home

Sandusky Proclaims Innocence to NBC News, Regrets Showers

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:52:17 PM EST
Tags: Jerry Sandusky (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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:
    Sandusky Proclaims Innocence to NBC News, Regrets Showers | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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?

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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


    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    I was not talking to you. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:42:11 AM EST


    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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."

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent