Because it’s no use argueing with you. You’ve stuck your head so far up your ass you’re licking your appendix. No one’s going to convince you. We just wish you’d shut the fuck up, because we’re tired of hearing about naked old child rapists and paper towel tubes.
I don’t understand how anyone having even a passing acquaintance with the facts of the case could possibly believe the poster in question “had it right”.
Sandusky was was originally charged with 52 counts of various sexual crimes against minors, involving 10 victims. Three counts were dismissed and one withdrawn by the prosecutor prior to reaching the jury. Of the remander, five counts pertained to Victim #2, the person witnessed with Sandusky by McQueary in the Penn State locker room. The disposition of these five counts was as follows (from CNN):
VICTIM #2
Count 7 - not guilty
Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
Count 8 - guilty
Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
Count 9 - guilty
Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
Count 10 - guilty
Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
Count 11 - guilty
Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)
Starving Artist seeems to be arguing that some great injustice was done to Sandusky, and by extension to Joe Paterno, by some of the posters on this board assuming that Sandusky was guilty of Count 7 prior to trial. This position is absurd on its face; Sandusky a) was subsequently found guilty of the same charge (involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) on no less than eight counts involving at least four of the other victims; b) was found guilty of all the other counts regarding Victim #2, despite Victim # 2 not having been available to testify.
I for one am not going to worry overmuch over whether someone on an Internet Message board fails to accurately predict guilt of a crime that a jury found the accused had committed multiple times, with multiple victims, at the same trial. That S A has made such a mountain of an obvious molehill is bizarre in the extreme.
Starving Artist also seems to be pretending that since Count 7 was overturned, this somehow validates his ludicrous, and thoroughly debunked contention that sexual intercourse between Sandusky and the victim was “physically impossible”, based on their positions as witnessed by McQueary. So far as anyone knows the jury did not base its verdict on any such assumption, in fact the subject never seems to have come up in deliberations. The verdict apparenlty was based solely on McQueary’s inability to positively identify the (unquestionably illegal) sexual contact as actual intercourse.
Lastly, as far as anyone knows, the sole reason any of this matters to S A at all is that he somehow feels that by continuing to support this decidedly odd hairsplitting defense of a single not guilty verdict out of 5, he has successfully argued that Paterno had no reason to take McQueary seriously. This again is absurd; it seems to assume that the persons to whom this incident was reported would somehow see far enough into the future to know not just what precise criminal charges would result from informing the authorities, but just how a jury would treat them.
Thus, on this particular point, Starving Artist always has been full of shit, remains full of shit, and always will be full of shit. The same, frankly, goes for anyone who argues in favor of his ridiculous premise without having bothered to examine the facts of the case. Sorry.
Really? Seems to me you’ve done more than your share to keep this thread alive. Your first post was back on page 70, reviving the thread after it had been dormant for a week. You’re here on page 71, again waking the thread up after a week of no activity. This and this post are on page 72, after 10 and 20 days of inactivity.
You certainly don’t seem to be a newcomer to this thread.
Page numbers are based on 50 posts per page.
Has anyone ever seen **NoLittlePlans **and SA in the same room?
If you look at NLP’s posting history, he’s participated in nothing BUT Paterno/Sandusky threads. Since March.
Great catch, Robot Arm.
I’m sure Marley would be happy to investigate. Perhaps you should contact him and ask that he do just that.
Covered your tracks, eh?
Truth be told, I associate Starving Artist with his comically naive view of an idealistic 1950s that never existed, let alone was destroyed by modern liberals.
Oh, but there’s a few of them. SA has cornered the cardboard tube rape market.
Oh, and BTW, when you have a cardboard tube with corners, rape is 4 times more impossible.
Yeah, but that’s more of a symptom than a core feature, I figure.
Don’t be an idiot. It’s more like a terrible injustice has been done to Joe Paterno, with a denial of due process for Sandusky being the vehicle used carry it out. Any injustice being visited upon Sandusky would be related to his being assumed guilty in this instance of a crime that in this instance he was not committing.
Second, Sandusky’s being convicted on counts other than the shower room rape is irrelevant to my argument in this thread.
