Sandusky Proclaims Innocence to NBC News, Regrets Showers

Jerry Sandusky was interviewed on the telephone by Bob Costas of NBC News. He says he's not a pedophile and he's innocent of criminal conduct. Asked if there is anything he did wrong, he said:

"I shouldn't have showered with those kids."

Did Costas catch him off-guard or was it a planned interview? The interview will air tonight on NBC's Rock Center, at 10 pm ET. This is the same show the Chelsea Clinton has been hired on. It's a new show hosted by Brian Williams that began airing around two weeks ago.

< The Innocence Project is Hiring | FOIA Documents Show Vast FBI Biometric Database Underway >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, please. Witnesses and victims all talking (2.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:38:56 PM EST
    and he says he's innocent.  Yep, so was OJ.

    he is presumed innocent (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    If you don't want to accord him that right, please take your comments to another blog. Since Paterno was fired, Sandusky  has been turned into the devil incarnate by every media publication I've read.

    I have no idea if Sandusky sexually assaulted anyone. Neither do you. A grand jury indictment is not evidence. It is a only a charge -- an accusation resulting from  a one sided proceeding at which the testimony received is not subjected to cross-examination by those under investigation.

    Everyone thought the Duke lacrosse players were guilty. And the drug defendants in Tulia, Texas. And the Memphis 3. And the more than 250 convicted inmates later exonerated by DNA.

    You can choose to believe what you want but you will not use this site to mock the presumption of innocence.

    No one approves of child molestation or sexual assault. Or of public institutions or private charities looking the other way after it becomes aware of allegations.

    Sandusky deserves, as do we all, to be judged by evidence presented at a trial, where his lawyer has the ability to cross-examine the witnesses against him and introduce witnesses and evidence in his defense.

    Why don't you turn off your computer and turn on Nancy Grace? I'm sure you'll find her viewpoint more to your liking.


    J. Merritt posted a very nice defense of Joe P (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:51:42 PM EST
    the other day.  It's always good to be reminded of a defense attorney's highest calling, which is to defend the undefended and sometimes, the indefensible.

    One little push is all it takes to avalanche mass hatred down upon this society's selected enemies.

    Somebody's gotta be there to turn back that first rock.


    What is becoming "known" is that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Green26 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:25:30 PM EST
    Sandusky was investigated and not prosecuted for one alleged incident in 1998; the charity was told by Sandusky in 2008 that he was being investigated (I wonder what they knew or had been told prior to that); the investigation that apparently started in 2008 did not progress far enough for charges to be filed until November 2011 (and some people think Paterno and other should have gone to the police with what they were supposedly told?); the Penn governor, who sits on the Penn St board of trustees, was the AG when the investigation was started; various police supposedly knew something about the situation long ago.

    Only one of the victims/crimes mentioned in the indictment occurred after the alleged 2002 incident witnessed by McQueary--if I"ve read the summaries correctly. The 2002 victim has not been located/identified. The later incident did not occur on Penn St property, nor did Sandusky have access to the Penn St facilities at that time.

    It looks to me that the former AD and former vice president, who are charged, as well as Paterno, will likely say that McQueary didn't tell them as much as he said he has told them. So it will be his word against these 3 people.

    And, again, much of the media and many in the US want to blame Paterno and Penn St for this? What about all the other people who appear to have known something?


    true enough jeralyn. (none / 0) (#23)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:00:32 AM EST
    that said, with all that smoke in the area, we shouldn't just leap to the conclusion that there might just be a fire. give him a fair trial, then hang him. it's the only way to be sure.

    why hasn't his attorney told him to shut up? or does the guy have a death wish?

    actually, no, they didn't.:

    Everyone thought the Duke lacrosse players were guilty.

    many, many people thought there was an odor about the story right from the start, as you well know. as an attorney, you should know better than to use absolutes, as there are only two of them: one of them is death, and the other one isn't.


    Boy have you changed your tune in a few days (none / 0) (#31)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:16:47 AM EST
    If you were talking to me, (none / 0) (#43)
    by Green26 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    no I haven't changed my tune at all.

    I was not talking to you. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    My bad. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Green26 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    Rookie mistake. Actually, old guy and non-tech person mistake. Thanks to the later poster for the tip.

