Kee-rist. Paterno’s dead, can’t we let this thread die with him?
[Moderating]
NoLittlePlan, reposting full articles to this board is a violation of both copyright laws, and the rules of this forum. If you want to discuss a particular news item, please restrict yourself to posting a short excerpt with a link to the full article.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
I guess we should leave Hitler alone too, right? 
©?
You know what other laws have been violated in this thread? Most of the laws that a decent society are built on.
Including, but not restricted to: The Laws of Physics (Shower Room Edition), The Law Prohibiting Catering to Trolls, The Law of Conservation of Conservatives, Newton’s Laws of eMotion, The Law of Accelerating Returns and Towel Tubes…
…as well as Godwin’s Law, Poe’s Law, Gaudere’s Law, Wheaton’s Law, Megan’s Law, Burke’s Law, Harry’s Law, and, most demonstrably, Murphy’s Law.
You forgot the law of the jungle.
And the laws of thermodynamics.
The Laws that Protect One’s Sanity
Prosecutors change timeline in Jerry Sandusky case, saying McQueary incident happened in 2001, not 2002
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News The Patriot-News
Mike McQueary’s story is changing again.
In court paperwork filed Monday, prosecutors say the alleged sexual incident the former assistant Penn State football coach claims to have seen between Jerry Sandusky and a young boy in a locker room shower didn’t actually happen the Friday before spring break in 2002.
Instead, they wrote, new evidence shows it happened on Feb. 9, 2001, about 13 months earlier.
And lawyers for two…
Prosecutors ‘inadvertently’ release identity of Jerry Sandusky accusers
Tuesday, May 08, 2012, 5:12 PM
By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News The Patriot-News
Judge John Cleland has just granted a request to seal a document posted to the Centre County court website that contained names of the alleged victims and other witnesses involved in the child sex abuse case against Jerry Sandusky.
The state Attorney General’s Office had filed the document Monday as an attachment to a filing about discovery evidence that has been turned over to Sandusky’s legal team.
The attachment is about 30 pages. Prosecutors filed a request to have it sealed today after realizing it “inadvertently contains a number of names of individuals associated with the investigation of this matter.” The information no longer appears on the Centre County court website.
Cleland had previously ordered that no one publicly disclose the names of Sandusky’s accusers.
The filing goes into great detail about…
You forgot Cole’s Law.
NoLittlePlans:
What in the name of Satan’s left nut does any of that have to do with Joe Paterno (who I believe is still the subject of the Pitting)? And why revive a dead horse just to see it beaten again?
GET OVER IT.
I’ll quote myself from earlier in the thread:
[QUOTE=Me]
As for the scandal, none of that changes this basic fact:
Paterno, REGARDLESS OF THE FAILINGS OF ANYBODY ELSE AT PENN STATE, had an ethical and moral responsibility to do MORE than the legal minimum.
[/quote]
The only way anything Penn State-related could be zombified more than this thread is if 28 Months Later is set in a barricaded enclave that was once Beaver Stadium.
I sure do love The Dope. I do. I gleefully participate in the detached irony and snarky sarcasm left right and center. Just like we all do.
Somewhere in the zombiesphere are a handful of young men who were once younger kids. And they got fucked by an old man.
Now they’re out there walking around somewhat damaged.
In our gleeful detached irony, and without meaning to totally pee in everyone’s rice over the twists and turns of this thread, we might do well to remember what seems to have happened here…
It as everything to do with Paterno, because the crux of the issue regarding Paterno has to do with what he was told or not told by McQueary. So McQueary’s credibility and the reliability of his memory in this regard are critical.
Oh, bullshit. So, years after the fact, they (and apparently a lot of theys, including Paterno, since this discrepancy hasn’t come to light until now) realize they get the year of the event wrong. So what? Do you think McQueary went to Paterno’s house a year and a day later, rather than a day later? This changes nothing at all about who said what to who, who did or didn’t do what they did or didn’t do. They apparently ALL agreed on the (incorrect) dates involved - McQueary’s credibility is not an issue.
Paterno (& the others) presumably didn’t remember the date and so didn’t challenge it. I couldn’t tell you the year of many things that happened ~10 years ago. But those people were not nearly as focused on the incident as McQueary. And more significantly, McQueary testified that he was sure that this was the correct date.
[BTW, one other intriguing aspect concerns Amendola’s alleged victim. From what I’ve read, the first guy to suggest that it was really 2001 was Amendola, based on his claim that he had identified the “victim”, who said it was in 2001 and that nothing sexual happened. At that time, the prosecution was still claiming it was 2002. Now that Amendola was right about the date, it strengthens - to some extent - the possibility that his “victim” is actually the kid in the story.]
I read somewhere recently that the prosecution has 9 documents or files from Paterno’s office that are not available to the public. It should be interesting to find out what is contained in those, it could shed some light on what Paterno knew.
I looked around a bit and am no longer sure my memory was correct on this score. I believe Amendola did quibble early on with the prosecution over the date - with him correctly insisting that they were wrong and that it was in 2001 - but I can’t find any source for the idea that this insistence was based on the alleged victim (although it was consistent with that "victim"s story). So strike that part.
