Not to mention ‘due process’ does not include the directive, “don’t question men who have been seen naked in deserted shower rooms with naked little boys because it’s possible it might have all just been innocent horseplay.”
ETA: **Cheesesteak **and **mnemosyne **said it better.
It’s easy enough to check and see if you are right or not, let’s google for examples:
Hey, that was ridiculously easy, I found one that was from October 8 of this year:
Starving Artist, please keep the entertainment coming by responding to this. The likelihood of you admitting you are wrong is hovering around 0.0000000001%
You can roll your eyezs all you want, but you wandered pretty far from the fold here.
The victime may be a little hard to find now, seeing as how nearly 10 years have passed. If Paterno had called the cops in say 2002, he would have been much easier to find. Hell I could have found him then.
But the fact that he *has not *been identified does not mean he won’t be identified.
Amendola claims he knows who he is. He’s waffled a bit on that lately, and that may be because he was bluffing initially. But I also think it’s possible that the victim is willing to testify that there was no rape (which is what Amendola was trumpeting) but will also testify that there was other improper contact, such that Amendola can’t put him up to testify.
In any event, there’s a huge difference between trying to track down a kid who accompanied someone on one night 9 years ago and trying to track down the kid two days later. [ETA, I see Spooje has already mentioned this.]
Not to mention that at that time Sandusky couldn’t refuse to name him, as mentioned. While he certainly can now.
That’s not a good example of the shower situation. A better example is “Hello, police? My friend told me he saw Jerry Sandusky of 1234 Main Street steal a car. No, I don’t have the details, but my friend is right here. Would you like to talk to him? … Hi. This is McQueary. I saw Sandusky going up to a car that wasn’t his and jimmy the lock to get in. Then he appeared to fiddle with some wires under the dash and then he drove away.” Then the police would talk to Sandusky to get his side of the story to find out why he was doing those things.
With him, there’s always some central fact that he either simply refuses to address, or makes up a completely fabricated alternate assumption.
Here, it is because the GJ indictment did not contain McQueary’s description of the appearance of the child, this proves that McQueary could not have done so, if asked, at the time of the attack. Paterno didn’t ask, and it’s not relevant to the elements of the crime, so of course this information’s absence from the complaint has no probative value as to the idiot’s contention that “there was nothing further to go on.”
The other obvious fact he can’t deal with is that confronting Sandusky (whether by Paterno or the cops) would be an obvious first step (instead, the fool goes to the reductio ad absurdum that the cops faced an impossible task of interviewing every grade school age child in the county). Sandusky could not simply stonewall and if he did, guess what? Follow up questions! Really? You say you weren’t in there with a boy? 'Cause Mike’s pretty sure about it. Anybody see you come in alone, like maybe a janitor? If I ask the janitor, is he going to tell me you came in here alone? If I call Second Mile are they going to tell me you picked any kid up there last night?"
Sandusky can’t answer “Are you a pedophile?” without hemming and hawing and dancing around the issue and inventing definitions and needing to be coached by a lawyer to tack on “BUT NOT SEXUALLY!!!” when he starts to answer “Um…well…” This while preparing a legal defense.
I think had someone asked him point-blank at the time “who were you with last night?” he would have had a hard time telling a lie! The man is an idiot.
I think I have finally parsed SA’s train of thought.
Paterno is an honorable man so therefore he would have reported Sandusky if he suspected something serious. Ergo, he must not have been told that anything seriously wrong happened. In addition, he continued to work with the charity and to see Sandusky around the campus with children and since he would of course never have allowed that if he suspected Sandusky of child abuse, we must conclude that Paterno was never given any convincing evidence of child abuse.
The above is certainly one explanation. However, it ignores the alternative theory that Paterno, either consciously or subconsciously, ignored clear evidence that Sandusky was a child abuser and is therefore not an honorable person.
I think you’re right. It’s not that he’s a friend of rapists everywhere on purpose, he’s just trying to beat the evidence into compliance with his predetermined conclusions.
37 pages because some childish idiot (and I don’t mean you) has never heard of question-begging?
OP: I think Paterno acted dishonorably.
SA No, that’s not true, and I have proof. Here’s my proof: Paterno is an honorable man.
I think you nailed it, but sheesh.
Are we done here yet?
Right, but I was wondering “What did Joe and PSU know, and when did they know it?” It certainly could be that his firing (which it was, despite the spin) had nothing to do with pedophilia, but there is now reason to wonder about anything that ever happened.
I would also imagine that there are some security cams somewhere, and I’m sure he’d have to sign in any outside visitors to campus.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
― Thomas Paine
SA is a lost cause. And I don’t care how offensive it might sound, his continual justification for adult men giving naked bear hugs to 10 year old boys in the shower makes him sound like a perverted pedophile.
Penn State main campus is the size of a town (in fact it is a small town - “University Park”, to distinguish it from State College around it). Unlike Mordor you can just walk in. I don’t know what the rules are for that particular building but I’d guess that Sandusky saying “This is Billy - I’m showing him around” to the guard is the most that he’d need to do.
I think the identification of the victim McQueary witnessed would have been quite easy at the time. Remember someone was aware the boy was with Sandusky. Whether it was a Second Mile person, a parent, a Foster parent…the boy wasn’t AWOL. A few interviews with key people and the indentity would have been established.
His custodian or parent was under the impression they were allowing this child a good thing by this association. That is what makes this predator even more evil. And the enablers even more dangerous. They allowed the people responsible for these kids to think all was well. And they watched from the sidelines.
Speaking of people who have renounced reason (assuming you ever had it to begin with) I’d like to see you come up with anything that doesn’t exist only in your fevered imagination to show that I ever justified adult men giving naked bear hugs to 10 year old boys in the shower.
Lies and insults; it’s all you guys have.
ETA: Will address previous posts later today.
What are you so busy doing? Got some little boys that you need to teach how to shower? Or, are you just doin’ some wrasslin’?
You know, back in the fifties, no one molested kids. Yes, what Starving Artist does can’t be molestation; a man of his character and age doesn’t even know the meaning of the word! Just like ol’ JoePa… back then, they played naked in the locker room with grown men, and they liked it!
The liberals invented child molestation in the 60’s… damn shame.
No, you just keep justifying it by saying it was probably “horseplay”, like you and your friends used to do at the local pool.
Bitch, please.
If I was a masochist, I’d go back and reread the pedophilic drivel you’ve posted over the past 37 pages and multi-quote your revolting posts. But frankly I’d rather wrestle naked with Jerry Sandusky.
Further I will state my flat out belief that you’d undoubtedly play your little word lawyering game where ‘you were making general statements’ and ‘it depends on what the meaning of is is’.
Face the music, Chester, you sound like creepy child molester and if you think I’m wrong, then go ahead and sue me for Defamation of Character. But I am 100% confident that any court would determine that you have no character and your case would be thrown out.
So STFU and get back to your fantasies of non-sexual fondling of children and naked bear hugs with 10 year old boys, complete with the rhythmic slapping sounds of you giving them “lessons in showering”. We all have our dreams.