06:14:29Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Kindly quote where I said Sandusky’s behavior was probably horseplay and therefore justified. Double dog dare ya and bet you can’t do it. > Indeed. :rolleyes: With pleasure: > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You make a good point. If Sandusky had groomed the kid to the point where anal sex was an ongoing occurrance, then yes, it could have happened without excruciating pain like you suggest. As for the slapping souunds, who knows? Sandusky may have been actually raping the kid or merely going through the motions in a faux-playful way and trying to pass it off to the kid as teasing or rough housing. And you would think that if Sandusky had on on-going sexual relationship with the boy he wouldn’t have had to risk being seen by having sex with him in a school shower. > > Again, I don’t know what actually happened. But I do think too many people in this thread have forgotten the fact that they don’t really know either. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > With regard to what was reported and to whom, yes, some types of behavior call for the police and some don’t. Had Sandusky been engaging in some sketchy but factually defenceable behavior such as playfully grabbing the kid and wrestling or horsing around with him, I can see where Paterno might feel that it should be handled in-house. And on the other hand if it had been something more serious I can see where Paterno would trust that the school’s administrators would contact the police with whatever evidence they had gathered. I imagine that since they didn’t do that, he figured that the administration’s investigation found nothing of substance to act upon so he let it drop. Since McQueary didn’t go to the cops, and the school’s administrators didn’t go to the cops, it probably never occurred to him that he should. Frankly, I think that he most likely felt that what McQueary saw or thought he saw (this from Paterno’s perspective) turned out to be a non-starter and so he simply let the matter drop. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Except for the fact, **Harborwolf** , that some apparent lighter forms of abuse can be innocent. Putting a hand on a child, for instance, might be of innocent or sexual intent. A little wrestling or tickling or teasing might just be innocent horseplay with a kid you like, or it may be sexual in nature and a prelude to more serious things later on. Until something obviously crosses the line so that sexual intent becomes clear it can be difficult to determine whether these lighter forms of play are inappropriate. Even some things that can be erroneously interpreted as fondling can be innocent in fact. I know all this not only from my own locker room experiences when I was in school but also in interactions with the playmates of my daughter and two neices when they were growing up. They climbef all over me and we wrestled and manhandled each other mercilously, and while hands landed on legs or butts from time to time during this horeseplay, not a glimmer of sexual interest ever occurred. > > So yes, there are varying degrees of behavior that may or may not constitute sexual abuse, and what may appear to be fondling to one person may just be horseplay that both of the other parties are comfortable with and having fun at. > > And this is what I’ve been getting at with Paterno. He has testified that he was told Sandusky was spotted engaging in fondling or some type of sexual behavior involving a young boy. Assuming this is correct, Paterno, knowing as I do that what may appear to be fondling to one person who gets only a brief snapshot of the activity and not understanding the dynamics between the adult and child involved, may very well have felt that what McQueary saw might indeed have been nothing more than horseplay of some sort. So, not knowing enough about what really happened but knowing things might not have been what they seemed but moved by McQueary’s passion, felt there was enough ground to report the matter to his superiors to get to the bottom of. Then, upon hearing nothing more of it, he simply decided that whatever behavior was going on could not have been determined to have been inappropriate amd thus no reason for furthet action. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Look, in this very thread it has been suggested that putting a hand on a child’s leg amounts to ‘sexual contact.’ Now obviously this is not necessarily so. The contact may have sexual overtones or it may be due to the thousands of other reasons why an adult might put his or her hand on a child’s leg. > > The point is, one man’s view of what constitutes sexual contact may not necessarily be accurate. And to the degree that Paterno may have been unclear as to exactly what it was that McQueary saw (or from Paterno’s perspective, may have thought he saw), he may well have been uncertain also as to what he should do about it. Certainly a hand on a leg or tickling in the shower would call for a different level of response than would full-on anal rape. > > Thus, until we know precisely what Paterno was told and how he percieved that information, we cannot be certain that he acted inappropriately and with wrongful intent. