November 15, 2011

Why did Jerry Sandusky do that interview with Bob Costas?



It starts off very badly. I hear a man who is not committed to confident lying or confident truth-telling. He sounds like he's accessing his memories and filtering what we receive.
"Well, I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids, I... I have showered after workouts. I... I have hugged them and I have touched their leg... without intent of sexual contact, but, um... uh... so if you look at it that way... uh... there are things that... uh... wouldn't... uh... would be accurate."
After hearing that, I wondered why exposed himself to an interview, why his lawyer let him do that. But as the interview continues, including contributions from the lawyer, I think he does in fact get himself into a better position that where he was before we heard that... assuming we listen to the entire 8+ minutes. He ends:
I don’t know what I can say or what I could say that would make anybody feel any different now. I would just say that if somehow people could hang on until my attorney has a chance to fight, you know, for my innocence, that’s about all I could ask right now. You know, obviously it’s a huge challenge.

190 comments:

MadisonMan said...

The original words to the alma mater are really cringeworthy viewed through the Sandusky prism:

When we stood at Boyhood's Gate
Shapeless in the hands of fate
Thou Didst mold us dear old state
Into men, Dear old state.

This verse was changed in 1975 -- the international year of Women!!!! --

When we stood at Childhood's Gate
Shapeless in the hands of fate
Thou didst mold us dear old state
Dear old State, Dear old State.

When Sandusky was an undergrad, he would have learned the original verse.

Re: the interview: I see a plea bargain coming. He'll never be on the stand.

traditionalguy said...

He is a defensive coach so he bends but does not break; and he draws out the offense until they make a mistake.

What is surprising is that he still lives in the Penn State bubble where those same lies were acceptable because people there wanted to overlook the truth.

Will the prosecution witnesses have the courage that they lacked while living in the old Happy Valley? We shall see and Sandusky may finally see something new too.

Curious George said...

So he didn't do it.

Does this mean that JoePa can come back?

glenn said...

You know it's hard to blame Sandusky and the Penn State boosters for wanting to hide this story. I mean look at the facts. Every Saturday during football season some other team tries to beat your guys. It's no wonder they cling to their banners and hats and jackets and stuff.

sarc/off

Shouting Thomas said...

Looks pretty bad right now, Althouse.

But, what will you say if he's acquitted? It's a possibility, you know.

I'll invent a scenario... Sandusky is a foolish man, but not a criminal. His actions are misunderstood. Sandusky's attorneys produce evidence that the kids behind the grand jury indictment were illegally coached by the investigators.

You know, like the nursery school hysteria.

I'm not saying this will happen. But it could.

We're going through a moral panic here. People are taking an already horrible story and imagining new and even more horrible variations and expansions of the story. It's a contest now, within your own blog, to condemn Sandusky in wilder and more ferocious terms. It's a contest to imagine even more crimes that he may have committed.

What will you have to say, Althouse, if Sandusky is acquitted? Your comments over the past week have seemed to indicate that you take his guilt as a matter of fact.

Is this the right approach for an eminent law professor? Wouldn't it be a better idea to calm down the moral panic?

madAsHell said...

Plea bargain, or not, he should shut up!!

Funny, I listened to the interview, and I thought he sounded like Michael Jackson.

Scott M said...

Whoever the female was on O'Reilly last night tried to blame American football culture, in which winning became more important than anything else.

Bullshit.

First of all, as much as Americans love their football (just check the ratings), our crowds pale in the violence arena compared to international soccer. Secondly, this has zero to do with football as a sport and everything to do with institutional protectionism. The Catholic church did the exact same thing. Last I checked, football wasn't the Catholics' primary concern.

MadisonMan said...

First of all, as much as Americans love their football

America loves the Pack!

Have I mentioned lately that the 9-0 Packers are the Reigning World Champions?

Mark O said...

If he's not guilty, there will be a rash of perjury convictions. Someone is lying, and my heavy wager is on him.

John said...

Joe Pa can't come back.

What he did is heinous apart from what Sandusky did or did not do.

Paterno received a credible report of the anal rape of a 10 year old boy and failed to see that appropriate action was taken.

He did that regardless of whatever Sandusky did.

If Sandusky is innocent, perhaps he can come back.

Paterno? Never.

John Henry

Curious George said...

"Scott M said...
Last I checked, football wasn't the Catholics' primary concern."

To the chagrin of Notre Dame alumni..

Lem said...

I listened to the interview, and I thought he sounded like Michael Jackson.

I thought the same thing.

Shouting Thomas said...

If he's not guilty, there will be a rash of perjury convictions. Someone is lying, and my heavy wager is on him.

Why? I read the grand jury indictment.

As I read it, the accusers are McQueary and the kids.

McQueary could prove at trial to be a remarkably unreliable witness. What if it turns out that his memory of the event is not quite as clear as we all seem to think it is? What if a defense attorney can prove that there is a different interpretation to the event McQueary witnessed?

The kids could have been coached by overzealous prosecutors who are just as outraged as Althouse's commenters over the monstrous nature of these charges.

I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm saying that the moral panic is clouding everybody's judgment.

SGT Ted said...

Well, despite all teh hoohaa and righteous chest thumping and firings from jobs in disgrace, he is still innocent until proven otherwise and we all should remember other recent witchhunts for child molesters that turned out to be false.

disclaimer: I am no fan of college football and I barely know who Paterno is.

Curious George said...

Sandusky has the classic Pedo-smile.

What more do you need to know?

GUILTY!

Scott M said...

To the chagrin of Notre Dame alumni..

I knew a Notre Dame quip would be inevitable...

MayBee said...

Did you hear him struggle to answer the direct question "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Awful. He had to work his way into his answer, even giving himself the time-waster of repeating the question.

Shouting Thomas said...

Did you hear him struggle to answer the direct question "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

I'm going to say again that I don't know what happened.

This sort of reply is deliberately disingenuous. Look at the intensity of the moral disgust and moral panic on this very weblog among both the host and the commenters.

Sandusky knows he's accused of the most heinous crime imaginable.

So, he's asked if he committed that crime by a major media figure.

You don't think that that is a staggering psychological blow that would make any person feel imbalanced?

E.M. Davis said...

It's true that Sandusky is innocent until proven guilty, but the "I wish I were dead" line he supposedly said upon being confronted is the tell to me that he's probably guilty.

Shouting Thomas said...

By the way, I'm inclined to think Sandusky is guilty, too.

But, I don't see how the moral panic and imagining every more heinous crimes that he might have committed helps.

edutcher said...

I guess it's PR 101 to get on TV and get your spin out there, but when the phrase everybody hears or remembers was, "just horsing around in the shower", with the image of some walking in on him still in their minds, you wonder how anybody could even try to spin something like this.

PS It's not winning that's the problem, it's the money. Money has been pushing college football for a century and we finally got to the, "Well, what the Hell else did you expect?", moment, or at least one of the worst of them - along with all the bribes and inducements to get one kid to go here, rather than there.

From radio to TV to being a farm system for the NFL to endorsements, it's been a system generating more and more money and nobody wanted to endanger that.

Add to that the pride, the prestige, the acclaim and of course the system would fail when tested.

Shouting Thomas said...

My final comment:

I can remember thinking that no juror in his right mind would acquit Casey Anthony.

And, I'm pretty sure she murdered her kid. Hard to think of another explanation.

Of course, people look at these things a lot different when the accused is a woman. They start dreaming up excuses.

Jay said...

It starts off very badly

To say the least.

A great question in asking why, Ann. I can only imagine he did this against the advice of legal counsel.

Truly a dumb decision.

MayBee said...

So, he's asked if he committed that crime by a major media figure.

You don't think that that is a staggering psychological blow that would make any person feel imbalanced?


