# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4253
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/4253 "2012-09-22T21:01:19Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The jury, separarate and apart from all his other misdeeds, agreed with me that McQueary’s testimony did not support the contention that Sandusky was raping the boy in the shower room that night. So my position has been utterly vindicated in a court of law. No, what you now claim to be “your position” was **not** in fact what you were asserting when the argument began. What you were asserting was not merely that it’s not **proven beyond a reasonable doubt** that Sandusky committed penetrative anal rape on that boy in the shower (which is what the jury actually concluded, **and which nobody in this thread ever denied** ), _but rather that Sandusky in fact **couldn’t** have done so._ (As a sideline, you were also opining that what Sandusky was doing in the shower “was more likely skeevy but not necessarily damaging to the child”; see below.) _The jury found nothing at all to indicate that such anal rape was physically impossible or unlikely,_ which is the claim that you were arguing yourself blue in the, er, face for. So no, your position has not in the least been vindicated in a court of law. > [@Starving Artist in post #2293](#): > > Do you really think a six-foot, three-inch sixty-something man could be having full-blown penetrative anal sex with a ten-year old boy in the manner McQueary thought he saw? […] > > one thing I’d put money on is that it wasn’t penetrative anal sex. > [@Starving Artist in post #2304](#): > > You’re the one who brought up the “slapping sounds,” as if that were proof Sandusky was anally raping the boy. I don’t believe it was and I explained why […] > [@Starving Artist in post #2328](#): > > So all things considered I’m more certain than ever that whatever it was that was going on in that shower, it almost certainly was not anal rape, and was more likely something skeevy but not necessarily damaging to the child such as a faux-innocent hug or faux-innocent wrestling or horseplay. > [@Starving Artist in post #2385](#): > > My belief is that a 6’3" man would have to bend at the knees so far in order to acheive penetration and the make copulatory movements that his legs would doon give out if he didn’t fall over backwards first. […] All in all, I’m just pretty damn convinced that anal intercourse is not what McQueary saw > [@Starving Artist in post #2420](#): > > I submit that it would be virtually impossible for the average person to pull this off for more than a few seconds without his muscles failing and falling backwards or straight down onto the floor. > [@Starving Artist in post #2430---the infamous "Paper Towel Tube Test"](#): > > I have been very clear in my analyses to describe the difficulties that a 6’3" man would encounter in trying to have anal sex with a young boy in that position. […] > > Still, it would be easy enough for you or anyone else to test. Just squat down about as far relative to your height as Sandusky would have to for his, and try pumping away at a paper towel tube held in front of you. > [@Starving Artist in post #2435](#): > > […] what I’m claiming is almost certainly factual and true […] > [@Starving Artist in post #2487](#): > > The keep-away with soap thing was a suggestion to explain one possibility as to how they might have been in the position McQueary saw them in as opposed to rape […] > [@Starving Artist in post #2540](#): > > In my opinion the scenario in which Sandusky merely grabbed the kid to keep him from falling after slipping on the wet soapy floor is entirely reasonable. […] Frankly, I believe the slipped in the shower scenario - while still unlikely - is more credible and fits the facts as we know them much more closely than does the anal rape scenario. > [@Starving Artist in post #2661](#): > > I have little doubt myself that Sandusky is a serial rapist. I just don’t think that what McQueary happened upon was an incidence of it. > [@Starving Artist in post #2669](#): > > The evidence in the McQueary incident indicates to me that anal rape isn’t what he saw. > [@Starving Artist in post #2866](#): > > […] a close look at the specifics shows that Sandusky most likely is not guilty of the anal rape […] > [@Starving Artist in post #3166](#): > > Merely alternative possibilities to explain what was almost certainly not anal rape. > [@Starving Artist in post #3170](#): > > Also, a closer look at the facts makes it highly unlikely that what McQueary saw was actually anal rape. > [@Starving Artist in post #3219](#): > > I think it’s unlikely bordering on impossible that anal rape is what McQueary saw. > [@Starving Artist in post #3223](#): > > So 6’3" Jerry Sandusky would still have been having to carry on thrusting activity two feet off the ground, which I consider to be nigh on impossible. > [@Starving Artist in post #3263](#): > > I submit that what was going on was that wrestling or some other form of squicky behavior is what was going on, that Sandusky and the boy both had benign expressions on their faces, and that McQueary misinterpreted what he saw as “some form of intercourse” […] > [@Starving Artist in post #3302](#): > > Then in the course of the discussion it became apparent that the anal rape was very likely not what McQueary happened upon in the shower that night. **Starving Artist** , if you had merely been making the uncontroversial point “Hey, it hasn’t been **proven** that this shower incident involved rape by anal penetration, and we should not jump to the conclusion that **must** be what was going on”, then you’d be right, and you’d be justified in thinking the verdict bears you out. Many posters including myself were perfectly willing to acknowledge that at the time: > [@Kimstu in posts #3209](#): > > I certainly wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Sandusky’s acts in the shower necessarily had to be anal rape, but your self-satisfied delusion that you’ve somehow logically or scientifically ruled out that possibility—or even determined it to be unlikely—is simply irrational. […] > > There’s a difference between (a) not prematurely jumping to conclusions and (b) twisting facts and logic into pretzels in an obsessive attempt to rule out or discredit certain possible conclusions which are, in fact, perfectly plausible. You keep doing the latter while trying to claim credit for the former. In fact, you were trying repeatedly and at great length to persuade us that there were specific and convincing reasons to believe that the shower incident **definitely wasn’t** anal rape. And there’s nothing in the verdict to bear that out at all. What you’re doing now, **Starving Artist** , is retroactively moving your goalposts and then declaring victory. You seem to forget that we can look these things up (if we’ve got suitable protective gear and wash thoroughly afterwards). --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167)._