if your answer includes 'yes, i showered with them', you damn well better not do the interview.

Anybody else get this on the right side of the article?



Heh.

I'm really not sure what his lawyer was thinking when he okayed this.

/That is if he okayed this.
//Maybe his lawyer wants his client to hang himself....

RichieLaw: I'm really not sure what his lawyer was thinking when he okayed this.

/That is if he okayed this.
//Maybe his lawyer wants his client to hang himself....

From what I heard, he did ok it. If so, it's hard to fathom what he hoped to gain. Sandusky sounded hesitant, clearly drugged, and guilty as hell.

"I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped," Sandusky said. "There are many that I didn't have - I hardly had any contact with who I helped in many, many ways."


Well, that's pretty much a confession, isn't it?

RichieLaw: I'm really not sure what his lawyer was thinking when he okayed this.

That was the first thing my lawyer friend said when he saw the commercial. His first words this morning "I just heard the entire Sandusky interview. I cannot possibly understand why a criminal defense attorney would permit this to happen."

There was a very long pause before he answered too. Not a good sign.

I listened to that and said to myself the same thing as he was stammering through his answer. Also, what kind of lawyer would still keep him as a client if he did these interviews.

/I guess one that would knock up a 16 yo.

In my experience, if someone repeats the question you just asked, whatever follows is probably going to be a lie.

God, I hate listening to interviews with [alleged] pedos. The obliviousness and non-denial-denials are just so creepy. There's some weird combination of shame and still not believing that anything they did was wrong ... like they're saying "I'm ashamed of what I did but I didn't do anything and besides the kid really wanted it." Makes me feel like throwing up, literally.

You'll have to pardon him, he's confused and a little lost.

He came from a university football program, engaged in a little good-natured rape like they do in every university football program, and now the university isn't covering it up and strongarming the witnesses. You can't blame him for being baffled.

I think under the circumstances he did really well.

Whenever somebody repeats the question back to you, they're lying.

Quasar: RichieLaw: I'm really not sure what his lawyer was thinking when he okayed this.

That was the first thing my lawyer friend said when he saw the commercial. His first words this morning "I just heard the entire Sandusky interview. I cannot possibly understand why a criminal defense attorney would permit this to happen."

Exactly. The thing is that I think it might be able to be used in court against him. If he answers with a firm negative to that question in Court, the opposing counsel might be able to (or at least will likely try) to impeach Sandusky's testimony based upon a prior-recorded statement.

Further, he admitted to showering and touching underage boys. He has effectively testified against himself and can no longer use the 5th amendment.

This is a criminal farking trial. Why would his attorney do this unless he knew Sandusky was guilty as fark.

/The kicker is, I really think that this attorney might be facing malpractice issues for letting his client do this.

RichieLaw: This is a criminal farking trial. Why would his attorney do this unless he knew Sandusky was guilty as fark.

Maybe trying to poison the well. Get everyone who saw the interview thrown out of the jury pool.

If I Did It, by OJ Simpson.

RichieLaw: If he answers with a firm negative to that question in Court

0.00% chance he testifies in court.

The interview was also not held under oath -- a decent lawyer might find a way to exclude that.

That said, a decent lawyer would've not allowed the interview.

His lawyer needs to be disbarred.

ShawnDoc: RichieLaw: This is a criminal farking trial. Why would his attorney do this unless he knew Sandusky was guilty as fark.

Maybe trying to poison the well. Get everyone who saw the interview thrown out of the jury pool.

Yeah, good point, but the argument the prosecution is going to make is that this is an incredibly public event and issue. EVERYONE in PA has heard about it. If you look for people that haven't heard about it you're going to run out of your peremptories and be stuck with whatever is left over.

The truth of the matter is, that this guy is guilty as sin. If the grand jury indictment didn't convince you, his recent statements definitely would have.

ThatGuyGreg: RichieLaw: If he answers with a firm negative to that question in Court

0.00% chance he testifies in court.

The interview was also not held under oath -- a decent lawyer might find a way to exclude that.

That said, a decent lawyer would've not allowed the interview.

Maybe, but he won't be able to use a hearsay objection (its a party statement against interest) and its relevant. The fact the it is not under oath doesn't mean it can't be included into evidence.

And as far as Sandusky testifying, he HAS to now. If not, the only thing the jury is going to hear him say is this interview with Bob farking Costas.

I loved the lawyers statement that he was just a "big overgrown kid"...

SoCalSurfer: This guy will prob enjoy any prison rape that comes his way.