No, he wasn't being asked if he committed that crime. He was being asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys.

How, at this point, can that be a staggering psychological blow?

It should be the easiest question to answer in the world.

Jay said...

Did you hear him struggle to answer the direct question "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"


Yes. And it was a fantastic question. One that Sandusky clearly didn't expect.

Shouting Thomas said...

I gotta run to work and rehearsal.

But, I'm perplexed by these ever more vociferous and angry denunciations. What do you expect them to accomplish?

Here's why I think just about everybody is motivated to do this. There are two reasons.

1. If you don't join in the frenzy of denunciation, you might get denounced as a pedophile or an enabler and supporter of pedophilia. In this regard, the motivation is the same as when Stalin used to speak to the Politburo. The first man in the audience to stop applauding was taken outside and shot.

2. A mistaken notion obviously exists that frenzied denunciation will prevent child sexual abuse from happening again.

Republican said...

Oh. So now we know, according to the defendent, that he DIDN'T DO IT. He's NOT GUILTY.

(boys) Victims 1-8 are ganging up on him and lying on him.

Mike McQueary has falsely (reluctantly) accused him of having anal sex with a little boy.

The wrestling coach made it all up.

Before Victim 7 testified to GJ, Sandusky, Mrs. Sandusky, and a friend each tried to contact Victim 7 about an "important matter". Probably the Big Lie Victim 7 was probably going to tell about Sandusky, the phony pedophile.

So now we know he didn't do it because he says so. He's cleared his name by using Bob Costas to discredit the eyewitness reports and the Victims.

Case closed.

Jay said...

Shouting Thomas,

You're leaving out something.

The common sense conclusion he is guilty.

The man has now admitted on at least two occasions he has showered with boys.

Naked.


Um, duh.

E.M. Davis said...

Add to that the pride, the prestige, the acclaim and of course the system would fail when tested.

However, it would have been less painful and ultimately more lucrative (not the correct word) to fire Sandusky years ago, report the incident to police, and go from there.

Titus said...

Maybe he is just guilty of bad judgment. You know the showering with young boys is probably not a good idea.

Lem said...

"Why did Jerry Sandusky do that interview with Bob Costas?"

Because people expect that an innocent man would do an interview and tell his side.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bob said...

The whole rush to judgment thing really bothers me. Why can't we wait for more evidence?
Gov. Corbett all but said on Sunday that there's evidence that Second Mile was a farm club for pederasts. If that's true, who else besides Sandusky was taking advantage of it -- and the boys?
If that's true, some people are going to come out of this looking one hell of a lot worse. Some may come out looking a lot better.

bagoh20 said...

I've been hearing a lot of opinion about how a man showering with boys is outrageous, but when I was a kid we did it all the time. You go to the YMCA, and in the shower were men and boys of all ages together naked. Nobody ever thought anything of it, and in all those years, I never saw an erection or any touching. Same thing at public swimming pools, etc.

I have not been to such a place for a long time. Is that still done, or is that all segregated now by age?

Are we more perverted than we were back then? Maybe we mutated into a new breed?

Roger J. said...

Kudos to Titus--while his posts can be often over the top, he has done an excellent job in these threads laying out some common sense observations.

Titus said...

I never shower at a gym. At the gym I go to now the only people who shower are the old men, who are straight.

When I was in Madison I went to a gym that had lots of families and swimming pools. I saw tons of little boys and their fathers and other old men heading to the showers. It was required before you went into the pool. I never went in there because it scared me. I wouldn't want to shower around any children.

But didn't he shower with these kids alone? Not a good idea.

bagoh20 said...

Assuming the logistics happened some other way putting the subjects in a similar situation, what if Sandusky was a woman?

James said...

Birds of a feather...


http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11/14/111511-news-sandusky-lawyer-teen-web/

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — The lawyer for accused child molester Jerry Sandusky apparently likes his women young.

Defense attorney Joe Amendola, 63, representing Sandusky in the sexual molestation case roiling Penn State and Joe Paterno’s legendary football program, impregnated a teenager and later married her, The Daily has learned.

According to documents filed with Centre County Courthouse, Amendola served as the attorney for Mary Iavasile’s emancipation petition on Sept. 3, 1996, just weeks before her 17th birthday.

The emancipation request said Mary graduated from high school in two years with a 3.69 grade point average and maintained a full-time job — but makes no mention of any special relationship between her and her lawyer.

Roughly around the same time, however, Iavasile became pregnant with Amendola’s child, and gave birth before she turned 18, her mother, Janet Iavasile, alleged in an interview with The Daily.

He was born in 1948 and was around 49 at the time.

“At the time, I didn’t know the extent of the relationship,” said Janet of when her daughter first began spending time with the attorney. Amendola seemed more like Mary’s “mentor,” she added.

“She met him through the school district; she was interested in the law,” Janet said.

Court records show the two were married on Feb. 8, 2003, around the time her mother says their second child was born. They are now separated, but she has kept his surname.

Since then, Janet said, she has learned to accept the unusual relationship.

“Joe is a very good father and has loved his two children very much, and that’s the most important thing for me right now,” she said.

Mary Amendola, who is now 32, did not return requests for comment, but later emailed The Daily claiming "all of the information is incorrect," though she would not provide details. Joe Amendola did not return multiple requests for comment.

Mary has tried to distance herself from the now notorious attorney — just yesterday, she changed her Facebook name to Mary Christmas. Her friends joked she should make it permanent.

But when Joe Amendola said in a televised interview last night that he would let Sandusky supervise his children, Mary Amendola instantly posted on her Facebook, "OMG did Joe just say that he would allow my kids to be alone with Jerry Sandusky?"

Jay said...

But didn't he shower with these kids alone?

Yes, at 9:30 PM, no less.

And, he touched their legs (among other things).

The denial of reality by some people here is just bizarre.

Curious George said...

'...just yesterday, she changed her Facebook name to Mary Christmas."

I went to high school with a Mary Christmas. True. And her sister Carol (first name last....

Both were smokin' hot.

bagoh20 said...

I'm not suggesting, just asking a hypothetical, but what if the victims were gay and actually attracted to Sandusky?

MayBee said...

I've been hearing a lot of opinion about how a man showering with boys is outrageous, but when I was a kid we did it all the time. You go to the YMCA, and in the shower were men and boys of all ages together naked

Baghoh- In this case, the question is really *why* was he showering with boys? He brought 10-12 year olds to work out, then insisted they shower alone with him, at night, in an empty locker room.

Roger J. said...

The points that Jay and Titus make, IMO, are very good ones. If I could extend their analysis a bit, the reasons they cite (not a good idea) are precisely why I never a private discussions in my office with female staff without my female admin assistant there.

E.M. Davis said...

Jay is correct. This is not a communal shower in a largely pubic setting issue. It's alone-at-night-with-one-other-kid charges.

That's why it doesn't add up.

MayBee said...

I'm not suggesting, just asking a hypothetical, but what if the victims were gay and actually attracted to Sandusky?

I don't know. What if it were 10-12 year old heterosexual girls?

Healthy adults don't want to have sex with 10-12 year olds, no matter how big a crush that kid may have on the adult.

E.M. Davis said...

I'm not suggesting, just asking a hypothetical, but what if the victims were gay and actually attracted to Sandusky?

Gay ten year olds attracted to a 50+year old man?

Try again.

bagoh20 said...

"The denial of reality by some people here is just bizarre."

Reality is complex tapestry. Just because we see a few tiles, does not mean we see the whole picture. We may imagine the rest, but that is not reality.

Jay said...

just asking a hypothetical, but what if the victims were gay and actually attracted to Sandusky?


It would still be a crime.

Jay said...

bagoh20 said...

