You have posted that lie 1267 times, that much is true. There was nothing vague (YOU are the only moral cretin who has used that word) or inconsistent in the sworn testimony of McQueary (who said he told Paterno of “some type of intercourse, extreme sexual contact”) and Paterno (who swore that he was told of “sexual contact”). It might NOT have been “anything.”
You fucking suck, you really do. Your lies are obvious, transparent, and despicable, and I’d wager, so are you.
One of the liars upthread excused Paterno on the grounds that “even to this day no one has identified the kid from the shower incident, so there was no point in Paterno reporting it to the police as they obviously wouldn’t have been able to find him then if they can’t find him now.”
You and others have amply demonstrated the many ways in which that’s moronic fallacy. I just wanted to point out that, contrary to the liars, the initial premise is not true – when prosecutors and police finally got involved and (as you say) did their job, no surprise, they found all eight victims, including victim no. 2 from the shower, and had them available to testify.
Oh, the retard also says Paterno’s hands were tied because Sandusky was the only person he could have asked, and obviously he knew Sandusky would not tell him the identity of the kid. Which is horseshit. Sandusky would not (IRL, a place I know the retard doesn’t inhabit) have been able to just deny that he’d been in the showers or had a kid with him – he could not have said “No, McQ. made that up.” As the facts show, when confronted, he would have had to (and in other cases did) admit the basic facts (that he was showering with a kid), but prevaricate about the details “No, Mike got it all wrong, we were just wrestling and horsing around.” Moral Joe (counterfactual Joe) would then have said, well, what kid was it, and Sandusky could not well hold out on the kid’s name (or, Joe could go to Second Mile and find out what kid Sandusky had checked out for the evening, or . . .), and would have asked the kid, “Listen, was it really just horsing around, or did something bad happen in that shower?”
We’re all just feeding the troll. I used to think trolling didn’t matter, but retards like this SA really are toxic.
You call a cop. You say hey, “I saw a car stolen while I was shopping downtown.” They “How do you know?” You say, “Well, the way they took it was suspicious.” They say "Okay, what kind of car was it? You say “Well, I don’t know. It was yellow and appeared to be ten years old.” They say “Do you know who owns it?” You say “No.” They say, “Did you get a tag number?” You say “No.” They say “Thanks. We’ll look into it.”
Later, you find out they didn’t investigate it all. And so you, apparently feeling that having nothing to go on, they should have redoubled their efforts, shriek to the heavens that they were derelict in their duty.
The world :rolleyes:.
Same thing here. There’s no real description of the boy. No one has made a complaint saying a child had been abused in the shower that night. There is no evidence that video cameras or anything else would have identified him. And Sandusky, knowing it’s McQueary’s word against his, most likely denies everything.
You know what investigators do in a case like that? Nothing! Because that’s all they can do unless and until they have more to go on.
No, Sandusky would be the equivalent to Ted Kennedy in this analogy.
Yeah, I don’t know why I keep bothering. Regardless of the opinion on Paterno, I just get so annoyed at statements that amount to “we didn’t try…so obviously it’s impossible!”
You’re a congenital liar but . . . there is no affirmative testimony that McQueary could not describe/identify the kid, because (of course, you moron) his height, his ethnicity, the color of his har (all of which it is highly possible McQueary could have identified) were completely irrelevant to establishing probable cause for indictment, which was the only purpose of the GJ summary of the facts.
I believe this was an error by ABC, and subsequent versions of that story said six victims to testify. See e.g.: StockExaminer - AI-Powered Stock Chatbot
A bit long-winded and rhetorical, but correct. Sandusky couldn’t have refrained from identifying the kid, or PSU would have come down on him a lot harder. (FWIW, Sandusky’s lawyer claims that Sandusky did identify the kid to PSU at the time.)
Time for the second stupidest post of 2011
Let me dumb this down for you. Take your time, I used some big 3 syllable words.
Sandusky rape kid in Penn State locker room
Sandusky work with Second Mile charity
Second Mile charity run event at Penn State day of rape
Second Mile charity have list of kids for event
Look at list - read names - talk to kids
Second Mile charity have list of workers for event
Look at list - talk to workers
Penn State have list of people at event
Look at list - talk to people
Use pencil to write down statements
Give list of statements to smart person
Can you not see that your position on this is absolutely filled with supposition? Clearly the university, the players, the people at Second Mile, the people manning the camps, et al., were unaware of what Sandusky was allegedly doing at the time. There is absolutely no evidence that Paterno deliberately stood by and allowed Sandusky to abuse children, but plenty of reason to think, given the various accusations which had come to nothing, that whatever Sandusky had been doing was not serious enough to warrant legal action. People these days are far too quick to see evil intent where none exists. As a grown man these days you can’t even look smilingly and amusedly at a little kid in a place as big as a friggin’ Walmart people looking at you like a pedophile. Kids are being raised to be fearful of men, and men are falling under suspicion for all sorts of bogus reasons. Frankly, were I in Paterno’s shoes and hearing all the good things I’d been hearing about the work Sandusky was doing with underprivileged kids and his charity and so forth, I’d be more than a little reluctant to take vague rumors of Sandusky’s impropriety with children all that seriously and would probably mark it down to people seeing things or misiinterpreting things that so far hadn’t been substantiated in any significant way. Then, once I heard something that seemed credible from an assistant I trusted and who seemed upset over what he’d seen, I’d call the university officials who presumably had been conducting the other inquiries into Sandusky’s behavor, and report what I’d heard. Which of course is exactly what Paterno did!