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > But there are two things that need to be considered in assessing Paterno’s alleged malfeasance with regard to what it is that he knew. One, “something of a sexual nature” is extremely vague and could refer to something that the witness misunderstood and only thought he saw, or it could refer to a range of behavior that includes something inappropriate but not necessarily illegal, such as tickling or hugging. Thus the response reasonably required of Paterno would depend upon how serious Sandusky’s behavior appeared to him. Some things might require that the university’s officials call Sandusky in and tell him to knock off the inappropriate but not illegal behavior, and others would require immediate and forceful action; and two, it is becoming more and more apparent that McQueary might not have said what people thought he said when this thread started, as it’s beginning to appear now that McQueary did not witness anal intercourse at all, but instead presupposed it based upon sounds he heard and observing Sandusky pull the kid back into the shower after the he peered around the wall at McQueary. Sure, it’s likely that something wrong was going on but we don’t know exactly what, and given that Paterno was given only a vague and speculative description of what was going on, it would not have been immediately clear to him what Sandusky was actually guilty of (i.e., inappropriate vs. illegal behavior) and which would be the appropriate action to take. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I hate to tell you this, but at this point there is no way for any of us to know. All we know with regard to the alleged anal rape scenario is that one guy saw something that he can only describe in vague terms. A strong case for anal rape this does not make. Like it or not, tickling, hugging, wrestling, or “lessons in showering” all remain within the realm of possibility. And until the time comes that a court finds sufficient evidence to convict Sandusky of anal rape in this case they will remain within the realm of possibility. > > As for me “inventing facts”, kindly cite the invented facts. Thank you. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Sure they agree. I don’t because I’m familiar with the horseplay that goes on locker rooms. Towel-popping, wrestling, teasing, chasing, etc. are commonplace (or at least they were when I was in school). Thus I don’t believe that every instance of physical contact with a child in a locker room automatically rises to sexual child abuse. > > Now, am I convinced that Sandusky was only horsing around with the kid and McQueary misunderstood what he saw? No. I simply don’t know what happened. > > And now I’ve got Christmas shopping to do, and once I can manage to stop laughing at **lizzie borden** , I’m out the door. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Not necessarily, no. It all depends on the context and upon what systems and laws have been established to handle it if the context is wrong. > > When I was a boy I used to go to several of the local public park swimming pools. Showering before getting into the pool was required and men and older teen-age boys were there and we all co-mingled without incident even though there were times when teasing, towel-snapping, chasing each other around and other forms of horseplay were the norm. And you better believe that if some 10 or 12 or 14 year old boy towel-popped one of the adult guys on the when he had his back turned, there would be retaliation that sometimes involved physical nonsexual contact. And when I was in junior high and high school, the coaches came into the locker room and spoke to kids while they were still in the shower all the time. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I believe there is fondling with a minor that may or not be sexual in nature and subject to interpretation by a witness which may not be accurate. > > Also, bear in mind that when Paterno said “fondling and sexual contact” he was not speaking of what he knew as fact but only what McQueary had said to him. This is seems to be a key sticking point with you. Can you honestly not make the distinction between relaying what you were told vs. knowing it yourself? > > And now I am out for a while. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > “Something of a sexual nature” is vague and leaves room for mistaken interpretation; “stroking the boy’s penis” or “anally raping him” is specific and unquestionably calls for the police. One would think that if what McQueary saw was sufficiently sexual to warrant police action he would have been able to describe it in more specific terms. Of course he _was_ able to describe it in more specific terms, but he didn’t do so in describing the incident to Paterno. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I already asked upthread if the authorities are expected to have to run around to every school and every kid in town asking if Sandusky had screwed them in the shower that night, and I’m not seeing as how you wouldn’t expect them to hit every school in town if checking out Second Mile didn’t turn up a victim. > > And what if Sandusky were innocent? You’d have cops or administrators running all around town asking about possible pedophilic behavior on Sandusky’s part. Sooner or later parents and the media get hold of it, and before long Sandusky’s ruined, his charity is ruined, and Paterno and Penn State themselves come under suspicion. Plus abused kids get traumatized further by having other people become aware of what’s happened to them, which conducting the investigation in the public way you describe would almost certainly do. Kids aren’t stupid and it wouldn’t take long for them to hear or figure out who the kid in the shower was that night, and they’d know what happened to him once charges were filed and the allegations became a matter of public record. > > So no, I don’t think the police would have run around inquiring of every kid in town as you describe…and for good reason. THAT’S a good one – it would have been to call the police, because then the kids would have other people know, and they’d be traumatized that people found out. Hey, so what if the abuse continues – just as long as nobody knows! (God, re-reading this thread makes me want to go and take a shower. It’s like rolling in filfth) ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1867 "2011-12-29T08:51:07Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > With pleasure: > THAT’S a good one – it would have been to call the police, because then the kids would have other people know, and they’d be traumatized that people found out. Hey, so what if the abuse continues – just as long as nobody knows! > > (God, re-reading this thread makes me want to go and take a shower. It’s like rolling in filfth) This is an awesome post, thank you. The next time I hear of someone abusing kids for years and thinking ‘How did they get away with it for so long?’ I’ll be reminded of this thread and people like **SA**. Paterno dropped the ball, you hear of a man having a shower with a kid not his own, at night, with no one else around you damn well make sure that kid is safe no matter how many toes you tread on. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1868 "2011-12-29T14:55:35Z")