Reality is complex tapestry. Just because we see a few tiles, does not mean we see the whole picture. We may imagine the rest, but that is not reality.


Hysterical.

Thank you for proving my point.

bagoh20 said...

"Gay ten year olds attracted to a 50+year old man?

Try again."


He wasn't always 50 and they weren't all 10. So what if?

Shouting Thomas said...

Thank you for proving my point.

God, I've got to get out of here.

Jay, why is it so important to you that a consensus of condemnation for Sandusky be reached on a weblog?

You can't wait for a plea bargain or a trial?

You need something more than a legally acquired conviction?

David said...

Costas did a good interview.

Maybe he should replace David Gregory on Meet the Press.

MayBee said...

Let's recall this is a man who, in 1998, was in trouble for showering alone with a young boy.

He admitted he engaged in naked horseplay in the shower, he asked for forgiveness. He said he wished he was dead.

So when he continued to do this very thing, we can see that even through his own eyes, he knew it was bad.

Jay said...

We may imagine the rest, but that is not reality.


Actually, it is you doing the imaging here (what if they were attracted to him, really 10 year olds? REALLY?)

ps:
Joseph Miller testified that he was head wrestling coach for the elementary wrestling
program for that school district. He knew Victim 1, who had wrestled for him. Miller
corroborated that one evening in 2006 or 2007, he returned to the high school to retrieve
something he had forgotten. He saw a light on in the weight room which should have been
turned off and when he went in, he discovered Victim and Sandusky, lying on their sides, in
physical contact, face to face on a mat. He said both Victim and Sandusky were surprised to
see him enter the room. He recalls that Sandusky jumped up and said, “Hey Coach, we`re just
working on wrestling moves.” Sandusky was not a wrestling coach.

Jay said...

Jay, why is it so important to you that a consensus of condemnation for Sandusky be reached on a weblog?


I'm not looking for a consensus of condemnation.

What I'm pointing out is you and others are ignoring facts and denying reality.

Do as you wish.

bagoh20 said...

"It would still be a crime."

Of course, but does it still create the horror being expressed. And related is as I asked: what if the perp was a woman?

glenn said...

Key story so far is the one on PennLive today about deposed High Imperial Potentate and Penn State Prez Grahm Spanier being the driving force behind excluding state universities from the Pennsylvania open records act. He did this in 2007. Whaddya suppose he knew?

Jay said...

He wasn't always 50 and they weren't all 10. So what if?

Yes, one of them was 8.

What if, you had any common sense?

Shouting Thomas said...

What I'm pointing out is you and others are ignoring facts and denying reality..

Isn't a trial supposed to prove what are facts and establish the reality of what happened?

MadisonMan said...

Well-adjusted men do not shower alone with young boys. It is a hopelessly bad lapse of judgement. This is something all can agree on, I hope.

At the very least, it opens you up to he said/he said sexual abuse charges and then where are you?

MadisonMan said...

Penn State Prez Grahm Spanier being the driving force behind excluding state universities from the Pennsylvania open records act. He did this in 2007. Whaddya suppose he knew?

This was back when State Papers were trying to figure out JoePa's salary, and Penn State didn't want to tell them.

MayBee said...

He wasn't always 50 and they weren't all 10. So what if?

Anybody who is around kids a lot knows they frequently develop "crushes" on adults, regardless of gender. For any adult to respond to that sexually is a gigantic breech of trust, innocence, and morality.

Jay said...

But, but, but, what if he was "attracted" to Jerry!?


"Victim 1 testified that ultimately Sandusky performed oral sex on him 20 times through 2007 and early 2008. Sandusky also had Victim 1 perform oral sex on him one time and also touched Victim 1's penis with his hands during the 2007-2008 time period. Victim 1 did not want to engage in sexual contact with Sandusky and knew it was wrong. Victim 1 stopped taking Sandusky's phone calls and had his mother tell Sandusky he was not home when Sandusky called."

Shouting Thomas said...

What I'm pointing out is you and others are ignoring facts and denying reality.

Hmmm. I thought that facts were established at trial.

I have this odd notion that it might be best to wait until those facts are established at trial before declaring that you know reality.

E.M. Davis said...

He wasn't always 50 and they weren't all 10. So what if?

You're not a mathematician?

MayBee said...

And related is as I asked: what if the perp was a woman?

A woman anally raping another little girl, perhaps with some object?
Or a woman naked in the shower performing oral sex on a prepubescent boy?
A woman naked horse playing with a 10 or 11 year old kid in the shower?

Do any of these things seem acceptable?

Shouting Thomas said...

Grand jury proceedings are not statements of fact.

They are allegations, and those allegations are not subject to any standard of proof.

MadisonMan said...

Victim 1 stopped taking Sandusky's phone calls and had his mother tell Sandusky he was not home when Sandusky called

What kind of healthy adult calls kids on the phone?

Even if Sandusky is not guilty, he really needs to learn boundaries. Ugh ugh ugh.

Jay said...

I have this odd notion that it might be best to wait until those facts are established at trial before declaring that you know reality.


Um, it is a fact Sandusky admitted to showering with young boys.

It is a fact on one occasion he admitted to touching one such boys genitals. ("Jerry Sandusky admitted to my face, he admitted it," the mother said. "He admitted that he lathered up my son they were naked and he bear-hugged him.

Those are facts.

The testimony of the victims is also a fact.

You're simply playing a silly game.

Jay said...

Shouting Thomas said...
Grand jury proceedings are not statements of fact.


Sandusky admitted to showering with boys.

Your response remains silly.

SGT Ted said...

WIIIITCH! BURN HIIIIIM!

verdict, then trial.

Thats what Democracy looks like!

Jay said...

What kind of healthy adult calls kids on the phone?


*GIGGLE*

I think we should ask Shouting Thomas.

Or I guess pretend the phone calls are not facts.

MayBee said...

What kind of healthy adult can't say "no" when asked if he's sexually attracted to young boys?

bagoh20 said...

Jay, I'm just asking questions. I'm glad were not at the shooting range having this discussion. Are you too scared to even think about such questions without attacking?

"Well-adjusted men do not shower alone with young boys.".

As I related, they used to all the time without a thought of it. If you were at the public pool 30 years ago, and walked into the shower where only a single boy was showering, you would have thought nothing of it, and neither would the kid. It happened all the time. I don't remember any stories of this kind of child molestation back then. It was not just kept hushed either. People would have had a field day with it then too, and gotten pretty angry. What happened since then?

Shouting Thomas said...

Your response remains silly.

In what way is it silly to try to calm down this moral panic and reassert the assumption of innocence?

I'll tell you something that could be equally traumatic for the boys in question.

If they were coached to make these allegations, or to expand upon them, they face an equally great emotional burden for ruining the life of an innocent man, who might in fact have genuinely helped them.

It's a good idea to remember that this happened in the nursery school sexual abuse panic.

I don't know what happened here. Neither do you. I'm more than willing to wait for the legal disposition of the case to establish facts and reality.

No skin off my back. If Sandusky is found guilty, I'll help string him up.

Roger J. said...

bagh--sympathetic to your point; but, the environment has changed what with pedophilia witch hunts and sexual harassment law--wish it were otherwise, but we do need to change our behaviours as the law evolves, even if the law is an ass.

Jay said...

bagoh20 said...
Jay, I'm just asking questions. I'm glad were not at the shooting range having this discussion. Are you too scared to even think about such questions without attacking?


Um, the questions are dumb.

Jay said...

I don't know what happened here. Neither do you.

I know what Sandusky himself admitted.

Mary said...

He's lawyering up, like Michael Jackson. Who was found not guilty in a court of law, if you recall...

