Mike McQueary maintains that he did not just run away, instead claims he stopped Sandusky from raping the child before fleeing the scene.
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
Mike McQueary maintains that he did not just run away, instead claims he stopped Sandusky from raping the child before fleeing the scene.
Deadspin.com is a quality site that I ocmpletely trust, similar to TMZ.com.
But they've done well on the Sandusky scandal.
I can't trust the report that Lindsay Lohan is a lesbian vampire hooker who was married to Kim Kardashian in a secret blood butt ritual?
I almost forgot theonion.com as well... silly me.
Holy smokes, thats quite the interview for NBC. Should be interesting viewing, to say the least.
Why is his attorney not stopping this?
Is there a good reason his lawyers would allow this to happen, given the nature of what he is accused of doing?
Sandusky is setting up a future Ineffective Assistance of Counsel appeal. After all, there is no better way of showing that I HAVE A TERRIBLE LAWYER than a primetime interview.
When I first read this, my initial reaction was, "Because an interview with Bob Costas would be the first thing that would come to one's mind when faced with child sexual abuse charges...."
First thing I thought was, "Gee, an interview from back in the day, must be creepy." It didn't occur to me that it would be contemporary.
A lawyer who in his 40s impregnated a 16 year old while serving as her lawyer.
He also says that they're going to have kids, including the McQueary one, say it never happened. Which is pretty laughable. However, he says "We think we found him". So he's announcing on public television that "he thinks" he has a case to defend Sandusky.
Its possible that this is just something he insisted on doing himself, to try to clear his name. Its not like he has a chance of getting a non-life sentence at this point, anyway.
to taint the sea of mediocrity known as the jury pool..
How could any potential jury member be untainted in this?
Yeah and Carlos tevez is not fit to play.
He has pretty much admitted his guilt, but if he was somehow found innocent? Hide. Quickly.
As for PSU & JoPa, the damage has been done. I doubt they will mention it ever again, even if he is found innocent.
Lawyer here. Be clear: "Innocent" of criminal charges does NOT mean "it never happened." It means, "prosecution didn't prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."
I was taught that proof at trial is like a scorecard. Let's say all the evidence at trial must add up to 100 points. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means the prosecution has to have at least, like, 92 points, defense no more than 8.
Whereas, in civil liability, the plaintiff v. defendant is decided on "preponderance of the evidence" -- the one side with 51 or more points wins.
So, maybe the evidence says Sandusky did it, 80 to 20. Not guilty, in that case. But, we can't say "oh so he didn't do it." Because by 80 to 20, we'd say he did.
CASE IN POINT: OJ. He was not guilty of criminal charges. But a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death, i.e., he caused the deaths. How is taht consistent? B/c the criminal jury found "reasonable doubt," however, the civil jury still found the "preponderance of the evidence" that he did it.
One other point, is that at the civil trial you don't have the option of not testifying. Being examined, cross or direct by a good trial lawyer can be like a day in hell. Plus you also have the additional charge of dealing with perjury should you lie and the boys and girls on the criminal side of the bench go after you again.
The O.J. thing was quite different. There was no reasonable doubt; that was a classic case of jury nullification. That is unlikely to happen in this case.
Sandusky will search for the guy who REALLY molested those boys on every golf course in Pennsylvania.
There's a big difference between "innocent" and "not guilty." So, even if Sandusky somehow wriggles out of this, people will still assume he did it (see: Jackson, Michael).
And even if he does, there's probably a big-ass civil suit in his future.
is this freak show actually getting any television time period? I mean this is kinda no I dont mean kinda this is freaking absurd.
But in the end ESPN and the news has sucked any bit of me wanting to actually hear more about this story away. I mean, I couldn't even watch the start of the Michigan game Saturday because they were showing Joe Pa's house. As normal, ESPN blows up everything until everyone is sick of it and then move on to the next thing and do it again.
You couldn't watch the start of the Michigan game? Was that an out of state thing? Because we got it here.
Yikes. I would have broken things too. Especially since we scored on that first drive.
There were about 150 Michigan Alumni at the game at this one bar in DC, and the grumblings started about 3:45. Several minutes later, as people noticed on their cell phones that Michigan was already up 7-0, people were yelling at the bewildered staff. After about the first 6-7 minutes of gametime were up, they managed to put on a silent feed from the ESPN 3 webcast, which mollified people for a few minutes, until people were griping about the sound. It was a total mess.
This happened to us in Boulder. Luckily the bar had wifi and we had an app to watch ESPN on the phone. Good backup option for the future. Someone at the WWL should be fired over that one.
covered the thrilling end of the WVU-Cincinnatti game. I was listening to the game on the radio because all my streams were Joepa drivel.
as to why ESPN was showing mail delivery time at JoePa's house instead of an actual live football game.
someone else felt my frustration. I was on Skype with some friends in Michigan and they were perplexed that I was forced to watch the post-game presser for PSU and happily informed me that I was missing Toussaint rumbling for some sort of 80 yard run.
nbc's highest ratings in years
George Bluth senior had better lawyers. SHEESH.
They can't convict a head coach and a defensive coordinator of the same crime
Props to Costas for being able to sit in the same room with this guy. I don't think I could even talk to him.
Does anyone know if I can hear/watch the interview streaming online? This student needs to get work done, but is very interested in what that dirtbag has to say for himself.
But I'm sure it'll be on NBC.com later.
Is from the same firm that allowed harvey updike to call paul finebaums show at least 3 times from when he admitted he poisoned the toomer corner trees.
of the year. Although I can understand NBC's desire to boost their ratings, giving this disgusting excuse for a human being the chance to con people into believing he's innocent is wrong. Unless of course Sandusky comes clean on national TV which I strongly doubt he'll do. The only thing that would make this worthwhile is if Costas throws off the journalistic gloves and grills Sandusky mercilessly until he becomes a whimpering blob.
But, I really, really don't understand why Sandusky's lawyer is letting him do this. Maybe he strongly advised against it and the moron is going ahead with it anyway. He must really feel like he has nothing to lose I guess.
I can't watch it. Just seeing his face on video will make me simultaneously angry and sick to my stomach. Why can't this loser just plead guilty, get to jail, and let the victims get on with their lives.
BTW Jerry, Bubba will be waiting for you.
Haha well done
that's right. Even if he never actually committed sodomy in the locker room, he's a pedophile in his heart. Maybe he's got strong moral convictions that keep him from 'going all the way' and his charity was his way to let off some of that sexual tension in a non-sexual way.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if McQueary is lying or misremembering or has been convinced through police interrogation that things were different than what he really saw. Either way, old men showering with little kids is just not right.
I wouldn't be surprised if Jerry Sandusky is doing everything he can not to spend the rest of his life in jail, because it is going to be a living hell for him if he ends up there.
...and I say this as someone who wants to see this guy in jail for a long, long time...
WHERE THE HELL IS THIS GUY'S LAWYER???
People accused of child molestation do NOT go on TV and admit to naked horseplay in a shower, alone, with a 10-year-old boy. I mean... Jesus.
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...