southsider2k5 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) #OccupyPennSt. They were going to use #occupyhappyvalley, but that is what got them in trouble in the first place... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 http://dlvr.it/wB7vB that sound you hear? it is Sanduskys lawyer screaming "stfu jerry!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) http://dlvr.it/wB7vB that sound you hear? it is Sanduskys lawyer screaming "stfu jerry!" Rope? Why sure, just let me place it around my neck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) http://dlvr.it/wB7vB that sound you hear? it is Sanduskys lawyer screaming "stfu jerry!" How the Hell do you let that guy on the air? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) How the Hell do you let that guy on the air? How the hell does NBC not have enough time on their 4th place network to air the entire interview vs just part of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 12:33 PM) How the hell does NBC not have enough time on their 4th place network to air the entire interview vs just part of it? No joke. Then again, that is probably why they are #4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) How the hell does NBC not have enough time on their 4th place network to air the entire interview vs just part of it? I wonder if they didn't give the Sandusky Legal guy some amount of veto over the footage that would be aired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) There are many other charities not run by child rapists that can take its place. Yes there are. QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) Making $130,000 a year by running a charity? That may be commonplace, but it sounds so wrong. Their budget was in the tens of millions with a donor list of Fortune 100 companies. You don't send some $30,000 kid after those. We argue this in Boy Scouts all the time, do you want to pay a guy $20,000 who raises $40,000 or pay a guy $80,000 to raise $200,000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 He couldnt have sounded more creepy than last night, terrible move by his lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Good summary of obvious outstanding legal issues. In terms of legal strategy, what did we learn from Sandusky's interview with Costas? We learned that Sandusky and his attorney, Joe Amendola, are focused on making legal distinctions even if doing so requires Sandusky to make admissions of decidedly inappropriate, if not criminal, behavior. This was most apparent when Sandusky denied that he was a pedophile, but admitted to showering and "horsing around" with boys, as well as "hugging" and "touching" them, albeit in ways he claims to have been non-sexual. Even if we believe Sandusky that he did not commit rape, his comments could be interpreted as admissions of other sex crimes under Pennsylvania law, including the felony of institutional sexual assault (indecent contact by a youth development mentor) and the misdemeanor of indecent assault (indecent contact). To further this tactic, Amendola, in a separate interview with CNN, attempted to distinguish between socially unacceptable behavior and illegal behavior. Describing his client as a "big overgrown kid" and an aging "jock", Amendola portrayed his client as engaging in conduct that would attract scorn as grossly inappropriate, but that did not rise to the level of criminal activity. The problem with Sandusky's legal strategy is not only that a growing number of men independently charge that Sandusky raped them while they were children, but that also admitting to strange and lewd behavior with children would likely make jurors highly suspicious of him and more inclined to convict him of sexual assault. Put differently, it's hard to believe there is a merely a misunderstanding between Sandusky's recollection of the facts and that of the alleged victims when Sandusky freely admits to showing terrible judgment. The interview also reflects poorly on Penn State. Sandusky admitted to behavior that was far from discreet and was sure to attract the attention of others. Along those lines, did no one at Penn State find it disconcerting that Sandusky was showering with boys? Did any school official notice any unusual "touching" by Sandusky? Joe Paterno's insistence that "we were all fooled" seems even more hollow after Sandusky's interview. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I wish Costas would have asked Sandusky to define "horseplay" and "horsing around", because it's probably simply an alternate term for "sodomy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 just some wrassling in the showers amongst friends. Here is what I imagine Sandusky's response would be: Bob, I know that youve never been an athlete, at 4'3 your only hope was to be a jockey, but if you were an athlete youd know that in the showers we sometimes like to get our WWF on. And yes Bob I know that its now WWE, but Ill be damned if I let the World Wildlife Federation take way the name of the greatest sport in the world. So let me explain, I was in the shower giving a kid a pile driver, and that just happens to put my face in his junk and my junk in his face. And if you were an athlete youd know that physical exertion makes you need to breathe heavy. So Im out of breathe about to put the Sandusky (my finishing move) on this kid, when his penis slips into my mouth. Now Im sure youve seen the South Park where Butter's penis happens to get in Cartman's mouth, so this isnt the first time a penis has slipped into a mouth. So because the kid is upside down, I cant just drop him on the floor, so I gently take him to the floor. Since his penis had been in my mouth, I offer to clean it so he doesnt get any germs. --- Best thing he could have done was take the 5th and keep his mouth shut. Proving these cases is going to be difficult with out a confession (young children dont have very reliable memories). No clue why the guy went on tv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I thoroughly enjoyed that post, Brian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 09:57 PM) Proving these cases is going to be difficult with out a confession (young children dont have very reliable memories). No clue why the guy went on tv. True, but there are at least a few adults who witnessed things (McQueary, the wrestling coach, the janitor) and the sheer number of kids reporting this will be hard for a jury to overlook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 McQueary to be on CBS Evening News tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 11:21 PM) McQueary to be on CBS Evening News tonight. softball interviewers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 McQueary claims to have both stopped the sexual assault he witnessed AND alerted the authorities. So many more wrinkles to this story... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 10:43 PM) McQueary claims to have both stopped the sexual assault he witnessed AND alerted the authorities. So many more wrinkles to this story... So either the Grand Jury did a REALLY bad job of summarizing his testimony, or he somehow left out these facts when he testified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 These guys need to start shutting the f*** up. Why are they commenting so much before a trial even starts materializing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 10:43 PM) McQueary claims to have both stopped the sexual assault he witnessed AND alerted the authorities. So many more wrinkles to this story... Wouldn't surprise me if he did. Wasn't there an investigation into Sandusky in 2002? Perhaps this is what triggered it, and there was a subsequent cover-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 04:43 PM) McQueary claims to have both stopped the sexual assault he witnessed AND alerted the authorities. So many more wrinkles to this story... Paterno should have contacted the FBI!! Raise the pitchforks! Start the fire! Rabble, rabble, rabble! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 05:47 PM) So either the Grand Jury did a REALLY bad job of summarizing his testimony, or he somehow left out these facts when he testified. Or it wasn't pertinent to the charge against Sandusky which is all the GJ cared about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 05:49 PM) Wouldn't surprise me if he did. Wasn't there an investigation into Sandusky in 2002? Perhaps this is what triggered it, and there was a subsequent cover-up. According to the grand jury testimony, the only investigation into him by law enforcement officials happened in 1998. In 2002, the incident was reported to higher ups, and Sandusky was told to stop bringing children from the charity onto campus, but there was no testimony stating that it was reported by anyone to law enforcement (and charges have been brought against 2 people for failing to bring it to law enforcement). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 11:54 PM) According to the grand jury testimony, the only investigation into him by law enforcement officials happened in 1998. In 2002, the incident was reported to higher ups, and Sandusky was told to stop bringing children from the charity onto campus, but there was no testimony stating that it was reported by anyone to law enforcement (and charges have been brought against 2 people for failing to bring it to law enforcement). Okay, I know Deadspin spoke of a 2002 investigation, but they may just be referring to the school and Second Mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 QUOTE (G&T @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 11:52 PM) Or it wasn't pertinent to the charge against Sandusky which is all the GJ cared about. It's pretty clear that McQueary was giving a narrative of what he saw and did. If he intervened, why would he say he left? Also, the Grand Jury is allowed to ask questions of witnesses, and I think anyone hearing this testimony would be very curious as to why McQueary didn't immediately contact the police. Maybe they just didn't ask.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.