Certain people need to distinguish between the following: [ul] [li]What Sandusky did[/li][li]What Paterno assumed Sandusky did[/li][/ul] These are not necessarily the same, and statements about one do not necessarily apply to the other. This should be obvious, but some people are having trouble making the distinction. > [@mnemosyne](#): > > Most of us feel that Paterno knew that the line had been crossed; exactly by how much is irrelevant in the context of us feeling that _he should have and could have done more_ in response to that information. I’m not sure what this is in response to, but if it’s a response to my post, then it’s irrelevant in context. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1869 "2011-12-29T15:01:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Certain people need to distinguish between the following: > > [ul] > [li]What Sandusky did[/li][li]What Paterno assumed Sandusky did[/li][/ul] > These are not necessarily the same, and statements about one do not necessarily apply to the other. This should be obvious, but some people are having trouble making the distinction. Other certain people need to realize that if what Paterno assumed Sandusky did didn’t warrant a call to the cops - after being told that he was busted naked with a 10 year old boy in a deserted shower room at night complete with slapping sounds and sexual contact - then he’s a fucking moron at best. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1870 "2011-12-29T15:27:28Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Other certain people need to realize […] My post may have been a bit opaque. SA challenged Guinastasia for an example of him saying that “Sandusky’s behavior was probably horseplay”, and she responded with a bunch of quotes relating to Paterno’s assumptions about Sandusky’s behaviour, rather than about Sandusky’s behaviour itself. I am not inclined to get involved with a debate with Guinastasia, so I was a bit coy, but on further reflection perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1871 "2011-12-29T15:37:42Z")
Yes, but, what Guin posted illustrated SA’s blinders (as big as billboards). In reality-land, given the situation and descriptions we know Paterno knew about, to float things like this (just as an example): > [@](#): > > “something of a sexual nature” is extremely vague and could refer to something that the witness misunderstood and only thought he saw, or it could refer to a range of behavior that includes something inappropriate but not necessarily illegal, such as tickling or hugging. … is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1872 "2011-12-29T16:35:13Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Yes, but, what Guin posted illustrated SA’s blinders (as big as billboards). So you’re saying that Guin did not back up what she accused SA of posting, and her many quotes all missed the boat in that specific regard, but that’s all OK because in your opinion those quotes illustrate other problems with SA’s position. If SA was the most brilliant and logical person on this planet, it would be futile to discuss issues with people who bring this attitude to the discussion. It’s not enough that you have dozens of posters piling on to one guy, but despite what you claim is the tremendous stupidity of SA and despite all the material he’s provided in this thread, you can’t manage enough integrity to limit yourselves to attacking the guy for what he’s actually said, and instead need to pretend that he’s said all sorts of other things that you can attack him for. Does not speak well for your position here (among other things). ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1873 "2011-12-29T16:37:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There was an earlier cite as well, but let’s go with the more convenient cite in post #1582 above. > > What you’re engaging in is spin. Which is fine, and you could be right. But you’re not entitled to call other people liars because they go with the plain meaning of words and sentences and not with your spun version. And if you’ve called them liars and then discovered this testimony, you should have the decency and integrity to retract it and not just drown out the issue by attacking them on other matters even more vociferously. No, no. The spin is introduced only (as I pointed out earlier) by the fairly lame cross examination by Sandusky’s lawyers that elicited some trivial “admission” that McQueary didn’t actually see Sandusky’s penis making the entry. The snips you quote from McQueary’s cross examination otherwise reveal him consistently wanting to say that he is close to certain that penetration was happening, which was a 100% reasonable and tiny inference to draw based on seeing an old guy right behind a kid whose hands were braced on the wall, naked, after hearing slapping, sex-like sounds. **SA** would like to seize on this fairly meager cross-exam “admission” to imply that McQueary was/is anguishedly uncertain and conflicted about what he saw. In reality, McQueary keeps coming back to “I saw some form of intercourse,” and getting hung up on his conceding to a shyster’s cheap “but you can’t be one million percent sure, can you, as you did not actually see the penis enter the anus” is both falling for molester-enabling crap that **SA** has been peddling, and not understanding how cross-exam is played when a shyster otherwise has no hope on the merits. I could **always** get you to admit that you were not 100% certain of some tangential or cumulative fact. It doesn’t undermine the core testimony, it only appears to (the criminal defense lawyer hopes, in the mind of the dumbest eventual juror). ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1874 "2011-12-29T17:11:00Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > **SA** would like to seize on this fairly meager cross-exam “admission” to imply that McQueary was/is anguishedly uncertain and conflicted about what he saw. In reality, McQueary keeps coming back to “I saw some form of intercourse,” and getting hung up on his conceding to a shyster’s cheap “but you can’t be one million percent sure, can you, as you did not actually see the penis enter the anus” is both falling for molester-enabling crap that **SA** has been peddling, and not understanding how cross-exam is played when a shyster otherwise has no hope on the merits. I could **always** get you to admit that you were not 100% certain of some tangential or cumulative fact. It doesn’t undermine the core testimony, it only appears to (the criminal defense lawyer hopes, in the mind of the dumbest eventual juror). That’s fine. That’s a valid perspective. You can disagree with someone who has another perspective. But none of this means that someone who states that McQueary wasn’t sure what he saw is a liar. Because the plain meaning of McQueary’s words were that he wasn’t sure. What you actually said was: > [@Huerta88](#): > > This moron cannot open his mouth without lying. There’s been no testimony that McQueary “wasn’t even sure of” what he’d seen. None. […] McQueary has never said (NEVER, dumbass) that he “wasn’t sure” of anything. You cannot just make up facts, liar. In actual fact, McQueary did say that he wasn’t sure, so SA is not a liar for claiming that he said this. Your vehement assertions that McQueary never (“NEVER”) said this are factually incorrect. Again, what you can say is that although McQueary said this, the statement has to be understood in context, and does not have as much import as SA is assigning to it, which is the gist of your argument on this point. But you cannot keep your integrity intact while calling someone a liar for making a factually correct statement. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1875 "2011-12-29T17:26:31Z")
**F-P** – You speak of context, and I think rightly. And the context here is that, as **Guin** ably illustrated, **SA** has been feverishly concocting all sorts of fact-free scenarios in which Paterno could have though McQueary was reporting something non-criminal. He’s gotten pretty creepy in formulating hypotheses that he suggests a reasonable man could take as innocent explanations for naked man-boy contact in a shower. In this context, his insistence that McQueary “wasn’t even sure what he had seen,” based solely on some cheap cross-exam admission that he had seen what he thought was damn near sure anal intercourse but no, he had not seen the penis actually enter, is disingenous, especially when offered in aid of his baseless alternate theories of some **totally non-sexual** explanation that Paterno could have taken away. Oh, and by the way, you assert that **Guin** didn’t provide anything in which **SA** suggested that Sandusky might be innocent, as opposed to that Paterno might have somehow innocently thought he was. But, she did. > [@](#): > > I hate to tell you this, but at this point there is no way for any of us to know. All we know with regard to the alleged anal rape scenario is that one guy saw something that he can only describe in vague terms. A strong case for anal rape this does not make. Like it or not, tickling, hugging, wrestling, or “lessons in showering” all remain within the realm of possibility. And until the time comes that a court finds sufficient evidence to convict Sandusky of anal rape in this case they will remain within the realm of possibility. > > As for me “inventing facts”, kindly cite the invented facts. Thank you. Apart from the dishonest bullshit of claiming that McQueary’s testimony was “vague,” I’m pretty damn sure that also answers your indictment of me for saying that **SA** gave credence to the “showering lessons” bullshit. He did, thereinabove. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1876 "2011-12-29T18:32:43Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > You speak of context, and I think rightly. And the context here is that, as **Guin** ably illustrated, **SA** has been feverishly concocting all sorts of fact-free scenarios in which Paterno could have though McQueary was reporting something non-criminal. He’s gotten pretty creepy in formulating hypotheses that he suggests a reasonable man could take as innocent explanations for naked man-boy contact in a shower. In this context, his insistence that McQueary “wasn’t even sure what he had seen,” based solely on some cheap cross-exam admission that he had seen what he thought was damn near sure anal intercourse but no, he had not seen the penis actually enter, is disingenous, especially when offered in aid of his baseless alternate theories of some **totally non-sexual** explanation that Paterno could have taken away. Again, none of that makes him a liar for claiming that McQueary said something that he actually said. > [@](#): > > Oh, and by the way, you assert that **Guin** didn’t provide anything in which **SA** suggested that Sandusky might be innocent, as opposed to that Paterno might