Right next to the interviewer, of course. Also on NBC.
i would find this more credible if it was about Tom Crean
Right next to the interviewer, of course. Also on NBC.
I heard sounds coming from off camera that sounded a lot like a lawyer beating his head against a cinderblock wall. That's likely where the lawyer way.
Sandusky is looking delusional. After he bailed out he was rolling around State College in full PSU gear. Now's he's on NBC. I think he's so used to being protected he can't imagine there is actually going to be a conviction off this one.
* Sanduskey claims everyone is lying.
* Sandusky's lawyer claims they may have identified the boy who McQueary saw Sandusky with in the shower and says the victim disagrees with McQueary's statements.
* Sandusky said he is only at fault for showering with the children and wishes he hadn't done it.
* Says he is not sexually attracted to young boys.
Honestly, given what happens to pedophiles in prison, lying his ass off is his only chance of not enduring what will certainly be one of the more miserable existences possible for a human being.
And may he live a long time in prison with "Zippy the Love Sponge" and "Large Mamba" as cell mates.
I'm sure the fine gentlemen in the real Big House will welcome Mr. Sandusky warmly, especially with the rep as a pedophile. Kind of like the treatment Mr. Dahmer received for eating his fellow human beings.
Am I going out on a limb when I say that the jury might need to be pooled from a coffee field on Sumatra?
I've spent time with temp farmers in Sumatra, some coffee but more rubber. They're all temp - more power to the plantation owners that way and there is certainly more in need for work than jobs available - so every morning these workers would line up and get picked up in old pickup trucks and driven to the fields.
I guess I'm Debbie Downer here, but bringing these folks up in a Sandusky thread seems appropriate for me, but also sad. These folks are extremely exploited, powerless, at times abused, and in many ways floating along and trying to survive against forces that they can not control. Some of these are children but more are adults. Still, they are helpless and their circumstances are terrifying.
Much like the victims of Sandusky, but almost compeltely without notice or concern. Just thought I'd throw that out here as a reminder to me (and us) to remember the victims all around us, not just within this story. I'm following this story closely as well, nothing wrong with that. But this is just one story. There are many.
Sandusky says he doesn't remember much of the 1998 incident but he does remember the 2002 incident in the shower that McQueary walked in on. (Does that mean he can provide the identity of the boy?)
Asked why McQueary would lie about what he saw. He says you'll have to ask him. Asked why the janitor would be horrified, sick and lie about what he saw. You'll have to ask him.
The long pause he took before answering whether he is sexually attracted to young boys kind of creeped me out.
yeah, the pause and whay he answered the "sexually attracted to boys" was horrifying. So uncomfortable. But eventually he got it out, "no." Hmmm, convincing.
To me, I think that was telling. I believe he has lied to himself for a long time and another reason he was willing to do this interview. He stated more or less that he is attracted to boys, but not sexually, just their energy, that they are fun, that he loves to be around them.... but um, not sexually. I think that is the story that he's been playing in his head for years at the times he's been able to keep his true demons from working their way to the surface of complete consciousness.
I was watching this with my Dad freaking out. When Costas asked if he was attracted to young boys, Sandusky literally could not say no. He paused, then said he really likes being around children. It was almost as if he went off into a daydream thinking inappropriately about children. It was freaking disgusting. After talking about how he likes to be around boys, he finally said no like 30 seconds later. If wrongfully accussed of an act of this nature, you think someone would scream "NO, I'M NOT ATTRACTED TO BOYS."
This guy said 3 words and the creepiness I got from him made me uncomfortable. I REALLY hope our justice system does not fail and this guy gets thrown into a maximum security prison so he gets what he's done to these poor kids times 100.
I also think there's a lot more to this than we know and it could get very ugly. BTW, PSU has never been charged with a violation...Hmmm, if they're willing to harbor & enable (maybe even cover up) a serial child rapist for 17 years; I'm pretty sure JoePa wouldn't find paying a player very offensive.
That's why I'm confused as to why the lawyer said he THINKS they found the boy from the 2002 incident.
Plus, if that boy doesn't want to testify, odds are it's because he is trying to distance himself from the past and doesn't want to relive what scarred him.
