Friend Wife: Don’t forget, we have to go to Starving Artist’s tonight for dinner.
Friend Husband: Oh fuck. He’s going to make that goddamn chicken and dumplings again. He always puts in too much lemon. And the chicken tastes like cardboard tubes.
Friend Wife: We can stop at Arby’s on the way. Just push the food around so it looks like we ate some, and so the dumplings won’t look like the buttocks of a hundred ten-year-old boys. I don’t know how he shapes them like that.
Friend Husband: sigh OK
Friend Wife: Then we can stop at the SDMB on the way home!
Loser dumbfuck – he was unquestionably raping the boy. McQueary’s undisputed, never repudiated, repeated, tesimony is to “some form of intercourse.” There is no sworn eyewitness testimony to the contrary.
You loser dumbfuck.
There is no countervailing eyewitness testimony, and no sworn McQueary testimony otherwise.
He was, unquestionably, anally raping Victim No 2. You – you little liar – have not a shred of evidence otherwise.
“Some form” of intercourse means he didn’t know for sure what he saw. Have you ever seen intercourse you couldn’t describe?
Besides, appearances can be deceiving, and what we do know is that McQueary admitted he did not witness penetration, and, judging by his complete lack of testimony in the affirmative, we can safely surmise that he did not see Sandusky squatting or thrusting, as would have lend further credence to McQueary’s belief that he had witnessed intercourse, nor did he testify to anything suggesting that the boy’s facial expression was one of pain, discomfort or distress. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact, because while McQueary testified they both turned their heads to look at him, he said nothing whatsoever about the expression on either of their faces to suggest that “some form of intercourse” was indeed what he had happened upon.
You insist on trying to treat McQueary’s impression of what he saw as incontrovertible proof and that’s just silly. People can easily be mistaken about things they say. For example, a person might describe you as a rational person of intelligence and good character but that doesn’t prove you are, especially in light of all the evidence we have to the contrary. Similarly, there is just too much evidence to the contrary to believe McQueary saw what he thought he saw.
The thing is, even if all Sandusky did was “hug a kid in the shower once”, for the vast majority of non-insane people that’s a big red flashing warning sign with extra klaxons right there. Normal grown men don’t do naked shower hugs with young boys. Really, they don’t.
The fact that McQueary reported something more serious than a hug going on merely underlines that point.
Good, so I presume you will now stop using the term ‘evidence’ for your speculations.
Of course, the question had to do with what they thought of YOUR contributions to this thread, not ours. But anyway, apparently you are fully aware of just how utterly ridiculous you would sound if you ever tried to describe, to people you know, what you’ve been doing here. Got it.
And “Some form of intercourse” is still fucking. In this case, in some poor kid’s ass. The only idiot in the entire world who cannot absorb this fact is you. No one, from the principals involved (McQueary , whose testimony is uncontroverted, and Paterno who issued zero denial) to the Grand Jury (see explanation under heading indictment) to every single person who has read your pedophile apologist drivel here, no one – repeat NO ONE sees any ambiguity. Just you.
You are a fucking liar. There was absolutely no sworn testimony or other “evidence” about a “hug.”
There was repeated sworn testimony about “sexual contact,” “some form of intercourse,” and “extreme sexual contact, way over the line,” the latter two coming from the only eyewitness.
You are not an eyewitness (or are you, you fucking pervert?). You do not get to testify with counterfactual suppositions about what was “likely” you fucking legally retarded moron. By the way, for the record, can you detail for us the nature, source, and extent of your legal training, since you retardedly insist on victory laps about your legal and evidentiary superiority?
You cannot invent facts about “hugging” that the only witness has conclusively, consistently, and exclusively never testified to.
And as I pointed out, even if it were true it’s still cause for alarm. Naked locker room shower man-boy hugging is sufficient cause for a police inquiry.