    Have you seen the excerpts of McQueary's email to friends? Looks like he's changing part of his story on what he did at the time of the incident.


    No problem. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    And yes.  The problem as I see it is that accusations fly and everyone reacts assuming everything stated by the accusers (in this case, the prosecution).  Once the evidence is known and both sides tell their stories, we often learn it is more complicated than that.  I highly doubt the McQuery story was as simple as "he walked in, saw a 10 year old getting sodomized, and just walked away leaving him there."

    Hint (none / 0) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    Try the "parent" button; it will tell you who is being responded to.

    I guess I am talking about your (none / 0) (#57)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:09:45 PM EST
    disdain for rushing to judgment and not knowing the whole story and how that does not jive with your assessments of Cain's guilt.

    Maybe that's because (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:04:59 AM EST
    ... in the case of Sandusky, we're talking about a criminal defendant who's facing the power of the government to put him in prison.  As such, while people are free to form their opinions about his guilt/innocence at any time, Sandusky is entitled to a presumption of innocence with a commensurately high burden of proof (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt).

    Cain, OTOH, is a guy who wants us to vote for him.


    And once again, (none / 0) (#63)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:50:39 PM EST
    you are trying to cluelessly base your arguments on semantics.

    So let me this straight.  You argument now is, because Sandusky is actually accused of a crime and is an actual defendant, we should give him the benefit of the doubt in the court of public opinion.  And...because McQuery et al are accused of covering up/failing to stop a crime we should not rush to judge either.  We were not there.  We do not know the whole story.

    But we should not give Cain the same benefits. Why??? Because he is not accused of a crime and not an actual defendant?  So if Bilaek immediately accused him of groping and pressed charges against him, we should not rush to judge or assume guilt.  We were not there, we do not know the whole story yet.  But since she did it 14 years later as merely an accusation (not pressing charges), we should assume guilt.

    Where you get this foolishness I don't know.


    "Semantics" - heh (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    "What I'm saying" is what I actually said.  There's a hee-YOOOOOGE difference between someone who's charged with a crime and someone who's asking for your vote.  In the first instance, the government is putting the defendant's life or liberty at stake in pursuing charges against them.  Hence, the presumption of innocence and the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as well and numerous other substantive and procedural safeguards.  In the second instance, ...

    ... a guy wants your vote for POTUS.

    See the difference?

    It's pretty straightforward.

    So if Bilaek immediately accused him of groping and pressed charges against him, we should not rush to judge or assume guilt.  We were not there, we do not know the whole story yet.  But since she did it 14 years later as merely an accusation (not pressing charges), we should assume guilt.

    Bialek isn't "pressing charges" and can't given the statute of limitations.  W "don't know the whole story yet"?  When do you think we'll know the "whole story"?  When a magical videotape appears?  When other witnesses come forward to corroborate Bialek's allegations?  Oh, wait ... sexual harassment almost always occurs when the harasser and the victim are alone - and oddly enough, it's rarely videotaped - so I guess the answer is ... never.

    OTOH - While we must assume Cain did nothing until some imaginary date in the future when we will "know the whole story", we can suggest the women who have come forward are lying.  We can suggest they're in it for money, despite there being absolutely zero evidence of this.  We can suggest they're not credible because they're represented by an attorney who is (gasp!) "attention seeking" and "money grubbing".  We can try to minimize the allegations by claiming it's merely "an allegation", when in reality, it's four, separate women - not including a Republican consultant and a radio show host.  We can suggest her claims aren't credible because one of them didn't file a police report when a man touched her leg and suggested he wanted sex.  We can also tell anecdotes about people we know who were falsely accused of sexual harassment for merely standing too close to someone.  Finally, we can try to minimize the seriousness of the allegations against Cain by suggesting some of the claims are baseless or just outright silly (i.e. "Would you doctor my tea?"), despite the fact that the "Doctor my tea" story is a false accusation (i.e. not actually one of the accusations made against Cain) found only on winger websites.

    Talk about "clueless ... foolishness" ...


    You are just not getting it. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    You need to think about what this thread is about and the argument.