On another note, it seems that Amendola’s strategy is becoming clear, FWIW. Focus on disputing a couple of the earlier claims, and then wash away the rest by claiming that they are copycat claims of people out for money. To the latter end, he is - or was - trying to subpoena email records from the victims in order to prove that they colluded with each other. And also looking for evidence that these victims are not straight arrow boy scouts (which is what you would expect anyway, because they would otherwise not have been involved with TSM to begin with).
A very uphill climb, but it’s something.
Perused this behemoth for fun. Highlights follow:
Immediately brought to mind this.
Being angry on a message board or giving someone a dirty look is worse than raping children.
Something tells me you never did make it to Lucifer’s chamber…
Which poster was insisting that it was always wrong for a man to be naked in front of a boy?
If he is basing his claim on something that is disproportionately likely to be incorrect, then it may be logical, but irrational.
So, is character testimony inadmissible in the court of public opinion?
Sandusky may be a child rapist, but it’s more likely he merely caught the lad after he slipped on soap while playing keepy-uppy wrestling (module 3 in the shower curriculum) in this one specific instance. It’s entirely plausible. Look at that exclusive or. Due process, objective facts, Nancy Grace and refutations of your bloodthirsty mob rule witchunt logic.
Pro-tip: don’t alternate between poisoning the well and appeals to popularity.
Indeed. He’s called “McQueary”, either he made the boy up to discredit Sandusky or he was jilted by Sandusky. You know what, I’ve got no clue why Starving Artist didn’t pursue this line of reasoning from the start (other than trying to acclimatise us to the crazy by way of the strawmen, red herrings, tu quoques, two wrongs, ad hominems…). The entire case relies on the testimony of McQueary. In an alternate universe hypothetical (in SA’s parlance, objective facts), he could have become aware of Sandusky’s prior investigations and decided to blackmail him in order to be fast-tracked to a retirement spot. Paterno would have to comply. Hell, if anything, Paterno himself being unaware of the fact that his employee (at the time) was involved in a criminal investigation involving young children would make him ignorant. For him to know and yet not deduce that there was something fishy in Sandusky having regular contact with young boys verges on criminal negligence. Especially when he determined that it was worthy enough to pass on to his superiors and not some feverish imaginings. Doubly negligent was not inquiring, casually as to the status of the investigation.
For whoever said that Paterno needed to use a paper tube to determine the possibility of rape, he already knew (being a Catholic) that rape is impossible without bleeding to death and ear splitting screams. It’s right there in Deuteronomy.
Alternatively, Starving Artist’s motivation for joining the thread.
What hysterical nattering nabobity! It’s becoming easier and easier for me to see how witch hunts, mob justice and lynchings have occurred in this country’s past.
Hey, what happened to due process and objective facts? We didn’t even “all rise”… By the way, care to provide any instances of usage of the word “fondling” in a non-sexual manner referring to naked participants?
Mere liberal delusions and lies. When viewed through a paper towel tube, it is plainly a molehill.
Fundamental attribution error. Dispositional explanations for the successes of the ingroup and failures of the outgroup, situational ones for the failure of the ingroup and successes of the outgroup.
Let’s not mix metaphors: the victim is not being responsive. The witness is refusing to respond.
“his”: corroborated by wiki.
Cite?
How generous of you. In fact, I’m surprised you were so exculpatory. Why didn’t you and Starving go after the victims? After all, they could have provided corroboration to the story, absolved Paterno of any moral requirement to report to the police and perhaps even preserved the reputation of Penn State. Selfish bastards.
PATERRRNOOOOO!
Sounds like you’re saying the attempts to assassinate Hitler were disgusting and indefensible. Doesn’t help that “88” is crypto-fascist code 
What it’s called when someone blumpkins and vomits simultaneously. Which you’ve been doing metaphorically to this thread.
Not really, you’re parsing his posts in the most positive light you can manage. There’s simply no way to arrive at the position that he was probably a serial rapist without having that impact how one views the likelihood that there was misconduct going on in the showers and there is no “due process/objective fact” gathering going on, as was clearly demonstrated by his ignorance of testimony. As for quibbles about squatting: why is there any reason to believe that the showers had a level surface or that Sandusky didn’t wrap his arm around the boy in order to force him to tiptoe?
:o
Bah, there went my pet theory that you were actually Sandusky.
C’thulu, come!
It’s the first day of the trial. We might as well breath some life into the dead (thread).
If any of the testimony is to be believed, this is much more sordid than imagined.
http://gawker.com/5917568/jerry-sandusky-made-victim-sign-contract-to-keep-seeing-him-and-other-gross-trial-revelations
Actually, I’m surprised that Sandusky is still alive. He must be one of the more pathological creeps in the world.
And the hits just keep on coming:
From here:
Anybody here honestly think the “and others” doesn’t include Paterno? It’s really kind of a shame that a man who did so much good had this one (unforgiveable) moral lapse that is going to (rightfully) utterly ruin his reputation forever.
ETA the link and:
If Sandusky was half a man, he would have put a fucking bullet into his mouth by now. He’s a coward. Pure and simple.
…What?!..This thread…again?!