OT: Joe Pa done

[Mozart'sGhost]

The way Sandusky hesitated and repeated the question when Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to little boys, and then gave that hesitant answer was really creepy.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I think it should be illegal to have knowlege of a sexual molestation of a minor and not report it (unless you're the victim yourself of course). No exceptions (except the aforementioned).

Very easy to say from a distance. Why stop at molestation? Why isn't anyone that has knowledge of, say, a bank robbery also held criminally responsible? Or an assault, or mail fraud? Thing is, that's just not how the legal system, or justice, works. Laws are there to prevent crimes, not compel snitching.......you don't turn the whole place into a police state and force people to start reporting neighbors....that's 1984 shit.

I think you are WAY too bent out of shape by this situation - its horrific but you have to get a grip. There are lots of terrible crimes out there, you don't start re-writing legal codes just because people are disgusted by a guy's crimes. Unfortunately its similar to drunk driving and MADD, where one side has so much moral superiority its hard for the other side to even offer up a defense without looking like they're defending monsters......you see it very often here, anytime anyone wants to defend anything involving Paterno's actions or Penn State people try to shame them into conforming instead of offering up a logical argument.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

The way Sandusky hesitated and repeated the question when Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to little boys, and then gave that hesitant answer was really creepy.

One of the worst public appearances in recent history. The guy just sounded so guilty and ashamed....almost like he wasn't coached at all.

Frankly, you'd have to be a pretty damn ambitious lawyer to take this case.....maybe he couldn't find a top quality lawyer. I mean, for all the airtime and fame the guy can get from the situation, its just not something you want to be associated with in any way.

 

[sayheykid1]

One of the worst public appearances in recent history. The guy just sounded so guilty and ashamed....almost like he wasn't coached at all.

Frankly, you'd have to be a pretty damn ambitious lawyer to take this case.....maybe he couldn't find a top quality lawyer. I mean, for all the airtime and fame the guy can get from the situation, its just not something you want to be associated with in any way.

Sandusky's lawyer knocked up a 17 year old that he represented in an emancipation case, he was 49 at the time.

Sandusky lawyer impregnated a teen - WWW.THEDAILY.COM

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Sandusky's lawyer knocked up a 17 year old that he represented in an emancipation case, he was 49 at the time.

Sandusky lawyer impregnated a teen - WWW.THEDAILY.COM

Ha ha. This just gets weirder and weirder.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The way Sandusky hesitated and repeated the question when Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to little boys, and then gave that hesitant answer was really creepy.

That was a very strange response. First thing you do is emphatically deny the allegation. THEN you can say, "I enjoy spending time with young people, but I have never been sexually attracted to them."

Not sure why, when Sandusky admitted that he showered with the boy McQueary saw him with, Costas didn't push him a bit. Why was he alone and showering with a young boy late at night? You've GOT to ask that question.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Sandusky's lawyer knocked up a 17 year old that he represented in an emancipation case, he was 49 at the time.

Sandusky lawyer impregnated a teen - WWW.THEDAILY.COM

I suppose it should be pointed out that the age of consent in PA is 16. Though I'd think a relationship like attorney-client might create an exception for that law. Still a bizarre story, and a terrible choice for Sandusky in this case.

 

[sayheykid1]

That was a very strange response. First thing you do is emphatically deny the allegation. THEN you can say, "I enjoy spending time with young people, but I have never been sexually attracted to them."

Not sure why, when Sandusky admitted that he showered with the boy McQueary saw him with, Costas didn't push him a bit. Why was he alone and showering with a young boy late at night? You've GOT to ask that question.

Costas was pretty useless.

 

[sayheykid1]

I suppose it should be pointed out that the age of consent in PA is 16. Though I'd think a relationship like attorney-client might create an exception for that law. Still a bizarre story, and a terrible choice for Sandusky in this case.

Legal or not it is creepy.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Legal or not it is creepy.

No argument here.

 

[NinerSickness]

The problem is you would have to put in protection as well so the person reporting would not be legally liable if no arrest was made. The problem with that is it opens the door for a lot of false and malicious claims.

No you wouldn't. All you'd have to do is make sure the police didn't divulge the source of the accusation unless there was an arrest. No arrest, nobody knows about the accusation.

I think in McQueary's case he should go to jail. He admitted to seeing the crime and yet never reported it. That should make him an accomplice if you ask me.

Hell to the yes.

 

[NinerSickness]

Costas was pretty useless.

I actually think he conducted the interview pretty well. JMHO.

...Another twist to the case: The alleged victim (one of the 8 alleged victims) is denying that this r*pe occurred (The one McQueary saw). So weird just got weirder.

Pay off maybe??? If you read the grand jury report is has stuff like him going to parents of his victims and apologizing and saying he wishes he were dead & stuff like that. Don't eat before you read that thing. Seriously.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

I actually think he conducted the interview pretty well. JMHO.

