What would you consider to be “convincing evidence”?
And what about the fact that Curley changed his mind about reporting the incident after discussing with Paterno?
If Paterno felt it should have been reported, it’s pretty unlikely his conversation would cause Curley to change his plans and do the opposite, right?
Really? SA had a shred of credibility and respect before this thread? Well, ignorance fought!
Yes, but prior to the determination made by the trial jury even that wasn’t clear. For all you or anyone else here knew as a fact he had merely hugged the boy as he had another boy two years earlier, an incident which was investigated by the local authorities and resulted in no charges whatever.
I addressed this a couple of days ago. A search of my user name with “Freeh” as the keyword should turn up the post.
Are you scared to? Do you have a clue as to what their reaction to this thread would be? I would think you’d want to know.
Am I scared to? What is this this, 4th grade? You think wrong.
Paterno was told that Sandusky was doing something sexual to a child in the showers at night. Sandusky was convicted of sexual crimes against that child in that very incident.
To me, that tends to indicate that Paterno made the wrong choice in not making sure the crime was reported. But then, I don’t have the kind of genius that tells me not to report sexual crimes to the police (in order to be investigated) before I make a preliminary test on my own and determine if I think it was rape or not, or if it was more likely to be other sexual crimes that also carry 20 year sentences but are too minor to be reported.
I’m just wondering, why not? It was brought up a number of times in this thread. Are you assuming they’d be disgusted by your arguments?
Or would they tell you that you have an obsession? Would you listen to them? Or just say “Do not!”.
Look, if your family reads this and says “Good job. Nothing creepy about it.” then I apologize.
Oh yes, now I remember.
:dubious: In other words, your speculation is worth more, despite not having done any actual research, seen any documents, etc. Whatever.
I completely agree that the jury’s verdict totally confirms the position that you are now pretending you were arguing for during the earlier course of the thread.
What the jury’s verdict does not confirm or vindicate in any way is the position that you were actually arguing for during the earlier course of the thread.
You argued, repeatedly, that it was unlikely bordering on impossible that Sandusky was committing anal rape in the shower incident. That was a ridiculous argument, and other posters very properly criticized it.
The jury’s verdict says absolutely nothing to cast doubt on the likelihood or possibility of Sandusky’s committing anal rape at that time. All the verdict says is that it’s not proven that Sandusky was doing so—which, as I noted, nobody in this thread ever denied.
Consequently, you are now making believe that the statement in the jury’s verdict is what you were arguing for all along.
And at this point it well may be that, as 42fish remarked, you really believe your own made-up version of these events, despite the contrary evidence of the actual posts in the thread.
If it were simply another incident like that, would he have been convicted of indecent contact with the child, with the definition shown above?
Except Paterno’s own testimony makes it clear this is a lie:
*"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."*
or, you could go with McQuery’s testimony, which included:
*"Less than 12 hours after he witnessed Jerry Sandusky with his arms wrapped around a young boy, molesting him in a locker room shower, Mike McQueary says he went to Joe Paterno’s home, sat at his kitchen table and told him he’d seen something “way over the lines and extremely sexual in nature.”
““There’s no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry in the showers and that it was severe sexual acts and that it was wrong and over the line,” he said.”
““I would have said that Jerry was in there in very close proximity to a boy with his arms wrapped around him. I said I heard slapping sounds. I described it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on,” he said.”*
No that it will do a single thing to change your idiotic point, but hey, for those reading along it might help.l
and there I was, thinking nothing good could come out of rape! I clearly need to brush up on my Carlin.
I can’t tell if this is goalpost moving or just a magical handwave away of 95% of this thread, but either way it’s breathtaking in its brazenness.
Christmas has come early to the BBQ pit, with SA’s return to this thread. I am delighted beyond words. You can’t PAY for entertainment like this, people.
I believe it’s taking the goalposts to the quarry and throwing them down there.
A Youtube video of Sandusky successfully fucking the paper towel tube.
You can, but it involves going to a particularly unsavory neighborhood in Tiajuana. Thanks to SA, we can get all the skeeviness of a donkey show without leaving our computers.
95% of this thread deserves to be handwaved away. It’s based on actions that took place during the ten years after the shower room incident, yet the shower room incident is what has been held forth to insist that Joe Paterno knew Jerry Sandusky was raping children and a.) didn’t care; b.) was raping children himself; c.) intentionally covered it up for the sake of his football program.
In point of fact Paterno did not know what Sandusky was doing, as evinced by his own statement as quoted by Hamlet above. All he knew was that two years previous a woman had made charges of sexual impropriety involving a hug in the shower that was investigated and dismissed, and that Mike McQueary had seen Sandusky and a boy in the shower and McQueary seemed to be of the same opinion as the mother had been previously. Clearly he couldn’t know something sexual was going on because he wasn’t there, he only knew McQueary thought it was.
So, Paterno has not come close to having been shown to know that Sandusky was raping children all those years; he has not come close to having been shown to having been covering it up to protect his football program; he has not remotely been shown to be a pedophile himself; the horrific rape which the board’s poster’s identified with so strongly to make them lose their minds and accuse Paterno of all this stuff never in fact happened (and hopefull there’ll be no disagreement that whatever did happen was much less difficult for the child than full on anal rape) as determined by a court of law, and in each of these points my position is either yet to be refuted or I have been totally vindicated.
Everything everyone is bringing up has been argued here time after time already and I’m not going to spend months arguing it again. The obsession here is not mine. To the degree that I’m obsessed at all, it’s with not allowing a hysterical, mob mentality prevail.
And happily, we’ve reached the point where I’ve done that. I’m clearly outnumbered and you people can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and argue the same points over and over again for as long as you want, but I’m not gonna stick around and play your game. If you get some new evidence that Paterno knew Sandusky was anally raping kids, or subjecting them to oral sex, or committing any other serious forms of sexual abuse and sought to cover it up, or that Paterno was raping kids himself (as has been so idiotically asserted in this thread as well), let me know and we’ll talk. Otherwise, you’ve got the sandbox to yourselves.