The 10-year-old allegedly raped in the shower now says he doesn't remember it the way McQueary does.

Hard to convict without a complaining witness, and the other boys? His word vs. theirs.

Funny if Paterno got fired over nothing, eh?

MayBee said...

bagho- can you imagine a time when nobody would have looked twice at a 10 year old boy and a 50 year old man, alone at night in a locked locker room, engaging in naked horseplay?

Bryan C said...

"At the very least, it opens you up to he said/he said sexual abuse charges and then where are you?"

You're in trouble. However, I don't think any good is served by accepting the patently offensive notion that your typical man is just waiting for the right opportunity to become a child rapist. This kind of conduct is shocking because we all recognize it as an abberation.

ndspinelli said...

Sandusky's barrister is Joe Amendola. He was a regular on Imus and is a smart, slick[literally..greases back hair] dago, and I believe a former prosecutor. My take is Amendola told Sandusky to get out on this but NOT ON CAMERA. I NEVER wanted to interview a witness over the phone. The body and most importantly, the eyes, tell you the truth. However, in this case it's moot. The guys is a pedophile although some apologists will give the "innocent until" yada or I'm just being hysterical horsehit lines.

MayBee said...

Jay: " I know what Sandusky himself admitted."

People keep ignoring this.

Roger J. said...

I guess given my advanced age, I would like to think the sexual activity between adults and children, gender immaterial, is out at the third standard deviation in the population. Mary Kay Latorneau was no less guilty than Sandusky--it is, imo, deviate behavior.

Shouting Thomas said...

The guys is a pedophile although some apologists will give the "innocent until" yada or I'm just being hysterical horsehit lines.

I don't know what is more disturbing, spinelli:

1. That you might actually have had a career in a legal field in which due process is essential; or

2. That you might be a complete impostor pretending to have had such a career.

If #1 is true, then every case you ever worked on needs to be reopened and reassessed.

If #2 is true, then you are a very malicious person with an even sicker sense of humor than J.

Jay said...

Uh-oh:

Close to 10 additional suspected victims have come forward to the authorities since the arrest of the former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky on Nov. 5 on 40 counts of sexually abusing young boys, according to people close to the investigation. The police are working to confirm the new allegations.


Of course they could all be being coached (by whom) some let's not rush to judgement....

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Republican said...

Sandusky's teen-loving lawyer knocked up his 17-yo girlfriend twice before finally marrying her when she was 24.

Of course Lawyer Joe has been involved for years with Second Mile, so likely new of the LIES! being told about his client years ago.

bagoh20 said...

"Or a woman naked in the shower performing oral sex on a prepubescent boy?
A woman naked horse playing with a 10 or 11 year old kid in the shower?"

Maybe I was born a pervert, but at 11, I fantasized about older women raping me all the time.

I'm not defending Sandusky, I'm not even talking about this case, but I'm just exploring, without judgement, the emotion and the ideas fueling the outrage.

I guess that scares the shit out of some people.

Shouting Thomas said...

Close to 10 additional suspected victims have come forward to the authorities since the arrest of the former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky on Nov. 5 on 40 counts of sexually abusing young boys, according to people close to the investigation. The police are working to confirm the new allegations.

And, not one of those "suspected victims" could be motivated by the chorus of claims, repeated on this weblog, that civil suits could net billions of dollars in damages?

E.M. Davis said...

As I related, they used to all the time without a thought of it. If you were at the public pool 30 years ago, and walked into the shower where only a single boy was showering, you would have thought nothing of it, and neither would the kid. It happened all the time. I don't remember any stories of this kind of child molestation back then. It was not just kept hushed either. People would have had a field day with it then too, and gotten pretty angry. What happened since then?

As I've said before, these are completely different contexts and situations.

MayBee said...

Maybe I was born a pervert, but at 11, I fantasized about older women raping me all the time.

But now you are an adult.
What do you think about having sex with 11 year olds?

Roger J. said...

Mary--imo the problem in the Latorneau situation was when the liaison started and ages of the principles. The fact that it has a happy ending didnt make it right.

MayBee said...

I guess that scares the shit out of some people.

And I'm rockin' one leg.
Jealous?

Jay said...

This IS a lot like the Michael Jackson defense:

"Jerry Sandusky is a big overgrown kid," Amendola said. "He's a jock, and for anybody who's ever played sports, you get showers after you work out."

Absurd.

Jay said...

And, not one of those "suspected victims" could be motivated by the chorus of claims, repeated on this weblog, that civil suits could net billions of dollars in damages?


And what is in it for McQueary?
Oh, he lost his job.

What is in it for the wrestling coach and football coach and the high school who contacted the authorities?

Jay said...

"Jerry Sandusky is a big overgrown kid," Amendola said. "He's a jock, and for anybody who's ever played sports, you get showers after you work out."


That is just like "playtime" in Jacko's bedroom!!!

Creepy.

ndspinelli said...

It is funny, if not pathetic, for a garage band leader to sanctimoniously lecture a law professor and a 30 year veteran investigator["allegedly"] on the law. "Only in America" Don king would say.

On an unrelated note, I was happy to see Ali attended Joe's funeral and stood and applauded him. Some people can admit they were wrong and be chastened. Then again, I guess the moral is not irrelative.

Jay said...


That it worked?


No Mary, the assertion that Jerry is just a big kid, is absurd.

Though I do wonder how long it will be into the trial before Jerry claims he was molested and goes to some sort of mental defect defense...

bagoh20 said...

I guess you either get with the mob and start screaming or they tie you to the stake with the witch.

MayBee,

I'm addressing the horror expressed. If that same child says he's gay at 13, a lot in our society act like his sex life is above reproach. It just seems like we are a little confused.

And please people don't attack me. As a kid I was molested by an adult and I know what I'm talking about. Regardless, I have a perfectly boring sex life, just like the rest of you, so I'm no threat.

Shouting Thomas said...

It is funny, if not pathetic, for a garage band leader to sanctimoniously lecture a law professor and a 30 year veteran investigator["allegedly"] on the law. "Only in America" Don king would say.

A "30 year veteran investigator" with no respect for due process is a very disturbing thought.

You have a well demonstrated tendency, spinelli, to start with your conclusion, which you embrace ferociously, and then to work backward to the facts.

This is a very dangerous tendency in a "30 year veteran investigator."

Even a garage band leader can see the flaw in your approach.

bob said...

Spanier keeps coming back into this, doesn't he?
Over at Hot Air, in one of the many threads on this subject (almost as many as Ann has for us here), somebody pulled up something Spanier wrote in 1975... to the effect that deviancy is in the eye of the beholder.
To me, it's looking more and more like Spanier is up to his eyeballs in this, with the assistance of his lapdogs Curley and Schultz.
Just sayin', but could it be that Corbett hinting at a "farm club for pederasts" is an indication that this is a lot more than Sandusky, that there was a box built around anyone who could provide information so that it would not be properly investigated?
The key is jurisdiction. The 2002 incident occurred on campus. University police are the primary investigators of on-campus crime. It's a full-fledged police department, not a bunch of rent-a-cops or security guards. Any information taken anywhere -- to the state police, to the State College borough police, to the Centre County DA, even to the attorney general's office -- would have to wind up going through the University police. Cops don't step on other cops' toes.

William said...

