Whether there was a penis in an anus at the time McQueary busted him doesn’t even enter into the goddamned picture in the first place. Sandusky was molesting a kid in the shower. He had him naked. He had him bent over up against the wall. He was doing skeevy fucking shit to that kid.
For Starving “Hey He Didn’t Look Unhappy” Artist to claim that nothing was going on that warranted his fantasy-husband JoePa from doing something about it because McQueary didn’t say that the kid looked sufficiently stressed out is fucking amazing to me. It’s a huge rationalization that is coincidentally used by child molesters left and right – “Hey. He liked what I did to him.”
It’s goddamned creepy is what it is. It’s like he doesn’t think there’s anything really that horrible about molesting a kid until penetration has been achieved.
My complaining about an asshole apparently being allowed to post bullshit about me in a forum where I couldn’t expect to be allowed to fight back is proof I’m not having fun in this thread?
Are there no idiotic lengths you people won’t go to, or no form of logic you won’t torture, to try to get over on me?
I’ve always know people can be stupid but prior to this thread I really had no fucking idea! :rolleyes:
Oh, but I didn’t say that, did I, assface? All the kid’s lack of expression shows is that he wasn’t being subjected to the horrible, painful ass-raping that the thread’s posters were accusing Joe Paterno of having known about and covered up.
And I’ll say again that if you assholes had only been claiming that Sandusky was molesting the kid instead of going for all the marbles in your lust to crucify Joe Paterno, I doubt my participation in the thread would have been anything more than to defend Paterno on the cover up charge.
So suck it, Jackie, you and your ilk created this bag of shit so you can damn well deal with me pouring it out over your head.
The fuck you didn’t, hairless-ball-lover. You’ve said a number of times that Paterno probably thought that what McQueary described was just another “innocent shower hug” – like that phrase belongs on Planet Rational in the first place.
Further, you’ve cited the fact that McQueary didn’t describe the kid as looking stressed to bolster your contention.
You are making Paterno’s case - or at least the one you’ve invented in your fucked up brain - based on an assumption that the kid was not being molested that night.
And here’s where we ask why. I mean, we’ve asked “why” before, with no real good answer, but, well, ok, here’s where I ask why.
So you really really really like Paterno. Fine.
Want to defend him? Meh. Whatever floats your boat. But since both raping and molesting a child are illegal and reportable, it really makes no difference what Sandusky was doing from Paterno’s point of view.
So that brings us to the question of why do you want to defend Sandusky? Seriously, why? And don’t give me “truth, justice, and the American way, crap.” You don’t participate for 11 months in every criminal law thread on this board, do you? You don’t defend against every single rush to judgment out there, do you? No. You picked this case. You picked Sandusky. You said “he may be the guy who raped 10 boys, will go to prison for life, and has 45 criminal counts against him. But not 46! Not on my watch!”
So I ask why. Why not a jaywalking case? Why not Mumia? Why not literally any other thread ever created on the Dope? Why does your need to defend Sandusky so consume you?
I’m assuming nothing- you’re the one with the ridiculous and fanciful assumption that a tall man can’t rape a short person in that position- an assertion that can be easily disproved with a pretty short internet search. No one but you thinks a tall person can’t have sex with a short person in that position. It’s ludicrous. And comical.
As for your endless loopy-loop on what “didn’t/couldn’t happen in that shower,” suffice it to say that the abused child – let that sink in, you degenerate scumbag – is currently filing a lawsuit against all the other degenerate fucks you so fondly side with.
Here is the statement released by his legal team:
Are you genetically impaired to even begin to comprehend the amount of real life damage that was done at Penn State right under your senile fuck’s iron-fisted watch? Don’t bother responding. You already have thousands of times, you sick SOB.
Only got a sec, but these are reasonable questions that I wish I could address more thoroughly when I have more time.
Real quick, I don’t have an opinion on the paper towel tube theory or the physics behind a 6-4 man with a very young boy.
