Skip to main content

View Diary: The Rhythm of Reasonable Doubt (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You don't NEED to SEE genitals/hands/penetration (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher, Ahianne

    to credibly allege you have witnessed rape.  Geez.  

    1.  McQueary didn't JUST hear slapping sounds.  But he did hear them.  The fact that the sounds all sounded alike and were sequential in a short period of time is itself rhythmic.  Three notes was often enough to Name That Tune; if you know what something sounds like, you know what something sounds like.
    2.  He SAW Sandusky in the shower, nude, hunkered over a child, nude. The reasonable explanation for a naked man, hunkered doggie-style with a naked child, is sexual assault.  Yes, I know there might conceivably be exceptions, (though I can't think of any right now) but I said reasonable, not only.
    3.  The demeanor of Sandusky and the child, as described by McQueary, both during the event and afterward is consistent with sexual assault.  Other victims have described the same showering, doggie-style MO.  That is a signature.
    4.  TAKEN TOGETHER, Sound, Sight, and Demeanor add up to sexual assault, whether completed or attempted.  The other victims verifying the signature just add credibility.  Taken together, there is no reasonable explanation for what McQueary saw, other than sexual assault.  With no other reasonable explanation, there is no reasonable doubt.
    5.  Would I call the cops in a similar situation?  Hell, yes. I like to think I would have intervened personally.
    6.  Are you saying that Paterno shouldn't have been blamed for not recognizing the problem?  Maybe in good faith he didn't recognize what was going on, but the fact is that he was in charge.  Plenty of others have lost careers and reputations because of the actions of their underlings - it happens all the time.

    Getting all worked up about Joe Paterno because his assistant of 32 years victimized children for decades right under his nose isn't likely to persuade very many people, whether you think they're liars or character-flawed, or whatever.

    Which side are you on?

    by wiseacre on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 01:37:05 PM PST

    •  of course the unreliability of eye witness (0+ / 0-)

      testimony has not been brought up but it is an issue in reasonable doubt.  The jury has to judge the credibility of each witness and to base their view of his testimony upon that judgment.

      Given that, juries often give disproportionate weight to eyewitness testimony and expect entirely too much from forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence.  From the two diaries on this topic, I am unconvinced that there has been a grave injustice against Penn or Paterno.  I can remember the day when rape victims were grilled over their dress, their behavior, their sexual habits, and how many partners they had had, all with a view towards prejudicing the jury against the victims.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site