    This thread is not about whether or not a defendant in a court of law should or should not be assumed innocent.  We all agree he should.  It is also not about whether or not in the court of public opinion, people are not burdened by reasonable doubt and can think whatever they want.  I believe that someone like Cain should be given the benefit of the doubt, we should not rush to judgment, and let's hear both sides of the story.  Donald and you say no and had reasons for justifying that I disagree with.  It should take more than an accusation, especially one 14 years after the fact without evidence, before ruining someone's career/reputation/etc.  Donald also cited his own experience being a victim of child abuse and called a different poster that was defending Cain saying we should not assume his guilt was repulsive and does not know what they are talking about:

    You're blaming the victims. You clearly don't understand the nature of sexual harrassment and assault, or else you wouldn't be doing this...Sorry, but Sharon Bialek is not lying. She's telling the truth. And yet the establishment and its lackeys smear her and rally around Herman Cain, a wretched man who's clearly not fit to be in charge of anything. Stop blaming the victims. You really don't know what you're talking about, and it's repulsive.

    Now with Sandusky, ironically someone who is accused of doing exactly what happened to Donald, and people who are accused of standing by doing nothing (which also happened in his case):

    I object to the clear rush to judgment regarding what he did or did not do relative to reporting what Mike McQueary saw to PSU officials. As I said, we don't know the whole story.

    Bottom line is that none of us were there.

    We don't know the whole story.

    we are allowing our public hysteria to silence the better angels of our nature, and need to stop channeling the pious residents of Salem, Massachusetts Bay Colony in the Year of Our Lord sixteen hundred and ninety-one.

    This CLEARLY is a contradiction.

    I am starting to think you know all this and keep responding with ridiculous arguments dwelling on how is actually going to court and who is not because you just don't want to admit you are wrong.  Or you just want to fight.  Either way, you are a waste of time and I am done responding to you.


    No, I AM "getting it" (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    You are just not getting it. You need to think about what this thread is about and the argument.

    Uhhhhmmm, ... no thanks.  I understand perfectly what this thread is about.  I also understand the hee-YOOOOGE differences between Sandusky and Cain's situations, not the least of which is that one involves a criminal defendant in a pending case, and the other is a guy who wants your vote for POTUS.

    I believe that someone like Cain should be given the benefit of the doubt, we should not rush to judgment, and let's hear both sides of the story.

    Good for you, except we've already heard Cain's side of the story.  He said all four of his accusers are lying.  He's said the charges were investigated and found to be "baseless".  He's said there was no settlement, when in fact there were two settlements - many thousands of dollars paid out on "completely baseless" allegations such as a remark on a woman's height or asking someone to "Doctor my tea" - heh.  He's blamed the allegations on his Republican rivals, then turned around and blamed it on the "Democratic machine".

    You choose to give him the "benefit of the doubt" ... I don't.  You choose to believe him, while adopting the same tactics he's using (suggesting Bialek's in it for money, attacking her because she's represented by Allred, raising red-herring allegations to minimize the actual allegations - i.e. "Doctor my tea").  You suggest Bialek's allegations aren't credible because she didn't report a man touching her leg to the police (heh), even though she told two other people about it (and they've provided statements corroborating her claim) at the time.

    I guess it's possible that all four (so far) of his accusers are lying.  I guess it's possible that the Republican consultant for the NRA who witnessed Cain's "inappropriate" behavior at the Crystal City restaurant is lying.  I guess it's possible that the conservative talk show radio host who complained about Cain's "inappropriate" behavior with two female staffers is also making it up, despite having no reason to lie.  I guess it's also possible that Bialek told her ex-boyfriend and another friend about the incident with Cain, with the idea that she could use it 14 years later when Cain decided to run for POTUS.

    OTOH, there's the alternative - that all of these people are telling the truth, and it's Cain that's lying.

    Since I'm not on a jury that's sitting for Cain's imaginary trial, I guess I'm free to form an opinion as to which one is not only "possible", but faaaaaaaarrr more likely.

    Although the answer seems pretty obvious ...

    I am starting to think you know all this and keep responding with ridiculous arguments dwelling on how is actually going to court and who is not because you just don't want to admit you are wrong.  Or you just want to fight.  Either way, you are a waste of time and I am done responding to you.

    Look at that qualifier in your first five words.  I'm guessing that's where you went wrong ...