It’s a molehill that was virtually the sole focus of all the outrage being heaped upon Joe Paterno and Penn State in the early weeks and months of this thread, and for the ridiculous accusations which were aimed at both them and me. Certainly no one at the time regarded it as a molehill in the slightest, and it’s only been since I’ve effectively shot holes in the alleged rape scenario that dishonest people like you have begun to back off from it and adopt the “Well, so what if he didn’t rape that kid, he raped plenty of others” stance…a stance which, again, has nothing to do with my argument in this thread.
Again you demonstrate your ignorance. It wasn’t “overturned.” It was a charge that was brought and it ended in an acquittal.
Quite the contrary. There has been no debunking of any kind, let alone thoroughly. Do feel free to cite it, though, if you truly believe otherwise.
Assuming you’re correct about the jury’s deliberations, and that’s a gracious assumption, it doesn’t matter by what mechanism the jury arrived at its conclusion. The fact of the matter is that McQueary’s testimony was insufficient to support a conviction of rape in the shower room incident. Period. End of story. I recognized it early on when all you bozos were insisting for all you were worth that there was no other explanation and that I was a likely pedophile for even suggesting it. You can whinge that Sandusky wasn’t acquitted because the jury didn’t use a paper towel tube, or because Victim #2 didn’t testify, or because McQueary couldn’t identify what he saw as rape, but none of that matters. What matters is what I saw from the very beginning: a conclusion of rape may not reasonably be drawn from McQueary’s description of what he saw. This is what I said from the very beginning and it created a huge amount of outrage and disbelief, and vile, ridiculous insults aimed at me. And ow that the jury has also found that McQueary’s testimony does not add up to a conclusion of rape, you and a few other cowardly, dishonest posters seek to reframe the issue as to whether he was acquitted because they considered my argument or because of some other reason that I hadn’t expressed. But the issue isn’t whether the paper towel tube got him acquitted on that charge. It was for the edification of the posters in this thread. What matters is that everyone here was sucking up McQueary’s story of what he saw as gospel proof of rape; I said it was no such thing; and the jury came to the same conclusion! Writhe in your loser’s agony and twist things all you want, but that fact is inescapable. You people jumped the gun, assumed facts not actually in evidence, and wound up with egg on your face, happily supplied by me. Suck it up, you have no choice.
Again a blatantly dishonest remark. I’ve never remotely said Paterno had no reason to take McQueary seriously because the Sandusky jury acquitted Sandusky of the rape charge. The accusation is ridiculous on its very face.
Sorry, but you don’t get to posit self-invented ridiculous premises, pretend they’re mine, and then claim anyone who agrees with them is full of shit. As I have just demonstrated, the facts bear out everything I’ve said in this thread.
So once again you’re confronted with the same hard reality that everyone else on your side of this issue winds up confronted with. You can’t win! That’s all there is to it! You hitched your wagon to a losing horse and no matter how you flail around trying desperately to find some way to recast the issues to try to at least minimize your defeat, you wind up right back where you started…defeated and holding an empty sack.
Blah, blah, blah.
Keep barking , little doggie.
And another one gone, and another one gone…another one bites the dust!
Huh, the brazil84 approach.
SA, explicitly in response to the post above, post 4463:
Font changes for emphasis are mine.
A await the next SA tap dance.
What’s your point?
I’m not even gonna bother. Back on the ignore list.
Perhaps I should elucidate. You seem to be arguing that because I said it was impossible seven or eight months ago, I was therefore not arguing that McQueary’s testimony did not support a conclusion of rape.
The answer of course is that at one time or another I’ve said both.
Makes no difference as they are not mutually exclusive, thus my question as to your point.
WINNING! 
oh for fuck’s sake
(bolding mine)
I thought what mattered here is that an allegation of a crime was reported to Paterno by an eyewitness. The allegation was borne out by a felony conviction against Sandusky. And due to Paterno’s failure to follow through in reporting the allegation, Sandusky was allowed to remain free for ten years and claim at least one additional victim during that time.
You said much more than “…a conclusion of rape may not reasonably be drawn…” You are trying to re-frame your earlier arguments as being about strictly legal matters; whether McQueary’s testimony was sufficient to secure a conviction. That is not what you said earlier; you said flat out that it could not, and by extension did not happen.
Boyo Jim, in regards to whether SA was defending Sandusky or only Paterno, he already said:
That’s about as close to an admission as we’re likely to get.