Here’s another SA lie. He states that posters here
I’ve read this entire thread and only SA is so hung up on whether penetration occurred or didn’t. Are there variations in the severity of child abuse? Of course. Does that mean Paterno gets a pass just because he only was told of a less “severe” type of child abuse and did not believe that a rape had actually occurred? No. He should have followed up on any child abuse!
So much for strict facts and logic, eh, chum(p)?
He did. He reported it in exactly the way he was supposed to.
His assertion is that he’s proven it was impossible, not merely “highly unlikely”.
Yes, I suppose that through a combination of squatting and very wide stance a person Sandusky’s size might have been able to succeed that way, but at the very least such a posture would be dangerous on a slippery wet floor, as feet slipping out from under one in such a position could do a lot of damage to upper thigh tendons and do forth. Still, don’t you think that seeing Sandusky in that position would be something McQueary would relate in an attempt to confirm to Curley and Schultz that anal rape was definitely going on, or to the Grand Jury to bolster his interpretation of what he saw? Yet he never once alluded to Sandusky squatting or the boy evincing distress. I can’t think of any reason that fact would be meaningless except to the willfully obtuse.
Winning!
This is correct. I do believe that in the heat of battle I have used the word ‘impossible’ a few times, and I hereby retract that and say instead ‘highly unlikely,’ which I believe I’ve used much more often.
So you finally admit you’re a liar. I guess we can finally close this thread.
3 feet is just over shoulder width, you fucking moron. It’s only about a foot wider than most people usually stand. You’ll even bend basic mathematics to the breaking point to maintain your illusions, won’t you.
Losing!
Now let’s take a look at what McQueary actually told the Grand Jury about what he saw:
So, McQueary describes seeing the boy’s hands on the wall, he places Sandusky behind the boy wirh his hands around the boy’s midsection, he mentions he saw them in a mirror, he mentions how many times he looked at them, he says there was no screaming or yelling, and he describes how they both turned to look at him. And yet somehow we’re expected to believe he would somehow, in this description where he was trying to get across credibility in what he thought he saw, omit the damning detail of Sandusky being in a squatting or wide stance posture. Anyone taking that line of defense is simply being willfully obtuse.
Further, it seems we do indeed have convincing evidence that the boy was showing no signs of distress. Why would McQueary testify there was no screaming or yelling but then omit mention of physical or mental distress in the boy’s expression?
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,” as even he has stated that he never used the term “anal rape” or “anal intercourse” in describing the event to anyone.
No-that does not constitute “following up”. He reported it as required but failed in his moral obligation to follow up on suspected child abuse.
Jesus Christ, you’re disturbing.
Who the fuck said that? Where?
For every winning…
Gosh, I’m glad he posted that excerpt from the testimony. I mean, that settles it, clearly a description of a mature naked man instructing a naked young boy in proper shower techniques and the correct application of soap! It’s so obvious!
I wish I had known sooner, that the correct method involved placing ones hands against the wall while a naked old man wrapped his arms around you from behind! Been doing it all wrong for years!
Rest assured, if I had witnessed such wholesome and hygienic instruction offered to my own son, I would have expressed my appreciation in immediate and unmistakable terms.
Anybody else get the feeling that Starving Artist is about to conduct an extensive search for a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox?
http://youtu.be/ZlV3oQ3pLA0
The Patriot-News, June 6, 2012:
"The sentencing hearing in Centre County Court for convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky was briefly disrupted this afternoon when an unidentified man, brandishing what appeared to be a cardboard tube from a roll of paper towels, attempted to voice his displeasure over the course of the proceedings.
The man, of approximately Sandusky’s age and build, shouted to a shocked courtroom audience that he had “incontrovertible evidence” that Sandusky could not possibly have raped Victim Number Two of the ten young males he was charged with having raped or otherwise molested multiple times over a period of several years. As he was being hustled out of the courtroom by bailiffs, the clearly agitated man could be heard shouting “Impossible, impossible! Showering lessons! Hide the soap! Nattering nabobs!” and several times invoked the name of disgraced, deceased Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. Pandemonium erupted briefly as a group of onlookers, believed to be relatives of some of the victims, booed and threw wadded papers at the unidentified man. Judge John M. Cleland managed to regain order within a few minutes and the proceedings continued.
The sentencing hearing followed the dramatic developments of two weeks ago, when, just prior to his May 14 trial date, Sandusky’s legal team announced that rather than face several weeks of damaging testimony before a jury, they had advised their client to plead guilty on the 52 counts of child molestation with which he was charged. Judge Cleland is expected to hand down sentence within the next few days."
^
Winning!
I thought he steamed over his own tow line long, long ago.
Fucking retard –
No, I did not. If I did, post that link. It doesn’t exist, and you are a fucking liar.
I made a “post alluding to Rommel in some way.”
Were you under the historically-retarded impression that Rommel was a Nazi? Rommel was (as any educated person, which does not include you) of course never a member of the Nazi party, was a staunch opponent of Nazi ideology, and killed himself after his involvement/engagement with the cabal who attempted to assassinate Hitler was revealed, to save his family.
Rommel was 100 more times honorable and 100 more times the man than you, little girl.
He killed himself after his association with a disgusting and indefensible position and grouping (the Nazi-led German regime) became evident.
Others who are defending equally disgusting and indefensible conduct may take notice. Nobody else had a problem understanding my point that sometimes it is the honorable way out, to just end an existence that has become inextricably linked with that which is disgusting, immoral, soiling to one’s character and family (Nazism, pedophilia enabling, etc.).
Hint hint hint.
Well, at least he’s been tossing out yellow dye markers left and right, so it’s all good.
Fucking retard –
There was absolutely no ambiguity in McQueary’s sworn testimony nor what Paterno made of it.
McQueary testified to “intercourse” and to nothing else.
And – shocker!!! – you are an ignorant liar on the law as well. Under Pennsylvania law, both “rape” and “invountary deviate sexual intercourse” are subject to a penal (oh, GD, I got you all worked up with something that sounded like penile) sentence of “up to 40 years.” The same exact sentence. The same exact perceived “effect on the victim.” See Pennsylvania Statutes Title 18 Sections 3121 and 3123. Not that a retarded moron like you has ever read a statute.