AMPU, are you really telling us that if you as a witness saw what appeared to be rape -- but you couldn't tell if it was "mere" sexual abuse or actual penetrative rape -- that this would all somehow be relevant to the overall dimensions of this case...particularly now that this repetitive child abuser has been placed in prison for both child sexual abuse of a more general nature -- and rape itself???
So what if Joe didn't actually know if it was actual "rape" -- or, to shutter me even using the word -- "only" -- sexual abuse of another kind?
Can't you see why you're making distinctions without a distinction?
I tell you what: The jury in Sandusky's cases -- many of which haven't been tried -- made no such "well, that depends on the meaning of the word 'penetration'" parsings as you have done in posts here...
Coli,
I never said what you are implying I said. The distinction has obvious implications in indicting anyone for something. Either it happened or it did not. Either he communicated it or he did not. Based on his testimony, he communicated he saw Sandusky in the showers doing something inappropriate. No more, no less. In other words, what he saw and what he reported to Paterno were different.
From the kid’s point of view, none of that matters. From the point of view of indicting a man when he had vague reports, it is signifcant.
ampu