    I know this blog is run by a defense attorney (none / 0) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:38:21 PM EST
    But I have very low regard for Sandusky.  He is innocent until proven guilty, of course, but he's managed to bring down a great university.  Many other people, not the least of whom are the kids he raped, are just collateral damage to him.

    I keep reading "Paterno Paterno Paterno" in the media.  The real villain's name starts with an "S".

    That would be (none / 0) (#3)
    by rdandrea on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:39:31 PM EST
    "allegedly" raped, of course.

    I don't believe (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    rape is one of the forty charges filed.

    Are you suggesting (none / 0) (#5)
    by rdandrea on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:11:34 PM EST
    that oral sex on an eleven-year-old child (as alleged in the Grand Jury report, Victim 1, page 2) is a consensual act?

    I hope not.


    I'm saying (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:20:33 PM EST
    rape isn't one of the charges filed.

    I do believe that since the '70s (none / 0) (#17)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:43:39 PM EST
    the charge officially is term sexual assault in most states, yes.

    But I don't read the commenter as saying that rape was the charge.  One can still say "raped" in discourse, even if the term is different in court.


    If this whole thing is a hoax (none / 0) (#32)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:17:50 AM EST
    then Sandusky did not bring down a great university.  That is the point.

    Unfortunately, some clients under accusation (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    do not listen to their attorneys' advice, or cannot bring themselves to follow it. I'm sure the Centre County DA and state AAGs have their TiVOs out to record his comments.

    On a related note, Joe Paterno's name (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:47:10 PM EST
    has been removed from the new Big Ten conference Stagg-Paterno Championship trophy.

    It will get even uglier for Joe P.  Unbelievably ugly.

    I guess the University knows now (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 10:18:39 PM EST
    and always did know more than we do about this situation.

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by womanwarrior on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:31:47 PM EST
    Let's just go whole hog.  Let's announce that Joe Paterno was never born and Penn State never won any football games.  Let's fall all over ourselves rewriting history so  we won't have any "controversy," College Football. No one ever even talked to Joe Paterno in their lives, right?  
    Can we let the process run its course?  No, we must all fall all over ourselves to distance ourselves from anything controversial. Otherwise, all will be tainted, tainted, tainted. There is something really strange about this whole thing.  
       Remember when we got the CRACK LAWS, 100-1 more serious penalties than powder when Len Bias died?  And later it turned out to be a heart condition?  And there is no difference between crack and powder?  Can we calm down?

    I keep saying, too, that McQueary (none / 0) (#18)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:50:47 PM EST
    at least came forward at the time.

    And the grand jury document is a bit vague about points in the McQueary excerpts that suggest to me the possibility that he may have taken more steps that he is being blasted for not taking, but that his testimony will be crucial in court cases, so it is not being entirely laid out now.

    I also have to wonder if and/or whether he did or had followed up with a call to off-campus police, (a) would it have done any good, since they had dropped earlier evidence amassed on Sandusky before, and that might have been known in the milieu of McQueary, and/or (b) would he have been informed by police of an investigation again underway anyway, had campus security reported to off-campus police as required?  I would think that the requirement for confidentiality regarding juveniles could have precluded police from telling McQueary or anyone that, anyway.

    Much is yet to be known about McQueary and others, and again, that may be deliberate on the part of the DA, to delay a defense team knowing it now and to make them go through discovery, right?  That's as much as I know of the law next.


    I watched Costas' interview with (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:48:08 AM EST
    Sandusky and Sandusky's lawyer. The lawyer was in the studio with Costas; Sandusky was on the phone. I was thinking maybe the terms of Sandusky's bail forbid travel.

    Anyway, I don't think Sandusky did himself any good tonight. I'm not saying he made things worse. Short of an on-air confession, how could things get rose for him? Still, even if the only things he is guilty of are the actions he admitted to tonight, those things, while not illegal, AFAIK, strike me as very inappropriate and a little creepy.

    In what world does a 50+ man decide it is okay to get into the shower, naked, with a naked young boy, and engage in "horseplay"? Wrestling? And towel-snapping?