Do I think it’s possible that McQueary interrupted anal rape in the showers that night? Yes.
Do I think that’s what he interrupted? No.
What’s my level of confidence? Not high, but leaning that way due to a number of contradictions and inconsistencies that just don’t seem to add up.
Slightly more likely scenario to me: JS rubbing his junk on the boy’s backside. Possible that the 3 slapping sounds produced a predetermined image of sex in his head and then a quick, split-second glance through the mirror was close enough for him to suspect the worst.
Having trouble with McQueary’s immediate reactions when confronted by such circumstances, although I’m willing to give him a potential pass due to the shocking/overwhelming nature of what he allegedly witnessed.
Abandoned the boy, didn’t call 911, participated in future public events in the presence of JS.
Testified that JVP followed up with him a few times in the following months to ask if TC/GS handled his reports properly and McQ responded that he was comfortable with the results. If McQ was certain he’d witnessed anal rape in the showers that night, can’t imagine him being comfortable with any outcome other than prison for life.
Also having trouble with Dr. Jonathan Dranov’s testimony that McQueary insisted 3 times that he didn’t see anything sexual. Dranov also described a completely different account of activities between JS and the boy in the shower-room scene. Dr. Jon Dranov and Dr. John McQueary were both highly trained healthcare professionals and mandated reporters of suspected child sex abuse but neither came away from McQ’s immediate first-hand account with the idea that this was a case for DPW/CYS. Both men had sterling professional reputations in the community and it is hard to imagine them risking their accomplished careers when they had nothing to lose by simply reporting.
Perhaps McQ just wasn’t sure what he saw in those lightning-quick glances.
Perhaps McQ was having trouble mentally accepting the heinous nature of what he’d seen and which prevented him from conveying the most critical elements of his reports to JP, TC & GS.
Perhaps McQ underreported to JP/TC/GS what he’d seen and the guilt started eating away at his head over the years until that one fateful day a decade later when the police presented him with a second chance to lock up a serial rapist for life with his full cooperation and an extremely compelling witness testimony.
Police investigators perjured themselves on the stand and also got caught lying when they strongly denied trying to encourage/guide/induce the victims into making/manufacturing specific hardcore allegations against JS such as anal rape. Amendola then played an audio tape that caught the two police officers discussing a pressure tactic that would get the kid to “fill in the blanks” with specific hardcore charges against JS. Although that method is a violation of procedure in these interviewing sessions, one of the investigators told the other that they use underhanded tactics like that all the time to bring forward powerful charges.
It is not hard to imagine these police investigators using the same shady tactics with Mike McQueary to paint a picture of how many victims could have avoided bloody anal rape if MM had only followed through in 2001. Well, they could now present him with a chance to make up for his mistakes in 2001 by providing the critical eyewitness testimony they needed to get a conviction that would put him away for life. Everybody wins in the described scenario, but little did MM know how much unintended collateral damage would result from his harmless intentions to put a monster behind bars. MM’s spiced up testimony would unintentionally be used as evidence of a Penn State cover-up, but if MM wanted to come out with a statement that he was just trying to do the right thing by spicing up his testimony to put a pedophile behind bars, then he’s admitting to perjury. So now his tongue is tied and he can’t do a thing to slow down the momentum of damage that would go down as perhaps the greatest scandal in higher education history.
So much for only having a second. Will try to fill in some blanks and supporting examples with references hopefully tonight or sometime soon. As you can see, I don’t have a fully defined opinion as to what exactly happened. I am still open to pretty much everything. But I’m just not buying the media narrative which is almost entirely based on the Freeh report that I haven’t had a chance to address just yet.
:smack: Is anybody reading for comprehension around here? Is anybody reading my posts at all?
I’ve answered this numerous times already, including in the post to dipshit that you quoted part of to lead off your question.
I’m NOT defending Sandusky!
