[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Why are you going to the nth degree to make distinctions without distinctions in this particular matter? “

First, I am quoting what the “witness” says he saw and did not see. Since the grand jury claimed something very different than was testified to, the grand jury was giving an opinion.

None of that would justify abuse. It is, however a fact of this case and was used to draw a conclusion that was not supported by that fact.

[Colofornian]

First, I am quoting what the “witness” says he saw and did not see. Since the grand jury claimed something very different than was testified to, the grand jury was giving an opinion. None of that would justify abuse. It is, however a fact of this case and was used to draw a conclusion that was not supported by that fact.

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...