    I only watched a few seconds (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:52:59 AM EST
    online -- already pissed that I had to sit though a 30 second commercial to see it, and they played only 15 seconds of his denials. His voice sounded weak to me, I'd bet he's on heavy anti-depressants. Who wouldn't be? But he got his story straighter than Herman Cain on Libya.

    My guess is his lawyer has told him he's unlikely to beat all of the charges, and conviction on any will result in a long jail sentence. The longer he can delay this the better. Witnesses' memories fade with time, they may say something 10 years later they didn't say in 1998 or 2002, and be impeached on that. He didn't have his own kids, he had foster kids, he was trying to integrate them into his home life and show them what a normal home life is like.


    Hmmm, my gym experiences (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:55:14 AM EST
    are many decades past, but I wouldn't be so sure that this would have been unusual in the past.
    As  I understand it, people's modesty about nudity has been increasing in recent decades. Children sometimes don't shower at gym because they don't want to be seen naked. Probably this had to do with smaller family size.

    Of course, I am assuming he did much more than engage in horseplay.


    I was surprised (none / 0) (#29)
    by Madeline on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:02:54 AM EST
    that the interview was so detailed.I've never seen anything like that televised about such a high profile case.

    I take it that his attorney's plan is to create a split between those who don't want or don't think him to be guilty and those who do. I guess when you have most of the world against you, something has to be done.


    The interview made my skin crawl. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:57:54 AM EST
    I have no idea why Sandusky's lawyer thought this strategy would help his client, I really don't.  Sandusky's answer to the question of whether he was sexually attracted to young boys took a long and painful and skeezy route to "no," in my opinion.

    And I can't say I was terribly impressed with the attorney, or the smirk he wasn't successful in keeping off his face.  And now that I know Amendola himself fathered a child with a 16-yr old when he was 49 - he later married her, though they are, I believe separated - this is going to take on an uncomfortable feeling of birds-of-a-feather-flock-together, and I predict it won't be long before Sandusky has new representation.

    Sandusky may look back on this in the not-too-distant-future and deeply regret the day he agreed to the interview, and to being represented by Amendola.


    And that may explain why, when Mary (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    Amendola, Joe's estranged wife, watched the interview, she had this reaction:

    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?"

    I'm sure Joe thought that saying what he did would lend weight to his defense of Sandusky, going beyond the legal to the very personal, but it was just one more thing that I suspect added to the creepy factor for a lot of people who watched the Costas interview.


    yeah...uhh (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    so my yard faces the school and I started a foundation to help under privileged boys and took them out of school at odd hours without their single mother's permission...and on trips, and some of them called me a sexual weirdo... oh yeah, and we were alone in showers after hours where we horsed around and I touched their legs.... and Penn state retired me early and wouldn't allow me on campus with young boys anymore....but other than that, I don't regret anything.

    in a court of law he is innocent until proven guilty.  But to me he is such a classic example of a pedophile, they should have his picture in the dictionary.


    The Board of Trustees failed, big time (none / 0) (#41)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:19:21 AM EST
    even if only looking at last week.  Three emergency meetings to finally figure out that they had a problem and ought to do something?  (Not saying that they did the right things, but for pity's sake, yes, do something.)  

    They ought to have done something long before, of course -- as they certainly must have known that many top campus officers and others were being subpoenaed and were before a grand jury for years.

    Plus, of course, this big story that was "breaking news" last week actually had been reported last spring, in its entirety but for the final report of the grand jury.  Reading that report again -- in the Pennsylvania press, so PSU trustees would have seen it -- now, it's actually something that I would think lawyers elsewhere would have noticed as well, as the secret grand jury proceedings certainly weren't secretive.

    But then, one wonders as well about the BoT agenda, with the agenda of one of its most powerful members, the governor of the state.  He has called for defunding public universities.  Hmmmm, how to bring down PSU?  Wait, here's a way. . . .


    Speaking of failure to report. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Green26 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:17:37 PM EST
    From what I've read, the state statute, at the time, applied only to people who worked with children as part of their job, seemed to apply only to people who had gotten the information from the child, had a two-year statute of limitation, and is only a summary offense (i.e. like a speeding ticket). One of the defense attorneys said he could locate no known use of the statute. The statute was later changed a bit, but not by much. This charge looks like a huge stretch to me.

