Calling Howard Stern

Calling Howard Stern
: A little day-brightener from PennLive.com:

EASTON — In the case of Robert M. Peters Sr., size does matter.

The 47-year-old locksmith from Bangor is accused of exposing himself to a client on June 12, 2002, while making a house call in Bethlehem. Peters’ trial began Monday.

The victim testified that she and Peters were sipping tea after he finished installing a deadbolt lock when she saw Peters’ semi-erect penis sticking three inches past the bottom of his shorts.

That’s impossible, according to defense attorney Gary Asteak.

“She’s mistaken,” Asteak said. “He’s not that big.”

According to Asteak, physician Eric Schoeppner examined Peters and found his penis is only 1 inches long when flaccid and four inches erect.

Just to make sure the measurement wasn’t a mistake, the doctor administered Viagra to Peters and measured again. The penis was still four inches long, Asteak said.

Asteak said he will show the jury photographs to prove his point. Before the trial, he told Northampton County Judge Edward G. Smith he plans to ask Peters to drop his pants and pose for the jury wearing jockey shorts.

“Was she exaggerating?” Asteak asked. “She said it was pretty big. I’ll show you photographs of something pretty small.”

10 responses to “Calling Howard Stern”

  1. Joe Katzman Avatar

    Hmm, faced with a choice of losing the lawsuit or having this story published in newspapers… losing looks pretty good.

  2. Lola Avatar

    Talk about public humiliation. No gentleman, whatever the size, should be forced to subject themselves to situations such as this.

  3. Kathy K Avatar

    Maybe he had one of those lifelike ‘marital aids’ stuck down his shorts…
    (Much more likely is that she didn’t see what she thought she saw.)

  4. passing by Avatar
    passing by

    now THAT’S funny!

  5. George Avatar

    Funny story, but i do have one rather serious question here: suppose for a moment that she did in fact see his scmeckle. Should he really be prosecuted for having it dangle below the edge of his shorts, apparently accidentally? It’s not like he deliberately cornered her and exposed himself for his own gratification. I mean, if I were on the train and notced that the girl sitting across from me wasn’t wearing any underwear, would it be more likely that (a) she is prosecuted for indecent exposure, or (b) I get prosecuted for peeping?

  6. Stephen Avatar

    The guy’s name is PETERS!!???
    Were it not for the mathmatical certainty of coincidence, I’d say somebody was trying to, well, slip it to us.
    But George makes a couple of good points. Hope this costs plaintiff something if she loses, or drops the complaint, as would seem likely.

  7. Jeremy Avatar

    Apparently the guy is really really fat, and claims it was just a roll of fat on his thigh.
    Things like this are why cameras shouldn’t be allowed in court…

  8. balbulican Avatar
    balbulican

    And I thought the WHO had eliminated smallcox…

  9. Lola Avatar

    Lola, I have a feeling this guy’s used to humiliation, public or otherwise.
    I, on the other hand, am now feeling GREAT!

  10. George Avatar

    Hey quick game – let’s see how many euphamisms we can come up with for the wang.
    Off the top of my head, I can think of willie, pipi, dong, schlong, and thing. What else?