Is he really saying that Joe Paterno wasn’t told by McQueary that Sandusky’s contact with the child was sexual? Because Paterno admits that he was told, so what is the debate here?
ETA: “little-girl games” kinda rubs me the wrong way. Little boys play just as many games, trust me.
If I understand Starv’s argument correctly, it seems that Joe Paterno believes that Sandusky did not have “sexual relations” with that boy; Victim #2.
Little-kid games is fine by me. Kids who think they can argue their parents out of recognizing they did something wrong, or saying “but he did that to the other kid the other day” (oh, we had that here too).
You have hit on the problem that’s dragged this on for so many pages. He simply refuses to acknowledge that Paterno himself admits he knew of something “sexual in nature.” I am almost 100% sure that (other than being a liar) his rationale is the one I described above – McQ. told Paterno there was something that was EITHER “sexual contact” or “sexual in nature” OR was fondling, Paterno realized that McQ. was confused over whether it was one of two very different things, and Paterno put all the facts together and rejected “sexual contact” or “sexual in nature” and concluded it was the much less serious “non-sexual fondling.” I know it sounds retarded, and you still cannot get him to type the words “Paterno clearly acknowledged being told of something sexual in nature.” He just ignores that part and has been for weeks.
Dear Rubystreak: Thank you for your coherent and clear summary of this mess. I think this should put an end to the equivocating and blah that has been present in this thread. Bravo.
Like I said earlier, just knowing they were alone in the shower with fondling is enough. It’s not anyone’s job but the cops to decide if it was a criminal act or not. I totally understand why Paterno would be so, so reticent to do that BUT, as I said, that is what separates the men from the boys: doing the right thing even when it is scary as shit. Paterno didn’t. He screwed up. Paterno did the mininum he had to do to get it off his radar, probably because he found it incredibly disgusting and distasteful, and hoped it would go away. Moral cowardice. Understandable, but abhorrent nonetheless.
This was also ten o’clock at night and the two of them were alone. It wasn’t during the day, in a crowded locker room at the community pool. This was the campus of a college, where kids had to have special permission, as guests of employees there.
I would imagine that IF the police had been called, they would have gone to Sandusky’s house, and brought him in for questioning. EVEN IF HE DENIED IT. He’d be asked to provide an alibi, for example.
Security logs at campus would have been checked. (Bringing in an outside visitor I’m assuming would require a sign in, wouldn’t it?) I’m also guessing there were security cams somewhere – not in the locker rooms, of course, but in the gym, or the halls. Jesus Christ!
For godsakes, have none of you ever watched a documentary show on A&E or Biography? I’m not talking about something like Law & Order. I’m talking about shows about actual cases, where they discuss police procedure and investigations. Have you never read books about certain cases?
That’s a real shame because I can assure you that as an adult, I would have NO idea how to shower properly if it hadn’t been for the benevolence of a naked 50 year old man who gave me lessons in showering when I was 10. This altruistic man tickled me, hugged me, and wrestled me naked. I owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude for taking the time to teach me these valuable life skills at night when no one when else was around!
On the right track but selling the argument short.
It wasn’t one other incident but at least three other other victims, and not “could not find enough” - these victims were interviewed by the GJ and described naked bearhugging in showers but did not mention rape. Unless the GJ was holding back something (hard to imagine, since they alleged rape for other victims) or the victims were, then Sandusky’s pattern when naked bearhugging in showers did not involve rape.
That doesn’t mean it’s impossible for him to have raped this one kid. But since the primary reason to to think he raped the kid was the position, and since this position typically did not involve rape, it’s more likely than not that there was no rape (in that instance) IMHO.
But let me ask you this: do you think Sandusky had an erection while he was “bear hugging” this kid from behind, alone in the shower? I’m not trying to be gross just for the sake of it. I think, if this was Sandusky’s MO for molesting kids, and he thought he had free rein, I’m pretty sure he did. And that would probably rule out this being a bear hug, as would the reported slapping sound of skin on skin. Where I come from, hugging does not make that sound. But frotteurism does, and while there might not be penetration involved (debatable, but since you want to debate it…), it’s bad e-fucking-nough.
Welcome to the SDMB. Can I get you something to drink?
Actually at Penn State I think it’s a crowbar . . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT
I think this should put an end to the equivocating and blah that has been present in this thread.
I said “should” not “would”.
But I will take that drink: scotch rocks please.
This is an incredibly disturbing train of thought but…if Sandusky was erect..and somehow used the boy’s body to achieve orgasm/ejaculation, the soap and water may have made it less obvious to a prepubescent boy what just happened. I don’t know what the technical definition of “rape” is…and I’m not sure it matters… but if we say that rubbing and ejaculating is rape than some of the other victims might not even know exactly what had happened to them. They might not know they were raped (if this falls under that definition) so their testimony doesn’t necessarily indicate that Sandusky’s MO didn’t include rape.
I don’t know that this actually happened as I just described: it just opens up a disturbing possibility that some victims may have actually experienced something more involved/more sexual than they currently realize.
Ugh I need to stop thinking about this. :(
clink
clink
pour
So, do you fight ignorance here often?
Let’s take the best case scenario. There was no rape-there was only naked bear hugging. That said, there is a huge difference between showering en masse after a game and an adult having naked bodily contact with a minor. I don’t care how much people “horse around” in showers, there is no excuse for an adult to have full body contact naked with a minor.
Add to this the fact that this had happened before and Sandusky had been warned that it was inappropriate, there is no way that this should not have been followed ujp on. The first time, maybe he gets a warning. When he does it again, he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt.
Any reasonable adult, even if he did shower with an unrelated minor, would be keeping his distance, not pressed up against the child. This was wrong and anybody with any moral compass would know it was wrong and make sure that the second strike was the last.
Am I the only one squicked out by the phrase “rhythmic slapping sounds”, to describe the situation? I mean, it’s bad enough to picture it in your mind without well, “sound effects”? Maybe I’m just being squeamish, but in this context, it just creeps me out.
Except, there WERE other rapes. (PDF file, but a very small one)
The rest of the report describes more of this “fondling”, involving genitalia, oral sex, exposure, etc. I mean, if THIS is what you call “horseplay” or “typical locker room behavior”:
then I hope to god you don’t have kids.
Good point. In the future I would suggest that you refrain from engaging in frotteurism with kids in showers.
This is getting rather tedious. Maybe I should put a disclaimer in a sig
The primary reason to think he raped the kid is that the one person who witnessed Sandusky in the shower with Victim #2 feels pretty damn convinced that, based on what he heard and saw, Sandusky was raping the kid.
Does it add weight to his conviction that he was damn convinced, versus just plain old convinced? I don’t know.
Regardless, I think it’s more likely than not that his conviction is wrong. Maybe even damn wrong.
It does.
And I’m sure you’ll understand when I give your opinion less damn weight than that of an actual eyewitness.