have somehow innocently thought he was. But, she did. That was not Guin’s claim. Her claim was that > [@Guinastasia](#): > > No, you just keep justifying it by saying it was probably “horseplay”, like you and your friends used to do at the local pool. She did not come close to backing this up. In your quote, he wrote “within the realm of possibility”. There’s a huge difference between “within the realm of possibility” and “probably”. [In addition, in the original post from which that quote ensued (#1464), SA was clear that the distinction was being made between “inappropriate vs. illegal behavior”, not that any of the other behaviors were appropriate.] > [@](#): > > Apart from the dishonest bullshit of claiming that McQueary’s testimony was “vague,” I’m pretty damn sure that also answers your indictment of me for saying that **SA** gave credence to the “showering lessons” bullshit. It’s mitigated to an extent, but on the whole, no, as above. [I am not SA’s lawyer here, and I disagree with much of what he’s posted here. But the attacks on him in this thread have been very over-the-top and dishonest in many instances, and I’ve commented on a few instances that caught my eye. If your position was as strong as you claim it is, this should not be necessary.] ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1877 "2011-12-29T19:43:42Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > [I am not SA’s lawyer here, and I disagree with much of what he’s posted here. But the attacks on him in this thread have been very over-the-top and dishonest in many instances, and I’ve commented on a few instances that caught my eye. If your position was as strong as you claim it is, this should not be necessary.] The posts calling him a pedophile or defender of them are over the top and not really supported by his position. But here is the problem with **SA’s** position: instead of sticking to an opinion about how to handle the report (call cops vs report to administrators), he has chosen to try to justify in objective terms why not calling the cops is completely appropriate. There are two problems with that: 1. Both sides are just opinion, so it’s tough to objectively defend much of anything 2. It has led him to some completely ridiculous positions, for example, his insistence that the police would do nothing unless a victim was already identified. This is an example of a position that is so completely unsupportable that it forces the question: assuming **SA’s** brain is normal and functioning, what is his game? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1878 "2011-12-29T20:07:48Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > The posts calling him a pedophile or defender of them are over the top and not really supported by his position. Beyond that, there have been persistant attempts to pretend he has said things even more extreme than what he actually has. > [@](#): > > 1. It has led him to some completely ridiculous positions, for example, his insistence that the police would do nothing unless a victim was already identified. This is an example of a position that is so completely unsupportable that it forces the question: assuming **SA’s** brain is normal and functioning, what is his game? I agree that that’s a ridiculous position. But it’s not like people don’t otherwise say ridiculous things around here. It’s actually pretty common. If you need to speculate about this one, my guess FWIW is that he made a mistake and didn’t think it through clearly, and then couldn’t back down due the general tenor of the thread. It’s not uncommon for people backed into a corner to dig in. But I’m equally interested in the motivation of others in this thread, who are not beset by attackers from all sides, and could afford to be more measured. My speculation here is that their behaviour is a combination of 1) revulsion at pedophilia and 2) mob mentality. It’s like schoolyard punks who feel good about beating up someone else, and when there’s a crowd of others at their back and they feel safe in taking a shot of their own, they seize the opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1879 "2011-12-29T20:48:12Z")
Why do you discount SA’s motives? Namely that he lurves him some Paterno and he’ll fish for any rationalization he can to paint him in a good light, even though he’s deep in the shadows of this whole rigmarole. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/1880 "2011-12-29T23:29:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > She did not come close to backing this up. I disagree. And **Starving Artist** ’s latest bullshit, that calling the police would in fact be a BAD idea is so fucked up that I cannot imagine how ANY human, with a conscience, could make it. He’s more concerned with defending his hero – Paterno – than worrying about the victims. “Oh, they couldn’t have been identified, so why bother?” Yes, false accusations are devastating. That doesn’t mean you go the exact opposite route and ignore what’s going on right in front of your nose. His idiotic misconception of just how a police investigation works is astonishing. The evidence and reports have been posted here time and time again, yet he keeps refusing to address it. Watch ANY documentary on A&E or Biography. Read ANY book on a criminal case. (Note, I’m not talking about a novel, I’m speaking about non-fiction). Talk to an actual cop or investigator, and see what they tell you. I get the impression that had he been in McQueary’s place, he might not have acted to stop what was going on. And that again disgusts me. “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”. Of course, that assumes that **Starving Artist** is a good man in the first place. And reading this thread, I have my doubts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167.md?page=93) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167.md?page=95)