Sandusky doesn't look like a monster. He looks like a football coach. He's got all these hale fellow mannerisms. If you met him in another context, he'd be the kind of guy one would instinctively like and trust. Great cover.....It's no great mystery why people believed him. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we believe people are who they say they are. Bernie Madoff didn't wear turqoise jewelry and carry the Racing Form. He looked like the kind of guy who valued his respectability highly and who was smart enough to figure out market rhythmns. In retrospect, there were all kinds of tells that very smart people ignored. They weren't complicit with the crime. It's just easier to believe that people are who they appear to be.....I suppose that's true of Casey Anthony. She just doesn't look like the kind of person who would murder her children.....There's always a lot of hysteria in cases involving child sexuality. Some kids survive bitter divorces, leukemia, and addicted parents. To tell these kids that they have suffered irreparable harm is to inflict irreparable harm on them....I don't have any sympathy for Sandusky, bht McQueary seems to be taking a thorough roasting without anyone waiting for his side of the story.

Widely Seen said...

Ah, youthful exuberance!
Anyone hear echos of Roman Polanski and Michael Jackson?
Getting to the source of youthful exuberance.

wv= astal [no comment from me]

Jay said...

Particularly if McQueary has been taught the lesson of the mob shame game conviction in the past few days, and has decided it's not worth it to speak against the victim's word, who now is saying he wasn't raped in that shower.


Can you provide a link to a news account of this statement by the victim?

Because at last check, said victim was not identified.

Thanks.

MayBee said...

I'm addressing the horror expressed. If that same child says he's gay at 13, a lot in our society act like his sex life is above reproach. It just seems like we are a little confused.

First, it seems you are addressing some group thought ("a lot in our society...") and comparing it to horror expressed, and coming to the conclusion that "we" are confused. You don't seem to be making any effort to determine if the same people outraged by this think a 13 year old's sex life is "above reproach".

Second, I don't think it is the least bit wonky to evaluate the ages of kids in different situations. That's what we do. We don't really imagine a child is the same at 6,10, 13, or 16 do we? Isn't it wise to acknowledge kids change quite a bit over their years?

Third, I don't see what being gay or straight has to do with being sexually molested by an adult.
As I asked earlier, would this be ok if it were a heterosexual 10 year old girl in the shower with a straight Sandusky?

Finally, I really don't think you are being attacked or burned at the stake. It seems to me if you are trying to be provocative you should expect strong responses.

Jay said...

Particularly if McQueary has been taught the lesson of the mob shame game conviction in the past few days

Considering it has now come to light that:

In an email to former teammates, obtained by NBC News, McQueary said: "The truth is not out there fully" and that he "didn't just turn and run" after seeing the alleged molestation.

"I made sure it stopped. I did the right thing ... you guys know me," he wrote, adding that he "had to make quick, tough decisions."



I'd say no, not really.

I look forward to reading the news account about this victim's account in the shower you keep referring to.

ndspinelli said...

Mary, I don't know Ali's motivation. But, for an Italian, when someone attends a funeral they are given the benefit of the doubt. I am a glass half full guy w/ a healthy dose of skepticism..honed by my profession. I do know as we grow older, most of us gain some wisdom[I am currently stalked by one stark exception however]. And, when Ali sees his most worthy opponent die, a man who Ali admitted he treated wrongly, being chastened is a likely scenario. But I also know "the truth is rarely pure and never simple."

bob said...

Fact: It's Sandusky's lawyer who's saying they found the boy in the 2002 incident, not law enforcement. Pure PR. Beware of that.

William: Very good point about McQueary. I wonder if his reaction triggered a flashback to something he saw many years ago. Remember, he and one of Sandusky's adoptive sons were classmates through high school.

glenn said...

"This was back when State Papers were trying to figure out JoePa's salary, and Penn State didn't want to tell them."

That's one explanation.

Jay said...

STATE COLLEGE, Pa (Reuters) - The lawyer for the Penn State football coach charged with child sex abuse said in an interview on Monday the boy at the center of a 2002 incident detailed in the grand jury's report had been identified and said it never happened.


Um, that isn't a fact.

It is an assertion by a defense attorney.

I think you should probably stop tying that this victim said it didn't happen.

Jay said...

I would hope that a child accused of having sex with a grown man in the shower is not named.


I didn't say named.

This person has not been identified by law enforcement.

Jay said...

Mary said...
What happens if a victim really isn't a victim?


Joe Amendola, is that you?

MayBee said...

It would have to be Sandusky remembering who he was with when nothing happened in 2002, right?

There's nobody else who could name the kid, and if nothing happened the kid wouldn't know it was about him.

MayBee said...

The quote from Sandusky in response to Bob Costas:

"Am I sexually attracted to underage boys? Sexually attracted?
You know... n..wuh... I enjoy young people. I... I love to be around them. Um. I....I....but no. I'm not...sexually attracted to young boys."

Jay said...

Mary said...

Nope.
Just thinking like a juror. Who takes the "reasonable doubt" part seriously...


Hilarious.

Actually, you're lying.

See this:
The lawyer for the Penn State football coach charged with child sex abuse said in an interview on Monday the boy at the center of a 2002 incident detailed in the grand jury's report had been identified and said it never happened.



Is not this:
to speak against the victim's word, who now is saying he wasn't raped in that shower.



And anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that.

Jay said...

Remember Michael Jackson! What do you supposed caused him to overdose/suicide like that, anyway?


Um, he didn't overdose or suicide, you silly little liar.

Jay said...

Why don't you wait and see if the alleged victim steps forward and complains of anal rape before you go making claims?


I'm not making any "claims" you little liar.

See, the boy who was allegedly raped in that shower didn't tesitify to the GJ.

So I think you should go waving assertions by the defense attorney around as if it means something.

bob said...

Mary, are you on Sandusky's defense team?
Sure looks that way to me.

glenn said...

And from the NY Times.

"The Second Mile also announced that Archer & Greiner, including
Lynne M. Abraham, a partner at the firm, would become the organization’s general counsel, replacing Wendell V. Courtney, who resigned last week. Courtney had served as Penn State’s counsel before he said he started representing the Second Mile in 2009."

Rats ... Ship ... Swim for it Dude.

Jay said...

Do you think the defense attorney is dumb enough to make though claims without the "victim" ready to step forward and testify that way?


Yes, yes I do.

The (former) kid's denying the anal, are you denying that??


Considering you have no proof of this, yes, I am denying it.

Jay said...

Mary said...

Nope.
I play for Team Truth, and am big on Due Process.


Hysterical.

I guess that is why you're here posting lies.

Jay said...

A lil bit upthread, someone was denying the kid had been identified even.

There has been no identification.

None.

Jay said...

Uh, if he was asking/paying/beggin the doctor to shoot him up with that high-grade anesthetic every night, he uh ... kinda did.


Uh, no, he didn't, liar.

You are just stupid at this point.

Jay said...

And think they should have let Joe Paterno play out the season. He did the right thing himself,

Yes, "right thing" by covering up.

Wow are you pathetic.

Methadras said...

Well, well, well, will you look at the shift in sentiment.

glenn said...

And another reason for excluding the State Universities from scrutiny might be to keep the rest of us from finding out how many alleged victims of alleged abuse got alleged jobs as assistant administrators for administrative assistance to the senior administrator for administration and at what salary.

Jay said...

Mary said...

Nope.
I play for Team Truth, and am big on Due Process.



Um.....right.

So 8 people testify under oath they were victimized by Sandusky and that is not a fact.

But, the assertion by Sandusky's attorney to the media is fact.

Coherence much?

bob said...

What if, as I suspect, there was indeed a coverup of Sandusky's actions because some other prominent people were in on the game?
What if the rumor - that Corbett all but substantiated - that Sandusky was pimping out Second Mile kids to prominent donors and PSU people is true?
Who stands to gain from that protection?
Which people have responsibilities for fundraising for the university? The president and athletic director. That's the way it is. If their revenue stream is positively impacted by donors having their way with Second Mile kids, they're going to keep it going and have reason to protect it. So Paterno and McQueary go to the athletic director separately. The athletic director waits 10 days to meet with McQueary. What was going on during those 10 days? Conversations about how they were going to squelch this? Getting all the ducks lined up so the stonewall would go into effect?