Or at least that’s not the focus of my intent. If he gets defended as a sidebard element of the main argument then so be it, but defending Jerry Sandusky isn’t the reason for my posting in the thread.
Everyone in their idiotic hysteria to seemingly blame everyone Jerry Sandusky even looked at in his life for the rapes he alone was responsible for, looked at Mike McQueary’s testimony and immediately leapt to the conclusion that Sandusky was anallyraping the kid. They didn’t stop to think about whether that added up or whether he was really doing something else which he shouldn’t have been and which fit the described scenario a lot more closely, no, they just immediately jumped to the worst thing they could think of because it inflamed their outrage and gave them that much more anger and righteous condemnation to fuel what they were supposing to be the complicity of Joe Paterno and the officials at Penn State. They convinced themselves not only that anal rape was the offense, but that Paterno or Penn State officials themselves knew all about it and either didn’t care or knowingly let it happen in order to protect their football program.
No a word of this other than what McQueary had testified to had any sort of basis in fact. IT WAS ALL GUESSWORK AND SUPPOSITION…EVERY BIT OF IT! No one could prove then just like they can’t prove now that Paterno or any of the other people involved knew the ugly details of what Sandusky was actually doing with those kids, but they didn’t care. They were absolutely and totally convinced that horrible and painful anal rape was being inflicted on that boy, and they used that particular anal rape and not the other ten years’ worth of offenses, become their touchstone because it could be tied directly to Joe Paterno through Mike McQueary and they were determined like I said that Paterno knew about it and covered it up.
So yeah, it is about truth. It’s about the truth of what was really happening that night and whether Joe Paterno knew about it and covered it up. And it’s about due process. It’s about due process in that we don’t, or shouldn’t anyway, condemn people for or accuse them of horrible crimes simply because we imagine or suppose they committed them, which is what everyone was doing to Joe Paterno. There was not a shred of evidence at the time to support any of that crap, and there still isn’t today.
Now on to my alleged defense of Sandusky and the distinction between the shower room non-rape and all his other offenses: The only reason I’ve made such an issue of it is because in this case it is a specious crime that did not in fact occur but which was being insisted upon because the horror and pain of such an act is what everyone was so anxious to crucify Joe Paterno for knowing about and covering up. And then to compound the error they absolutely refused to consider the fact they may be wrong and instead accused me of all manner of perversions for even questioning them about it. So here we have a ton of people all insisting a painful and traumatizing crime had taken place and insisting that Joe Paterno not only knew all about it but intentionally and uncaringly covered up many more identical crimes over the next ten years, and refusing to consider the fact that a.) they had zero proof or even evidence that he did any such thing; and b.) the horrible and painful crime they were so het up about may well not have even happened in the case which could be tied to Paterno and they refused to even consider it.
Please tell me that as an attorney you find all of that abhorrent.
Oh, I’ll respond all right, and it will to tell you to shove it unless you can come up with some proof to support your assertions, which btw no one has in the last eleven months…a factor which I suspect plays into the frustration and anger that you’re displaying now. If you could prove what you’re only making up about Paterno, you’d do so and I’d be utterly defeated. Why don’t you want to defeat me, Red?
I have never made the assertion that you just attributed to me. If you can’t make your case honestly, I’m not going to respond.
I have never made the assertion that you just attributed to me. If you can’t make your case honestly, I’m not going to respond.
This is a conclusion based on flawed thinking and is therefore incorrect.
Put down the booze, turn away from the mirror and stop being so hard on yourself. Perhaps counseling could help you with your admittedly rather severe problems with reading comprehension and baseless anger.
Well, technically, the conclusion could be correct but if the premise is flawed, we’re under no obligation to accept that the conclusion is correct without other evidence.
Since all your arguments are based on flawed premises (indeed often in contradiction with other premises you have tried to advance), you have not been proven correct thus far on anything. At best, you might be accidentally correct here and there.