He must not think the charges are serious enough to warrant a strong and coherent defense.
Two other posters touched on this, but Costas straight up asked him if he was a pedophile and it took Sandusky about 20 seconds to answer "no".
If you aren't a pedophile and somebody asks you on television if you are, an initial response of "I will kill you if you even suggest something like that" in five seconds of less is simply creepy.
Jonah Keri, who is a baseball writer for ESPN and Grantland, had a funny tweet along the lines of "Great move by Sandusky's attorney, Lionel Hutz, to let him do this interview."
He immediately said no to the pedo question. But when he was acked if he was sexually attracted to young boys, that's when he seemed to go into a daze for seemingly an eternity before saying no.
Sandusky sounded guilty as shit.
He admits to showering naked with young boys, hugging them, touching their legs, and, one of the more telling things to me, he didn't immediately answer no to the question "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?". He actually sounds like he gets lost thinknig about "helping" young boys before seemingly snapping back to reality to say no.
McQueary disagrees with what he is saying, and I bet that high school district that banned him disagree with him too. The current Governor of Pa is the one that started the most recent investigation into Sandusky, and also feels that he is guilty and also supported JoePa's firing. So the current and previous Pa Attorney Generl's think Sandusky is guilty. I think there is a lot more to come out, and it isn't going to be pretty, and it isn't going to make Sandusky or Penn State look good.
impregnated a 16 year old
how was he not disbarred?
To get a "he" pregnant, no matter the age.
Here is a direct quote from a ESPN article on Sandusky's interview...
"Meanwhile, The New York Times reported on its website late Monday that close to 10 additional suspected victims have come forward to authorities since Sandusky's arrest, according to people close to the investigation. The paper said police were working to confirm the new allegations."
For those who didn't see it last night, here's a link that includes a 9 minute video of the interview, including Costas asking the lawyer some questions:
My reaction: holy crap. Maybe it is just lawyer-speak at this time, but Jerry and his lawyer seem convinced of his innocence, and they believe that they have evidence in their favor. As has been stated here, the lawyer indicates that they have identified the boy (now an adult in his 20's) who McQueary saw in the shower with Sandusky, and the lawyer seemed to indicate that that man is going to testify in Sandusky's favor, saying that he was never raped. If that ends up being the case, I have a couple questions: 1) How do we know the guy isn't being manipulated? and 2) How do we know that the guy is actually that boy who was in the shower? How can Sandusky's lawyer prove that?
So, based on what was said in that interview, we must conclude one of two things: either Sandusky is guilty as charged and he is prepared to lie until the bitter end; or every charge that has been brought against him is false, and he actually is innocent. That McQueary, this now-insane (or at least mentally unstable) janitor, and a handful (I can't remember exactly how many) of victims who have now spoken out, are all lying and are out to get Sandusky. What would be their motivation for doing so? I would think that's got to be part of Sandusky's defense. If they can reasonably prove that McQueary and others have an axe to grind with Sandusky, wouldn't that negatively affect McQueary's testimony?
Also, as others have pointed out, how in the world are they going to find an impartial jury at this point? I mean, holy crap. They would have to find some mountain men from the hills of West Virginia if they really want an impartial jury.
My goodness, it seems like we're just at the tip of the iceberg with this thing.
that's really it.
You've got the 1998 incident, the 2000 incident, the 2002 incident and the last one that brought all this about in 2007 in which either adults claim they witnessed Sandusky in the act of sexually abusing a child or got the police involved. You've got other kids saying that Sandusky was molesting them in his basement, in his car and in hotels.
Like Bob Costas said, if all of this is false and just a big coincidence, Sandusky has to be the unluckiest man in the world.
For the life of me, I can't imagine what would motivate all of these people to fabricate thesecharges.
You can't imagine what would motivate all of these people to lie, because they aren't lying and no reason exists. Sandusky is guilty, will go to jail and then die in jail.
Sandusky and his lawyer, or the police. And did McQueary positively identify the kid? How easy would it be to pay someone off to come forward and deny the accusation?
As for impartial jury, that will be an interesting battle.
Horrible move by Sandusky and his team...