Maybe not... My dad was a C.O. and he had some horror stories about the way diddlers get treated in General Population.

Really interesting article here with some legal analysis as well with some statements that McQueary may have actually stopped the activity from happening.

Link (new window)

I think he was trying, and failing, to feign incredulity by repeating the question.

I heard the interview this morning. Much of his responses sounded like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar: "Was I stealing cookies? *stare hole in the floor* Yes, my hand was in the cookie jar but I didn't steal any cookies. I don't like to eat cookies, though I do like cookies."

ecmoRandomNumbers: Anybody else get this on the right side of the article?

[i224.photobucket.com image 473x327]

Heh.

They appear to have removed that particular ad from the shuffle. And frankly, I'm surprised they managed to figure out that maybe they shouldn't be on the same page, so I'm guessing it's a coincidence that it's changed.

/That particular establishment is just outside of my grandmother's section, a couple miles from me
//Not much faith in the intelligence of those who work at my local paper...

I went back a read that indictment again, absolutely unbelievable, it took the high school reporting him to get anything to be done. This would still be happening if not for that. This thing is just ugly and wrong and bad on so many levels.

RichieLaw: I'm really not sure what his lawyer was thinking when he okayed this.

/That is if he okayed this.
//Maybe his lawyer wants his client to hang himself....

He not only OK'ed it, *he* set it up. Costas originally asked to interview the lawyer. I assume Costas figured there was no chance of Sanduski talking, so he's have to go through the lawyer anyway. Then the lawyer offered Sanduski.

Farking crazy.

mitchcumstein1: it took the high school reporting him to get anything to be done. This would still be happening if not for that.

Most universities protect their football rape programs pretty aggressively.
Generally, as long as it stays internal and doesn't get much press beyond local news they can threaten witnesses and buy off judges.
This situation is just WAY too out of control for any of that to work now.

The part I love is at the end where the lawyer makes the claim that the child in question that was witnessed by McQueary has been found and has refuted the allegations, information that he has apparently failed to present to any law enforcement officials as of yet.

A normal person would recoil at the question and possibly hit the questioner. This guy had to think about it for like half a minute.

Ok, you're so guilty, you filthy child rapist scum.

Do you like gladiator movies Jerry?

gilgigamesh: "I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped," Sandusky said. "There are many that I didn't have - I hardly had any contact with who I helped in many, many ways."


Well, that's pretty much a confession, isn't it?

That's ridiculous. That would be like me saying "Well, I didn't kill every hooker I ever saw. Some of them I just ignored." and you thinking that makes me a murderer. Utterly preposterous.

He's using the Hermann Cain defense.

RichieLaw: ThatGuyGreg: RichieLaw: If he answers with a firm negative to that question in Court

0.00% chance he testifies in court.

The interview was also not held under oath -- a decent lawyer might find a way to exclude that.

That said, a decent lawyer would've not allowed the interview.

Maybe, but he won't be able to use a hearsay objection (its a party statement against interest) and its relevant. The fact the it is not under oath doesn't mean it can't be included into evidence.

And as far as Sandusky testifying, he HAS to now. If not, the only thing the jury is going to hear him say is this interview with Bob farking Costas.

A new circus is in town!

I did not...have sexual relations...with that boy, Little Orphan Bobby.

Imagine responding to your spouse like that:


Wife: Did you sleep with the babysitter on our bed?

Me: Did I sleep with the babysitter on our bed?

Wife: Yes.

Me: Sleep with the babysitter on our bed, I mean, our babysitter's great, I enjoy spending time with her, and our bed is very comfortable, but no, I didn't sleep with the babysitter on our bed.

Keep standing up for this guy and his buddies, Penn State fans. Because football is more important than anything. Maybe riot again - that made you look great.

FTA: "Jerry Sandusky, 67, said on NBC News' "Rock Center" Monday night that there was no abuse and that any activities in a campus shower with a boy were just horseplay, not molestation."

Oh! You were just horsing around naked in the shower with an underage boy! That definitely makes me feel better! Whew... sorry about all this, go on with your business then!

Ken at Popehat: Imagine responding to your spouse like that:


Wife: Did you sleep with the babysitter on our bed?

Me: Did I sleep with the babysitter on our bed?

Wife: Yes.

Me: Sleep with the babysitter on our bed, I mean, our babysitter's great, I enjoy spending time with her, and our bed is very comfortable, but no, I didn't sleep with the babysitter on our bed.

+1