MayBee said...

A quote via Mediaite and HotAir:

"And I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped. There are many that I didn’t have — I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.”…


He didn't have sex with every child. There were many he did not have sex with.

Jim Howard said...

I tried to listen to that Sandusky interview, but it was too horrible to hear once we go to 'horsing around' in the showers.

My thought was that his lawyer must be crazy, but since our Professor says the interview may have helped Sandusky I'll defer to her judgement.

Excuse me while I go find my bottle of Tums.

ndspinelli said...

Wait a minute here!! Carol Herman becomes useless w/ nobody reading or responding to her and now another useful idiot of the same sex appears, or reappears..I've not been aroud that long. Throw in the usual moonbats and the toxic stew is once again simmering on the hot stove, driving up those numbers. And soon we'll get the usual Christmas Amazon pitch. It's "deja vu all over again."

Am I being Oliver Stone here? Please..only the sane need reply, a futile request if ever there was one.

PS: Golly, I thought Ali was Eyetalian. Got any of them there Eyetalians in Rice Lake? And, I like to matchmate..there's a lonely widower needing company if you're interested..just fly east on your broom 1100 miles.

Jay said...

In America, the final step to determining legal "fact" is the court of law.


You mean except when a defense attorney makes a claim to the media, right?

Watching you post this drivel is hilarious.

MayBee said...

Jay- I think Althouse will delete most of her posts, anyway.

Jay said...

It ain't "fact" just because some alleged victims claimed it to be so

But this:
The lawyer for the Penn State football coach charged with child sex abuse said in an interview on Monday the boy at the center of a 2002 incident detailed in the grand jury's report had been identified and said it never happened.



Is a fact, right you little liar?

Quick, ignore the incoherence you're engaging in and post something dumb about Jacko in a pathetic attempt to change the subject.

Jim Howard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Oh... I think we've got a big Jacko fan in the house.


Pointing out that he didn't "overdose" (because he didn't) doesn't make me a "fan" of him.

I'm pointing out you are a liar.

Jim Howard said...

"Well-adjusted men do not shower alone with young boys.".

"As I related, they used to all the time without a thought of it."

I'm almost 60. I played football in junior high and high school. We players showered together, but I can't recall a single instance of a coach joining us.

I was also a boy scout. At summer camp it was the same. Boys showered with other boys, but never with the adult leaders.

When my kids were young I probably did shower with them at the swimming pool, but I would not have been comfortable with my kids in the shower with other adults unless I or another adult family member was also there.

YMMV.

Jay said...

MayBee said...
Jay- I think Althouse will delete most of her posts, anyway.


You're right.

This is the pathetic troll that has been banned multiple times but keeps coming back.

ndspinelli said...

"Team Truth" or Team Douche? How long have they been walking upright in Rice Lake?

David said...

"So 8 people testify under oath they were victimized by Sandusky and that is not a fact."

No, actually, it's not. In the legal system at least. It's a basis for an allegation.

You may reach a conclusion based on your incomplete knowledge and preconceptions. A jury will have a more serious task.

I must admit, it looks pretty bad for Sandusky.

Which of course is why he has a right to a jury of his peers.

ndspinelli said...

At least Carol Herman fills the large spaces w/ words. Maybe the long blanks are Freudian?

Is inbreeding still the main means of procreation in Rice Lake?

bob said...

Mary, before you finish your trip to Roswell, let me point out that the first person who brought up the idea of farm team for pederasts was the reporter who first raised questions back in the spring about Sandusky.
He gained credibility with that report when the indictments came down.
Look at the facts: The AD and the VP in charge of the campus police department fail to report an alleged crime. They're hit with a perjury charge (felony) and a misdemeanor (failure to report). It's quite likely that the failure to report won't make it through to conviction -- statute of limitations. One of the defense lawyers has already shown that card. Why bring that card? Can you say "let's make a deal"?
Remember, too, that the attorney general would not specifically rule out Spanier, among others, as targets of the investigation.

Jay said...

Oh Mary, reality just pooped on your head:

The names of the accusers have not been revealed to Sandusky’s attorneys, although Amendola said they have found a man, now in his 20s, who may be the boy that McQueary claims Sandusky sexually assaulted in the shower in 2002.

“We believe we found him, and if we have found him, he’s telling a very different story than Mike McQueary,’’ Amendola said. “He’s saying it never happened.’’


OOPS!

Jay said...

David said...

No, actually, it's not. In the legal system at least. It's a basis for an allegation


David,
way to miss the point.

I was contrasting what Mary has reposted as fact several times now with the GJ testimony.

ndspinelli said...

Are you all aware that mayonaisse sandwiches on white bread is the preferred lunch in Rice Lake. And on Saturday you drink cheap brandy and Old Milwaukee and fuck your sister. I'm just trying to give you all a little geographic/historical perspective.

Bring it girl, I rip new assholes for a living..oh wait that's just fine for Rice Lakers and Michael Jackson, pedophile apologists. You really do need to meet this widower I mentioned.

Jay said...

It is a fact that the lawyer said that.

Um, so?

You asserted it was true three times.

Gee, I wonder why that is, you silly little liar?

Jay said...

See this:

and has decided it's not worth it to speak against the victim's word, who now is saying he wasn't raped in that shower.


Is not this:

although Amendola said they have found a man, now in his 20s, who may be the boy that McQueary claims Sandusky sexually assaulted in the shower in 2002.

“We believe we found him, and if we have found him, he’s telling a very different story than Mike McQueary,’’ Amendola said. “He’s saying it never happened.’’





And anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that.

Jay said...

Mary said...


Apology accepted.


Hysterical.

I'm not apologizing, dumbass.

You have egg on your ugly face.

See, even Sandusky's attorney won't confirm they have found the boy.

You keep asserting they have.

You are a pathetic liar.

Jay said...

What kind of sick mind can't understand that in time, the Grand Jury allegations might be unfounded in a court of law?


What kind of moron accepts what a defense attorney says to the media as true yet completely discounts sworn testimony under oath?

Oh, that would be you.

Dumbass.

Jay said...

It is a fact... that the defense lawyer says ... that the child who was "witnessed" being raped... has been found ... and denies that is what happened.


And again, so what?

YOU ASSERTED THE BOY SAID IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

You have no facts to back this assertion, no was it proven as fact in a court of law.

Idiot.

Jay said...

Neither of which statements are factual.

Actually mary, both statements are factual.

You accept as fact what the defense attorney said to the media.

You are in fact ugly.

Jay said...

It is a fact... that the defense lawyer says ... that the child who was "witnessed" being raped... has been found ... and denies that is what happened.


Actually, the defense attorney said:

We believe we found him, and if we have found him,

Which isn't what you said.

Nor was it a finding of fact in a court of law.

Yet you keep repeating that the boy claims he wasn't raped as if it were true.

You're an idiot.

Jay said...

Mary said...

Give it time for the facts to come out... Why are you so afraid of that?


You mean like this, stupid?

the victim's word, who now is saying he wasn't raped in that shower.



Kind of like how you're pretending your assertion isn't a fact?

Jay said...

It is a fact... that the defense lawyer says ... that the child who was "witnessed" being raped... has been found ... and denies that is what happened.


Stupid:

Nobody is disputing the defense attorney made an assertion.

What is comical is watching you a) accept the assertion as true and b)say that GJ testimony isn't a fact in a court of law.

You have thoroughly beclowned yourself here.

Jay said...

Mary said...
The kid is in his 20s now.
You know, the one you said has not been found/identified/named.


No law enforcement agency has said the alleged victim has been identifed.

The defense attorney won't commit to saying he's been identified.

