People would be well-advised to put their emotions aside. The board’s desire to see SA fail in his predicted outcome became more important to some than their own approach to the truth. Because SA did not immediately accept the media’s narrative as the truth, he stands here today looking much more intelligent than the vocal majority of you.
Greg Bucceroni said:
Ed Savitz tells me we’re going to go back and I’m going to make good on my rain check to Jerry Sandusky. We go there, Jerry Sandusky had one child prostitute with him.
They are exchanging nude photos of me. Sandusky is giving nude photos of the boy prostitute with him to Ed Savitz. They’re exchanging them like baseball cards, give me yours and I’ll trade you yours for mine.
Someone walks up to the table and says, “Joe Paterno is here.”
Their whole behavior changed.
And now they’re not all cozy-cozy, talking to us, rubbing on our legs – their voices get deeper and they’re scared.
They did not want Joe Paterno to find out of our secret.
Every single one of the facts is contrary to what you are saying.
Paterno admitted being told that Sandusky committed “sexual” acts on a child in a shower at night.
Sandusky was, in fact, tried and convicted for the hideous crime Paterno was told about. Your insistence that the crime he was convicted of is unimportant is perhaps the grossest thing you have done in this thread, and that is saying a lot.
Paterno did let it continue for the next 10 years, and the Freeh Report says he did more than just not make sure it was reported… it says he was instrumental in it not being reported.
The jury did not say it was “impossible” that the incident Paterno was told of included rape. Read up on how the American legal system works.
McQueary may not have witnessed the entire incident, so it is dishonest for anyone to claim they know everything that happened. It would be dishonest for anyone (that wasn’t there) to claim they know for sure there was a rape, but also for you to say you know for sure there wasn’t a rape.
I never said it was rape, nor was that an essential point. I believe the vast majority of posters in this thread did not say it was definitely rape. It is not up to you to decide which types of sex abuse of children are “worthy” of being reported.
This is not contrary to anything I’ve said. Paterno also didn’t “admit” any such thing. If you’ll recall, it was Paterno who reported McQueary’s complaint to the Penn State administration.
My insistence has been that whatever he was doing, it was not anal rape. You could not cite that that I ever insisted that the crime he was unimportant to save your life. Nor could you begin to describe what Jerry Sandusky was doing with that boy to save your life, so you have no way of knowing whether what he was doing was “hideous” or not. I submit (yet again) that from a ten-year-old boy’s point of view, that to be anally raped by a grown man is far more “hideous” than whatever it was that Mike McQueary happened upon.
There has been zero evidence that Paterno knew of any other crimes against children since the shower room incident. The Freeh report is nothing but supposition, as I’ve explained already.
Okay, now you’re on the verge of losing it entirely. I’ve never remotely said the jury found it “impossible” that the incident Paterno was told of included rape. My opinion has been that it would have been impossible considering the physical dimensions of the people involved and their positions as described by McQueary, thus I’ve held that what McQueary saw was insufficient to support a conclusion of anal rape. The jury came to the same conclusion.
I’ve never said anything about what might have happened before or after what McQueary saw. Anything, including nothing, could be the answer. It was upon what McQueary saw that so many of this thread’s posters jumped to all sorts of outlandish conclusions, and it was upon his testimony that I’ve based my argument as to what conclusions may be drawn.
You might believe that but you would be wrong. The entire point of the paper towel tube was to try to force these people into acknowledging how difficult if not impossible it would have been for anal rape to have been what McQueary saw.
(To the degree that posters may have begun to back off from the conclusion that it was rape, I happily take credit. :))
Who said it was? Are you capable of thinking straight on this subject at all?
Look, you people need to give this up. Facts and events as they’ve transpired are on my side. You can’t win. No brag, just fact.
Fair points, but can you quote anything in the Freeh report that legitimately supports your third point? JVP so so determined not to report that he reported it to his immediate superior as well as the head of Penn State Police and MM said at no time did JVP ever discourage him from sharing his information with others. Quite a cover-up there.
“3. Paterno did let it continue for the next 10 years, and the Freeh Report says he did more than just not make sure it was reported… it says he was instrumental in it not being reported.”
No. No no no. I don’t know how many people need to point this out to you but you are incorrect. You are wrong. Legally you are wrong. I’m an attorney, and I’m telling you your understanding of the jury’s determination is incorrect. Others have pointed this out as well. You are wrong and at this point you’re just lying when you keep making these claims.
If the jury in its deliberations did not find that McQueary’s testimony was insufficient to support a conviction on the rape charge, then upon what did it base its acquittal?
Surely you’ve watched enough TV to know what “reasonable doubt” means. Or maybe you don’t, since you continue to interpret it as “didn’t do it, haha, winning!”.
Perhaps because she’s not accusing you of being wrong, but rather of being a stupid sick fucking jackass. Are you really too stupid to even grasp that point?
No, actually I’m right, for the reasons I’ve already given (multiple times), and as alluded to by Cheshire Human in his post, and partially acknowledged in your own post just above, where you make my point for me by acknowledging the jury had reasonable doubt. Why you stupidly chose to attempt to mock me over that issue is anyone’s guess.
Starving Artist lacks the aptitude to understand the difference between the concepts of not provable beyond a reasonable doubt and innocence. He thinks they are one and the same.
And his moral idiocy is attributable to his deficient intellectual capacity.
Having only read the last couple of pages here, it seems everyone’s piling on against the only guy that actually had it right this entire time. Interesting dynamic and I’m not sure what explains it. Maybe people are just too proud to admit it when they’ve rushed into the wrong judgments.
We are piling on against a guy who had it wrong the whole time, which you would understand if you read more than the last few pages. I can’t stomach doing it, so I’m not willing to go back and dig up some of SA’s bullshit.
Ay, laddie, it’s too late fer us… but you, you can save yerself. Sure’n ye’ll be tellin’ yerself thet ye kin stop. But… ye won’t! “Oh, it won’t hurt-- just another click…”
Are ya daft, mon? They’ll fin’ ya inna mar’nin’, slobb’rin’ on yer keyba’rd. Just like Boyo Jimbo here. Had a steady job an’na fam’ly, until the night uh tha paper towel tube. Poor mon, ne’er the same…