So again, I’m not seeing impropriety on Paterno’s part. These claims that he stood by and allowed the abuse to happen, that he covered up for Sandusky, that he did the bare minimum by folllowing the law, are just so much supposition. There’s not a shred of evidence to support any of it. And people in this country should not be considered guilty of behavior that exists only in the imagination.
You’re a fucking idiot as well as beyond misguided and into the realm of perversity when it comes to your defense of everyone who failed these kids. Ask Sandusky who the kid was. If he refuses, take it from there. The grand jury report says they didn’t even do that. Assumptions, my ass.
OK, you’ve gone off the deep end and are engaged in self-parody.
In your example, even though you seem to suggest that proprty theft and child rape should get equal consideration…THE COPS WERE CALLED. If that was done in this case, several Penn State officals would still have jobs and not be facing charges.
And you are out of your freaking mind if you believe, even for a moment, that investigators would do nothing. They would have had something to go on. They would have had an eye freaking witness. They would have had the name of alleged perpatrator. They might not be able to prosecute, but they would do plenty, including questioning Sandusky.
You know how I know this? Because they are now investigating Sandusky and preparing a deep, dark hole to stick him in.
No, he wouldn’t. He might’ve, but he wouldn’t have had to at all. He could very easily have answered “I don’t know what Mike saw, or thought he saw, but I wasn’t in the shower with any kid last night.”
I already asked upthread if the authorities are expected to have to run around to every school and every kid in town asking if Sandusky had screwed them in the shower that night, and I’m not seeing as how you wouldn’t expect them to hit every school in town if checking out Second Mile didn’t turn up a victim.
And what if Sandusky were innocent? You’d have cops or administrators running all around town asking about possible pedophilic behavior on Sandusky’s part. Sooner or later parents and the media get hold of it, and before long Sandusky’s ruined, his charity is ruined, and Paterno and Penn State themselves come under suspicion. Plus abused kids get traumatized further by having other people become aware of what’s happened to them, which conducting the investigation in the public way you describe would almost certainly do. Kids aren’t stupid and it wouldn’t take long for them to hear or figure out who the kid in the shower was that night, and they’d know what happened to him once charges were filed and the allegations became a matter of public record.
So no, I don’t think the police would have run around inquiring of every kid in town as you describe…and for good reason.
Assumptions litter that entire post. I’m not an idiot, nor am I misguided, nor am I perverse, nor am I defending everyone who failed these kids, nor can it be assumed that anything at all would come of "taking it from there - which a pretty big jump of faith all on its own. What I am doing iis defending Paterno from the hysterical conclusion-jumping that has gone on in this thread and describing in real world terms the obstacles that investigators run into when they lack evidence to proceed. You’ve not heard me utter a word in defense of Sandusky as it relates to any crimes he committed, nor have you heard me defend Curley or Schultz for lying to the Grand Jury. Your problem is that you don’t want the facts to come into play here at all, you just want heads to roll…and anyone who says “Not so fast” instantly becomes a pedophile enabler or worse simply for not jumping on your bandwagon of vengeance. I have no particular problem with vegeance myself, but I do think it should be applied only when the miscreant is provably guilty, and neither Paterno nor Curley nor Shultz have been remotely proven to be guilty of the behavior you and most of the other posters here have been accusing them of.
Oh, please. :rolleyes: Of course the cops were called. Perhaps I should have set the scene on campus where the campus police would be called. The point was that without anything specific to go on, the authorities’ hands are tied.
And you perfectly well know that.
And yet, somehow, after all this brouhaha, the victim still hasn’t been identified. Having an eye witness is meaningless if that’s all you have.
I love how at this point, you are basically defending Sandusky.
I love how at this point you’re being utterly ridicuous.
What I’m defending is due process.
And people like youi are the reason for it.
You’re not a lawyer. Stop playing as though you were.
Due process applies in criminal prosecutions. Only. Which never got a chance to be brought here. Because an amoral or immoral person (your boyfriend Paterno) failed the moral test of calling the cops when told of child rape. Moral tests are not subject to “due process,” what kind of idiot thinks they are?
Surprisingly enough, you don’t. What you DO is conduct a thorough investigation, starting with the accuser, the accused, and people known, or suspected, to have been in the general area, or known to have been involved with an event that the victim could have been associated with.
In police detective lingo, I believe they call that “working”.
You can defend Paterno all you like…it’s a question of morality, not one of legality, and while I feel that a moral code that absolves Paterno is abhorrent, you are entitled to it (as long as it doesn’t break any laws).
But you are basically saying that there was no point investigating at all because Sandusky would have lied to cover his ass.
You are so afraid of the consequences of a false accusation that you are advocating that NO accusation, no matter how credible, be investigated.
McQueary is about as credible a witness as you can find - someone who was friendly with Sandusky, someone who knew the charity, someone who knew the campus and locker room, someone who knew what locker room culture and what sorts of behaviour happen there. He saw something that horrified him.
He should have called the cops.
But you are now to the point of arguing that even if he (or Paterno) had done so, there was no point because it may have started rumours and Sandusky would have lied and there might not have been any other evidence so no one should be bothered to look for it.
That is ridiculous, and you know it.