So yeah, he hasn't been identified.

ndspinelli said...

"Mary" Carol Herman can smell via the internet. You see the generations of inbreeding in Rice Lake while having a devestating effect, it did have one unexplained positive outcome. Females have superior olfactory skills. But the inbred female spawns have such a heightened sense of smell they can even do so through their computers. Scientists believe it's their mutant way of being able to smell their kin. And, while the olfactory skills in normal women evolved so they WOULDN'T breed w/ family, the oppposite holds true for Rice Lakers.

wv conal I swear under oath..this is the shape of Rice Lakers heads.."Tell them you're from France."

Jenny said...

He cannot be not guilty of all charges he just admitted to open lewdness and according to PA Law, unlawful conduct with a minor. This qualifies him for at least many instances of a misdemeanor and according to Megan's Law qualifies him for registration as a sex offender.

MadisonMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Mary said...

Sheesh, you just won't rest until you know the name and location of that young man and harass him into believing that he was the victim of anal rape, eh?


The last refuge of a pathetic troll.

Don't worry, your comments will all be deleted again, bozo.

Pogo said...

The lawyers here use the specific legalistic word "fact" which -to them- is something only a jury decides.

But that is only one kind of fact, one limited to a legal proceeding, usually a trial. Thus the lawyers here seem to believe there are no other triers of fact.

That is simply not true; at least, there are other facts. Simple ones like the sun shining, or it being cold out. And more complex ones like ''so and so is an asshole' and 'the IPO is overvalued' and 'I love you'.

The idea that "jury or it didn't happen" actually decides very very little fact in real life.

Sandusky did something very wrong. Lawyers may free him, but the fact is, he's a child molester. This ain't a case of 'show me on the doll', or satanic ritual abuse.

It's bad and it happened. But this is why lawyers are oft-despised.

The arrogance of demanding to be the ones who decide what is fact or not is just one among many reasons.

Ralph L said...

If his dick doesn't fit, you must acquit.

The presumption of innocence applies to the court, not to the public. We can jump to conclusions as high as we want.

I would think someone falsely accused of molesting and buggering young boys would be outraged, and would show it. Of course, someone guilty might be, also.

McQueary says he stopped it, but did he take the boy home and get his name, or just leave him with the creep for more butt-slamming? Presumably, the boy wasn't bleeding or screaming, but just acutely embarrassed.

William said...

How much better the world would be if all pedophiles wore sequined gloves on their right hand so we could immediately recognize them......I don't see how Sandusky could possibly be innocent, but I can understand how, earlier in his career, he could have convinced people of his innocence.....I've made up my mind about him, but I'm reserving judgement on Paterno and McQuaery. They may have a credible explanation.....Talk of a pedarest ring smacks of McMartin hysteria. But the capacity for evil in respectable people can frequently amaze.

Pogo said...

"Talk of a pedarest ring smacks of McMartin hysteria."

Aye, verily.

Be alert for mentions of hidden tunnels, ritual animal sacrifices, Satan worship, drinking blood, eating feces, and orgies.

orlandorey said...

How do we know the 2002 incident has been swept under the rug, whatever that means? Once Spanier found out about it you can bet his firts call would be to Penn State's attorney who would likely have recommended that the university settle with the family. Is an out of court settlement immoral? What if the victim doesn't want to testify? What else would have prevented the victim or his family from going to the police years ago?

E.M. Davis said...

Someone (cannot remember who) once wrote that sports reporters and news reporters should switch places at newspapers.

Their reporting is so much more aware of facts, and ignores a greater 'narrative.'

I'm not talking about the Bill Simmonses of the world, but the sports guys who have to recap what happened on the field. Basically, the 4 W's in sports form.

Costas appears more capable here than an army of David Gregorys.

E.M. Davis said...

What else would have prevented the victim or his family from going to the police years ago?

A dead, er, mising DA?

The inertia of a entire major university sports program?


WV: upthe. Really Blogger? Give me a break.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Why did Bob Costas agree to interview Jerry Sandusky?

When I heard about this I nearly spit my Cheerios- what possible benefit would result?

Other than completely poisoning the jury pool. Did he have the blessing of his defense?

Jeepers crimany.

bob said...

We can draw certain inferences from the grand jury report...
1. That there were instances of sexual misconduct involving Jerry Sandusky, involving a number of victims over a period of years. He now must defend himself against those charges. (I don't see how, honestly.)
2. That there was an attempt to prevent an investigation of the 2002 incident witnessed by Mike McQueary by the inactions of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.
---
Curley and Schultz are the keys to this whole scandal. Sandusky's actions are beyond despicable, if true (and I believe they are true). Curley and Schultz, though, hold the keys to something much larger.
McQueary doesn't. Even Paterno doesn't hold those keys, much as many out there believe he does.
---
Remember, the current attorney general did not rule out university president Spanier as a potential defendant, while ruling out Paterno and McQueary.
---
Anything else we say is speculation at this point.
And there's a rush to assumptions... but when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.

LilEvie said...

Shouting, how can we miss you when you just won't go away?

The words "moral" and "panic" are being used deliberately to imply that posters are prudish and hysterical. I see neither.

He was interviewed by Costas as the only chance to get his side out. He cannot, and will not, testify in court. He would be utterly destroyed on cross.

He said he wished he were dead. Because he was guilty of showering and horseplay, or something worse?

MadisonMan said...

Why did Bob Costas agree to interview Jerry Sandusky?

Ratings, baby, ratings. Every journalist on TV was probably hankering for an interview.

The mystery remains: WTH was Sandusy thinking when he agreed. Someone told him it was a good idea to get his story out there, I'm guessing. There might be some truth to that, but he comes off as creepy-sounding.

My guess is that his oily lawyer wanted to go on TV, suggest that they had found the Victim that McQueary saw (may or may not be true) and suggest that maybe the stories don't match (may or may not be true).

So Costas was played by the attorney. Here -- interview my client by phone, but only if I do a face-to-face with you.

traditionalguy said...

The Defense attorney here is playing the cards that he has to play.

In the first storm of publicity he has introduced doubt about whether boys were fondled or raped.

A trial lawyer wins or loses on setting the question that the Jury answers. This attorney is setting the question on what the witnesses thought they saw.

Then the talk go out about huge money in a civil suit to discredit the testimony of the 10 year olds, now turned 19 year olds.

Finally the most effective defense tactic is to talk about the most horrible rapes over and over and over until in a few months they seem like just part of our landscape and the real drama reverts to poor Mr. Sandusky's personality, which will be made out as a defective person, but still one who really wanted to help young boys. Jerry is so friendly and he lives everyday in the Courtroom along with the Jurors for 6 months.

That is a typical defense strategy in horrible cases.

Note: that the more the gross details are sent out over the broadcast media again and again, the closer the perp gets to an acquittal or a mentally ill verdict.

ndspinelli said...

Mary disappeared before our very eyes! One pedophile apologist down..one to go.

RonF said...

I'm a Boy Scout leader. By mandate of National Council, every BSA leader has to take Youth Protection training every 2 years. The curriculum changes from time to time as they refine the course and as State laws change.

In taking it recently I noticed a particular change. A male and female leader are presenting information about what to do if you are present at the time or near the time of said abuse. The male leader makes a comment about one's natural reaction that is in very PC and indirect language, but essentially says, "Don't kill the SOB."

This guy is lucky that he didn't pull this kind of stunt at a BSA camp and get discovered. Every campsite has axes and saws in them and every leader and most of the kids are walking around with knives.

RonF said...

bagoh20, I too took group showers with men and boys (at Scout camp) when I was 11 and 12. Didn't hurt me a bit, and I didn't need a sex education course in school to tell me what I was going to look like when I grew up.