    Institution? (none / 0) (#19)
    by markw on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 10:02:32 PM EST
    The institution failed him?  That's a laugh.  He WAS the institution.  

    he's right (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:58:29 AM EST
    Joe was the institution.  He may have reported they shower rape scene to people who were supposed to be his "higher ups", but it is more likely that he told them how it was going to be handled.  The football program brings the university something like 80 million a year.  Now that it is going to be leaking like a buck shot wooden bucket with all the civil law suits, Joe has been cast off and Penn State is busy trying to stop the leaking.
    No one knows exactly what people knew and when they knew it.  But one thing I am pretty sure of, Sandusky molested a whole lot of little boys and he has probably been doing it for a long time and my guess is he was molested when he was a kid.  And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on....

    I agree with your last paragraph, (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:22:19 AM EST
    however, regarding your first paragraph, I think I read somewhere that at the time of the shower incident that there was no where near the amount of money in play then as there is now, Paterno's football team was not doing well at all, and his job was possibly in jeopardy, which would mean he had comparatively little clout at the university at that time...

    okay, lol (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    come live in Pa for as long as I have and I'll be interested in your .02 cents.  Until then I will stick with my .02 cents.

    What a creepy dude. (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:46:13 AM EST

    "allegedly" (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    Ha. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    ESPN has a particularly excoriating article online:
    If that blights Joe Paterno's declining years, that's too bad. If that takes a chunk out of the endowment, hold a damn bake sale. If that means that Penn State spends some time being known as the university where a child got raped, that's what happens when you're a university where a child got raped. Any sympathy for this institution went down the drain in the shower room in the Lasch Building. There's nothing that can happen to the university, or to the people sunk up to their eyeballs in this incredible moral quagmire, that's worse than what happened to the children who got raped at Penn State. Good Lord, people, get up off your knees and get over yourselves.

    The crimes at Penn State (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:09:09 AM EST
    The crimes at Penn State are about the raping of children. That is all they are about. The crimes at Penn State are about the raping of children by Jerry Sandusky, and the possibility that people lied to a grand jury about the raping of children by Jerry Sandusky, and the likelihood that most of the people who had the authority at Penn State to stop the raping of children by Jerry Sandusky proved themselves to have the moral backbone of ribbon worms.

    Ya, maybe so, however, the dude can write. (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    That part (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    is not "allegedly". He admitted showering with little boys...that is creepy.

    Oc was joking. (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    Sandusky's Cain Moment (cubed) (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    When Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to young boys.  The silence made a chill run down my spine, and I don't remember the creepy way he finally made it to 'no', but I couldn't believe they let this man around kids after the interview.  It was like he day dreaming when he should have been focusing.  The look on Costas' face was probably the same look I must have had, shock and disgust.

    If that is how he is going to interview, he might want to go into seclusion.  And the lawyer was on the today show, not much better.  No flat out denials, skirting direct questions, and like Sandusky laying all the blame at the feet of the kids.

    To me a good lawyer goes out and put doubts into minds, this one only solidified that this Sandusky is a creep that had no business interacting with children.  He is clearly not well, and down right disturbing when boys are mentioned.

    If his lawyer can't deny direct questions on National TV he should have the sense to stay off of it.  

    Sandusky's answer to Costas' question (none / 0) (#42)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:33:38 AM EST

    : 19:01:47:00: "Are you sexually
    : attracted to young boys, to underage
    : boys?"
    : "Am I sexually attracted to underage
    : boys?" Sandusky repeats.
    : "Yes," Costas answers.
    : "Sexually attracted, you know, I -- I
    : enjoy young people," Sandusky says.
    : "I -- I love to be around them. I -- I
    : -- but no I'm not sexually attracted to
    : young boys."


    Why his lawyer allowed him to be interviewed, I'll never know.  Maybe Sandusky insisted, in which case, the lawyer can't exactly tie him up and gag him.  


    For a big time expert on defense (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    Sandusky wasn't ready with much of a defense.

    I think that Sandusky (none / 0) (#60)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:46:55 PM EST
    was so convinced of his own invulnerability, he was living in his own world.  If you never think that you're going to get caught, why would you prepare a defense?  He may also have convinced himself that he truly cared for these kids, that the kids loved him, and that he was "helping" them.