Posted: 1/31/2013 10:32 AM
indynittany wrote: CincinnatiKid wrote: Also I think sexual noises sound... sexual?But that doesn't make them so. McQueary testified that when he heard those sounds, he expected to see a man and a woman in the shower. He also said that when he saw the boy's face he didn't have a look of pain or distress. He didn't see Sandusky's hands and never said he saw fondling. The boy was 10-12 years old and his head only came up to Sandusky's pecs. He said the boy's feet were on the floor, which means, given Sandusky's size, intercourse was impossible. He never saw Sandusky's genitals. So how did the AG see fit to tell the world in the presentment that McQueary witnessed anal intercourse (which Mike also denied he ever told anyone)?Nobody is saying that Sandusky wasn't grooming a victim that night or that Sandusky isn't where he belongs. What we are saying is that McQueary never actually saw anything sexual and by the time he met with Curley and Schultz, he had calmed down and what he reported sounded more like horseplay. And when you think about what everyone involved did, including Mike; when you examine the emails in that context, it all makes sense.
CincinnatiKid wrote: Also I think sexual noises sound... sexual?
Posted: 1/31/2013 4:08 PM
CTBuckeyeFan wrote: When was the last time Pacino made a good movie?Heat in 1995?
Posted: 2/1/2013 5:56 PM
Copyright © 2013
and Scout.com. All rights reserved. This website is an unofficial independent source of news and information, and is not affiliated with any school, team, or league.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2012 Microsoft|