But that was a group setting, 20 boys and 5 adults all in and out at once. Not a 1 on 1 with no one else around. Wouldn't have done it then (unless it was father and son), wouldn't do it now (under any circumstances).

Shanna said...

The presumption of innocence applies to the court, not to the public. We can jump to conclusions as high as we want.

Exactly. Nobody has run this guy out of town on a rail or yelled get a rope, we are just speculating on whether it is true or not. But it looks pretty damn bad at this point, just from the guys own words. (although I agree with Pogo that the whole ring of child rapes rumor sounds kind of insane-one guy taking advantage and others not wanting to see it is far more likely)

glenn said...

OK, I admit it, this came from Fox. But if it's true the judge showed very poor judgment. Either that or she's corrupt.

"Newly released documents show deeper ties between the charity founded by alleged child rapist Jerry Sandusky and the judge who set his bail -- with the documents showing a top official at the charity raising campaign money in 2007 for the judge"

bagoh20 said...

"Mary disappeared before our very eyes! One pedophile apologist down..one to go."

Yes, very impressive how people come here to prove they hate pedophiles. Do you really think we doubt that? Do you think anyone who's not carrying a torch and pitchfork actually approves of child rape?

Sometimes, people are so infatuated with their own rage that you can't even talk to them. That should scare conservatives most of all. It's the root of human disaster.

ndspinelli said...

I need to open my eyes apologists..can you direct me a good NAMBLA website. Or, will the Michael Jackson fan club suffice. I'm trying to jump on your tolerance train. Are there any locals or just express trains to hell?

Were you apologists aware that we are all responsible for Charles Manson. That was an edict by the Eastern Prince of Pedophilia Tolerance.

ndspinelli said...

I wish I could find some of that magic pixie dust. I have a few relatives I would sprinkle w/ it and make them vanish.

Kansas City said...

High risk and stupid move by the attorney. Especially being physically separate from his client. I cannot imagine the agony of the attorney as he sat there listening to his client answer those questions. It was such a stupid play that I wonder whether he just wanted to get on TV. It was a real high wire act by Sandusky and he fell on the question about whether he was sexually attractive to young boys. Repeating the question is tell for a dishonest answer. He was lying.

Costas was excellent and far better than the typical news interviewers on network TV (although it seemed edited).

The laywer's claim that the victim denied the incident was big, but he could have done that without allowing his client to be interviewed and, watching the lawyer, there was enough qualification that I did not believe him.

bagoh20 said...

Spinelli,

You seem desperate to convince us you do not support pedophilia. What's that all about? Did someone accuse you?

ndspinelli said...

Yes, Justin Beaver

Roadkill said...

Professor,

As a lawyer, I'm sure that you are interested in verbal and literal precision. As such...

That filing tag you use for this post - pedophelia - is not really accurate. It should properly be filed under the tag "pederasty," much like most all of the Catholic Clergy sexual abuse posts.

Ralph L said...

20 boys and 5 adults all in and out at once
You might want to rephrase this.

Bagoh20, I don't know if you read the first thread on this mess, in which Shouting Thomas ranted repeatedly about the "feminist hysteria" about child abuse and then went hysterical himself when several of us, including nspellini, called him on it.

I let the political assholery around here scroll on by me, but I find the non-political shit annoying.

Peter Hoh said...

Did Costas ask about Ray Gricar?

Carol_Herman said...

There's a dead DA!

With the 1998 charges. And, the mom who cooperated. So police were able to be in a nearby room, when Sandusky came in to "apologize." This is the occasion where Sandusky said "he wanted to be dead."

Then, another incident in 2002 blew the DA's posture of "not enough evidence" ... off track. He had to re-open the case.

He re-opens the case at some point. He schedules a meeting with someone. And, he disappears.

The police must have looked for him, too! Because they found his car parked 50 miles away. And, they found his laptop (with the hard drive missing), after they dredged the Susquehanna River.

You bet, the "charity" was a GOLD MINE! No one on the coaching staff wanted to leave this gold mine! Even though Sandusky was forced to give up his job back in 1999.

What's with this "perk" ... that perverts had such easy access to Penn State's locker room.

Up at Drudge there was a headline that Paterno is in line of receiving a pension of $554,000 annually. That's about $50,000 a month!

GOLD MINE!

Sure. And, a recruiting tool.

Down the toilet.

Plus, yesterday, Fox News said there's now about 20 victims.

Seems there are some people coming forward. Even though the average person's reputation can be turned into mince meat, when defense lawyers starting leaking stuff to the media.

So far all we've seen is the tip of the iceberg.

glenn said...

"High risk and stupid move by the attorney. Especially being physically separate from his client. I cannot imagine the agony of the attorney as he sat there listening to his client answer those questions. It was such a stupid play"

And the lawyer couldn't even reach under the table and put his hand on Jerr's thigh and ... oh wait .. that's a 16 year old girl .. not a client ... my bad.

Carol_Herman said...

You know, I don't think this case (or a whole bunch of cases), will ever come to trial.

I think there are going to be PAY OFF DEALS. With confidentiality agreements attached. (Same way the Catholic Church handled their pedophilia problems.)

I don't expect the lawyers to tell you this.

At Penn State? There's a small chance the cash cow of the football program will be dismantled. It's going to be too hard to attract real talent, ahead. And, without real talent, you can't be coached into winning games.

I also read that there may be a change the football rules will be changed, so that current players can switch schools without penalty. (You bet, I think other schools are making offers.) And, because the case is so high profile ... the world of college sports will bend over backwards to erase the headache that blew up in this "small town." Called "Happy Valley."

The Second Mile "charity" will go out of business. Their rich donors, many of whom are also rich pedophiles, will stop coming in with money. There are no satisfactory perks to offer them. The "family court" sending vulnerable boys into the "charity" for "help" ... has all but dried up.

Maybe, there will be investigative reporters who will publish books? It's not movie material.

But in the world of scandals, JoePa and his mafia ... did real harms to a university that will forever be known as elevating a coach to sainthood. And, he was far, far, far from being a saint.

Another coach (and a whole new team), ahead? Who'd want to take it? Sure. The money could be tempting. But not when you're in a hole. And, the gold mine's run dry.

Carol_Herman said...

FACT: Sandusky. And, the personel at Second Mile. And, the judges in Family Court who handled the cases of the disturbed boys ... who got referred to the "charity" ... ALL OF THEM KNOW ALL OF THE YOUTH's NAMES.

Sandusky's attorney probably had his client give him as many names as he could remember. And, the investigative arm in the lawyer's office then did everything they could to find these kids, today.

(Maybe, Sandusky even knew these kids social security numbers?)

He didn't call them "hey, you" in the shower! HE KNEW THEIR NAMES!

The DA didn't have this information, in toto. (Some of it. Yes. But it took the publication of the phone numbers to call ... if other victims wanted to call in.)

Everybody's got lawyers, now.

Expensive?

Well, like the mafia guy says: "MAKE ME AN OFFER I CAN'T REFUSE."

I don't know what scars are left in an adult's head, when they know they got molested in childhood. (I had an aunt who was molested as a six year old. Because she followed a man under the staircase. For a piece of candy.)

My mom told me to NEVER accept an offer of candy from a stranger! She also told me to come right home, if someone approached me on the street and asked for help in finding a "lost dog.")

Parents worry about kidnappings and molestations by strangers. But until schools began adding the subject to the curriculum ... It was one of those "silent" things.) Hard to discuss.

I was very lucky because my mom told me about what had happened to my aunt. Even though my aunt never mentioned it at all.

Parents need to keep the lines of communications open with their kids. Maybe, that's why the Internet gets so many people on board discussing things that were once kept so secret?

It's good to talk.