It makes it challenging for people when in the middle of a discussion of pedophilia, you begin a thought experiment with “Line up a hundred boys…”
I think I do remember an article about that:
Sandusky Jury: Paper Towel Tube Proved It
"Sandusky was acquitted today on all charges after an amazing and unprecendented test of the ‘paper towel tube’ theory by jurors. The test was performed by male and female jurors although the females were required to wear an artificial appendage. The jurors disrobed and were instructed to hold a paper towel tube at the appropriate height, upon which they attempted to place their respective natural or artificial appendage inside the tube accompanied by thrusting movements.
The foreman was quoted as saying ‘This demonstration proves beyond a doubt that Sandusky could not have committed the alleged acts. We are all very grateful for the internet, otherwise this test would not have come to our attention. I shudder to think what would have happened if we had not been made aware of this definitive test, an innocent man would have gone to jail’"
He was not found guilty of that particular incident because that victim never came forward. Your point remains stupid.
Idiot, you do know Sandusky was convicted, and will most likely die in prison. That seems to point to the jury thinking he is guilty, and not agreeing with you.
Bet you’re posting from Saint Helena with your bicorn on & your hand [del]in[/del] down your [del]coat[/del] trousers.
He is crowing over the fact that Sandusky was not found guilty of the incident in the shower. He is glossing over the fact that it wasn’t because the jury took out a paper towel tube and did an experiment. Or because they think that men and boys just happen to jump into showers together. It was because the victim in that case did not come forward and McQueary did not bother to find out the kids name when he ran away.
I don’t think this is correct. The jury in the trial of Sandusky did not make any determination about what Paterno did or did not know. He was not on trial.
But Penn State’s own investigation, conducted by former FBI head Louis Freeh did make such a determination, to Mr. Paterno’s detriment:
[From the NY Times article titled Abuse Scandal Inquiry Damns Paterno and Penn State from July 12, 2012.]
And the wheel rolls around again…
Goddammit, I had to take SA off my Ignore List to figure out this?
Good Lord, the thread that won’t die.
SA, when you’re in a hole, or in this case, a crater, stop digging!
Of relevant interest: Victim #2 comes forward, plans to sue Penn State. That was back in July, there hasn’t been anything in the news since.
what exactly are you “winning,” here?
Stupidest poster of the SDMB? You guys and all your fancy citations and links and news stories are doing really poorly in this competition, if I might add.
And, as we eventually learned, men sometimes molest boys. At least 48 times, in this case.
Well there you go. I missed that one.
No. Keep digging SA. It stops me having to worry that new members might come along and take you seriously in another thread.
Now - about those ‘specific geometries’ you were talking about. Can you run it all by us again. I’ve got a cardboard tube handy. I’ve water-proofed it and everything.
IIRC correctly, Freeh based his conclusion on emails from Curley and Schultz which which indicated they intended to report McQueary’s allegation, but that Curley had second thoughts after discussing the matter with Paterno and decided that he’d rather ask Sandusky about it first.
To my mind there are a couple of problems with this. First, it presumes that Paterno counseled Curley not to go to the authorities, and second, it implies that Paterno told Curley to go to Sandusky instead.
I think a more likely scenario, based upon Joe Paterno’s long standing reputation for integrity and good works, is that Curley advised Paterno that he and Schultz were trying to determine if what McQueary had told them rose to the level where it should be reported, and Paterno said something along the line of “Well, I don’t know. He [Sandusky] seems to have a thing for hugging kids in the shower. I remember a couple of years ago this one kid’s mom became upset because he hugged her kid in the shower and she and she made accusations of some sort of sexual impropriety, but the authorities investigated it and nothing came of it. May be the same thing here, I don’t know. Just do whatever you think best.” Whereupon Curley decided to ask Sandusky about it, possibly with the idea in mind that he could suss out from Sandusky’s body English whether he was being truthful or not.
I think this scenario is every bit as likely, if not more so, than the one in which Freeh appears to conclude simply from the fact they met that Paterno advised Curley against going to the authorities.
I think it probably went like this:
Paterno dropping his trousers: “Look Curley, you see where my penis is? Now hold that paper towel tube at about this height…see how I have to bend my knees to a physically impossible position to be able to insert my penis into the tube? Wow, that is putting so much pressure on my back there is simply no way I could even thrust once or twice…case closed!”
That, of course, would have worked just as well.
Really, you should go work for Penn State. I’m sure that they would appreciate your substantive and systematic critiques of the charges levelled against them. You should totally tell them how your internet-based analysis has comprehensively debunked the conclusions of the investigation by the former FBI head. Be sure to include the imaginary conversations; those are the most convincing part.