...Another twist to the case: The alleged victim (one of the 8 alleged victims) is denying that this r*pe occurred (The one McQueary saw). So weird just got weirder.

Even so, Sandusky is toast. The eye witness puts Sandusky in the shower with the boy. - Playful or not, lets assume for argument's sake that Sandusky wasn't sodomizing kids. The defense is going to have a hard time convincing anyone that Sandusky's actions were innocent in nature and that he meant no harm, despite the fact that he was IN the shower with them. That's like being caught for stealing and then saying you were going to pay for it at the last minute. Uh huh... "I love kids" will not be enough. Prosecution is going to have a field day.

 

[Kinzu]

Even so, Sandusky is toast. The eye witness puts Sandusky in the shower with the boy. - Playful or not, lets assume for argument's sake that Sandusky wasn't sodomizing kids. The defense is going to have a hard time convincing anyone that Sandusky's actions were innocent in nature and that he meant no harm, despite the fact that he was IN the shower with them. That's like being caught for stealing and then saying you were going to pay for it at the last minute. Uh huh... "I love kids" will not be enough. Prosecution is going to have a field day.

McQueary testifying will not put him in jail, but those boys will if they speak.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

McQueary testifying will not put him in jail, but those boys will if they speak.

Pay attention. Sandusky said that he is not a *********, but he admitted he had showered with boys. Count them, eight or more of them according to the charges by the attorney general. All are going to be kept out of the courtroom? Good luck with that. That's your only prayer for Sandusky to be innocent with the old grandpa "who loves kids" gimmick.

Sandusky: "I have hugged them and I have touched their leg without intent of sexually contact."

Or are you denying McQueary didn't see Sandusky + a kid in the shower?

 

[Flyingiguana]

does sandusky think the rest of the world is dumb? i dont think anyone is buying his crap

 

[Kinzu]

Pay attention. Sandusky said that he is not a *********, but he admitted he had showered with boys. Count them, eight or more of them according to the charges by the attorney general. All are going to be kept out of the courtroom? Good luck with that. That's your only prayer for Sandusky to be innocent with the old grandpa "who loves kids" gimmick.

Sandusky: "I have hugged them and I have touched their leg without intent of sexually contact."

Or are you denying McQueary didn't see Sandusky + a kid in the shower?

Uh...what?


At what point in that short sentence am I saying Sandusky is innocent? If anything I said the opposite.

I was simply saying McQueary testifying would probably not be enough to convict Sandusky without evidence to back up his claim that I doubt exist, but if any of those boys testify it will be a short trial. Once they start pointing to him and telling what he did it's all over for Sandusky with or without evidence. There is no jury that is going to let that man walk free after those boys (probably young adults now) testify what he did.

 

[NinerSickness]

Another angle on the kid issue (victim #2): It's the defense that apparently found this kid to say he was the one in the shower. The police never identified the child; so the defense could have just found some other kid (who's a man now) who liked Sandusky to say it was he in the shower when McQueary walked in.

Not saying that's the case; it's just that all the defense has is some guy saying he's the real Slim Shady.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

Uh...what?


At what point in that short sentence am I saying Sandusky is innocent? If anything I said the opposite.

I was simply saying McQueary testifying would probably not be enough to convict Sandusky without evidence to back up his claim that I doubt exist, but if any of those boys testify it will be a short trial. Once they start pointing to him and telling what he did it's all over for Sandusky with or without evidence. There is no jury that is going to let that man walk free after those boys (probably young adults now) testify what he did.

So, you doubt that evidence exists under what pretense? McQueary eye witness? That the boys could be making this up and lying through their teeth? That Sandusky wasn't doing anything inappropriate in the showers with kids?

 

[Kinzu]

So, you doubt that evidence exists under what pretense? McQueary eye witness? That the boys could be making this up and lying through their teeth? That Sandusky wasn't doing anything inappropriate in the showers with kids?

Where am I saying the boys are making this up? I'm saying I don't think McQueary is a credible enough witness by himself. I mean would you believe a guy that ran out after watching something like that and did not report it? I'd be closer to believing he was a lookout for it than a witness.

Those boys though are all it will take to convict him. I don't see anyone myself included that would believe those boys would lie about something like that happening to them. I hope a bunch of them come forward and testify against Sandusky because if they do he goes to jail. That's not to hard to understand.

The only scenario that could play out to keep Sandusky innocent is if they can not get any of the victims to speak, and I would say that is highly unlikely. The guy is going to die prison and nothing is going to change that.

The only interesting part of this story now is how involved was Penn State in a possible cover up.

(Oh by evidence I meant something to back up McQueary's claims because as a juror with what I know right now I would not be able to take his word for it for reasons I stated above. I said I doubt it exist because if they had a sperm sample from that night or video of it or a police report from that night I would think we would already know about it. If that boy testifies though that it did happen then McQueary becomes credible and Sandusky will get at least 1 charge of child molestation. If he is charged with it once it will be a lot easier to start pinning the rest on him as well especially as the children speak.)