What makes you think I believe he’s being charged with only one crime?
Indeed. :rolleyes:
I’m going to start calling you on every fabrication and lie. There is NO evidence of “apparently benign expressions on their face.” You just made that shit up. The fact that McQueary either did not describe the look on their faces, or the prosecution chose not to ask about it or include it because IT’S COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, ONCE THE WITNESS HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY SAID HE SAW THE VICTIM SUBJECTED TO ANAL RAPE, does not permit you to testify to the fact that McQueary saw facial expressions of any particular sort that would somehow counteract the GIGANTIC fact that he was convinced he saw “some sort of intercourse.” If I said I saw someone being stabbed, my failure to mention that they did not look too happy about it has ZERO effect to prove that he was not stabbed.
This moron may keep me busy for awhile.
Why would McQueary include the detail that they both turned to look at him but omit details such as Sandusky in a crouched posture or an expression of pain or distress on the face of the boy when both would lend credence to his belief that what he saw might have been anal rape. His other conclusion, which also may have been in error, was that “fondling” was what was going on.
I try to fool them by citing chapter and verse of the Grand Jury indictment. Diabolical!
And so in your quest to commit every logical fallacy in a ninth grade debate class textbook, you turn in due course to reductio ad absurdum. You have “proven too much” when you prove that you are, on your theory, the single only poster on this entire board who has any intellectual honesty or character, given that you are the only person who has disagreed with me on the fundamental moral corruption of pretending that rape by Sandusky was impossible under the circumstances and that McQueary was unclear on what he saw when he swore he definitely saw “some form of intercourse.” Only you.
Must be lonely at the top.
You’re too stupid for words, and even nastier than that in your pedo-apologist obsessions.
And 190 posters in my other thread concluded that “fondling” and “sexual contact” are the same thing in that context, and both are consistent with “subjecting to anal rape,” especially if the “hand around the waist” wasn’t just for bracing but for the old reacharound.
You’re wrong. This is a major fork in life’s road and you have the opportunity to change your miserable existence by manning up and just walking away from your batshit unsupportable positions.
You won’t do it, but down the road, keep in mind that your false pride, ignorance, hysteria, and weird notions about the propriety of naked man-boy contact, were what kept you from the opportunity to salvage a decent life and decent character out of whatever mental wreckage is bogging you down.
:rolleyes:
You’ve taken to bolding your lies now?
I’ve never come close to claiming to have proven that I’m the only poster on the board with intellectual honesty and character, and the only way I can see that you would think such a thing is if you believe every other poster on the board respects you and believes what you say. I can assure you that is not the case. 
That paragraph you quoted? I do not think it means what you think that it means, dear.
Hint: charges and trials are not the same thing.
Now, I suppose it’s possible to have a gang trial where all the charges are tried at once, but the specifics of each crime must on their own. In other words, jurors can’t just convict people willy-nilly for all crimes just because a few have been proven. This is why you see jury verdicts where the defendant is convicted of some crimes and acquitted of others. A couple of recent examples would be Casey Anthony, was convicted of lying to the police but found not guilty of murder, and Amanda Knox, who was convicted of slandering the Italian police but found not guilty of murder.
Is there a record for ‘Longest Train Wreck’?
Well, heck, just naked fondling? Is that all? Nothing necessarily sexual about naked fondling. Maybe a common practice in modern day men’s locker rooms. I wouldn’t know, haven’t been in one since they couldn’t make me do it any more. But not necessarily sexual, I remember one occasion of totally naked fondling that didn’t lead to sex, she heard a car door slam out in the drive way and shoved me out the bedroom window. OK, threw.
And it was my house!
And this is not a court of law, it is a message board. You ain’t Perry Mason, you ain’t even Jackie Mason. “If the dick won’t fit, you must acquit!” ain’t gonna get it.
Bricker! Bricker! SA’s trying to steal your chops!
You owe an apology to Bricker for comparing him to Starving Artist. Good heavens, how stoned are you?
Yer humble narrator feels he’s doing a good enough job repudiating the Boy Lawyer forays for now . . . though were Bricker to voluntarily tag in I’ll let go of the baton (oh, you just can’t say anything in a thread like this without snickering) for awhile . . . .
It is true that Huerta88 is not universally respected on the SDMB. Yet, somehow, in this thread, he has clearly and unequivocally kicked the shit out of you.
About 75 millichongs. Not much.
I guess you missed it the thousand other times I’ve said this, but if someone doesn’t know if what they saw was fondling or intercourse, they don’t know what they saw and are making assumptions.
And “Too loose, Lautrec?”? Hmm…how long since I’ve seen that one? I’ll have to ask Hef next time I see him.
Depends on the scoring. If you’re counting lies, poor reading comprehension, misrepresentations and blatant dishonesty, I figure the score’s about 878 to, well, 0, favor of Huerta, with numerous assists from the likes of you and worse. And trust me, it doesn’t speak well of the few Huerta supporters that you are a minor offender amongst them.
How stoned are you?
Btw, has anyone else noticed that when things get drug out of this thread with its relatively small coterie of hysterical lunatics and before the board in general, the outrage level falls pretty quickly to ‘meh’, and support for my attempts to look objectively at the facts garners considerably more support than criticism from those not already going ballistic in this thread? Telling, that is. 