Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

Jerry Sandusky on NBC tonight at 10

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Jerry Sandusky on NBC tonight at 10
chicago510's avatar

chicago510

Original Chatterer

5,728 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:42 AM
When asked the question, "Are you sexually attracted to young boys", who takes 15 seconds to say no?!?! And not even a definite no.
Nov 14, 2011 10:42pm
Fab1b's avatar

Fab1b

The Bald A-Hole!!

12,949 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:42 AM
chicago510;973262 wrote:Deadspin has the full link....for now.

http://deadspin.com/5859530/
thank you much listening now
Nov 14, 2011 10:42pm
chicago510's avatar

chicago510

Original Chatterer

5,728 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:43 AM
Little Danny;973268 wrote:Ok, not to go all political here, but Sandusky is basically using the Bill Clinton "It depends on your definition of IS, is" defense. He is admitting to taking long showers with these children and touching them, yet not in a "sexual" way. This is absolutely insane to be used in the context of relations with a child. What's more, this interview will be used against him and Penn State in both their future criminal and civil actions. I would love to a civil plaintiff lawyer who signs up one or more of these children. Cha-Ching!
I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe this is admissible in court. Not sworn testimony or collected by law enforcement.

But still asinine and damning to his case. But I agree the "intent" of showering with boys is absolute horseshit
Nov 14, 2011 10:43pm
chicago510's avatar

chicago510

Original Chatterer

5,728 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:44 AM
Fab1b;973271 wrote:thank you much listening now
Next post is 10,000, use it wisely.
Nov 14, 2011 10:44pm
Skyhook79's avatar

Skyhook79

Senior Member

5,739 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:45 AM
chicago510;973272 wrote:I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe this is admissible in court. Not sworn testimony or collected by law enforcement.

But still asinine and damning to his case. But I agree the "intent" of showering with boys is absolute horseshit

To be fair it wasn't enough for 2 police detectives and an investigator for Pennsylvania Child Welfare in 1998 to take it the Prosecutor.
Nov 14, 2011 10:45pm
reclegend22's avatar

reclegend22

Cool Hand Luke

8,772 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:46 AM
No, showering with little boys is not horse****. It is horseplay. Big difference. Jerry was just playing a game of wild pony with the children when all of his clothes fell off.
Nov 14, 2011 10:46pm
Mulva's avatar

Mulva

Senior Member

13,650 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:47 AM
jordo212000;973217 wrote:He doesn't sound very remorseful. You'd figure he might be crying or something? Dude is a sociopath, just matter of fact the whole time.
Not that anything about this interview helped him, but expressing remorse while also maintaining your innocence wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Fab1b;973251 wrote:Just got a SportsCenter alert on my phone stating - Sources told Tom Rinaldi that McQuearly stopped Sandusky's sexual assault in 2002. WTF? Now if I am McQueary I am saying that from the get go as he has been drug through the mud like a pussy!
If he did stop the assault then he earns a few points back, but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions about his course of actions.
Nov 14, 2011 10:47pm
Mulva's avatar

Mulva

Senior Member

13,650 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:49 AM
chicago510;973272 wrote:But still asinine and damning to his case.
I'd think it might be determined that jurors who heard this interview would need to be screened out to preserve a "fair trial", but I'm not hip enough to the law scene to know for sure.

It sure seems like a preliminary opinion of innocence (lol) or guilt could have been formed based on this that would bias a juror.
Nov 14, 2011 10:49pm
Skyhook79's avatar

Skyhook79

Senior Member

5,739 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:53 AM
Mulva;973281 wrote:


If he did stop the assault then he earns a few points back, but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions about his course of actions.
Also means he perjured himself in GJ report because it says "The Graduate Assistant was shocked but noticed that both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The Graduate Assistant left immediately, distraught.
Nov 14, 2011 10:53pm
chicago510's avatar

chicago510

Original Chatterer

5,728 posts
Nov 15, 2011 3:56 AM
Skyhook79;973294 wrote:Also means he perjured himself in GJ report because it says "The Graduate Assistant was shocked but noticed that both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The Graduate Assistant left immediately, distraught.
This. Can't backtrack on your GJ testimony just because it makes you sound like a huge pussy and gets you fired.
Nov 14, 2011 10:56pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:03 AM
chicago510;973272 wrote:I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe this is admissible in court. Not sworn testimony or collected by law enforcement.

But still asinine and damning to his case. But I agree the "intent" of showering with boys is absolute horse****
Not sure why it wouldn't be admissible, it is textbook statement against interest. If all statements needed to be sworn or collected by law enforcement, we wouldn't have many probative statements.
Nov 14, 2011 11:03pm
chicago510's avatar

chicago510

Original Chatterer

5,728 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:07 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;973310 wrote:Not sure why it wouldn't be admissible, it is textbook statement against interest. If all statements needed to be sworn or collected by law enforcement, we wouldn't have many probative statements.
You guys are right, I just read up more on it. Been too long since my 5th amendment lectures in HS.

Thats why I'm going into medicine.
Nov 14, 2011 11:07pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:09 AM
Mulva;973281 wrote:Not that anything about this interview helped him, but expressing remorse while also maintaining your innocence wouldn't make a lot of sense.
True. But I was mostly talking about the part when he had admitted he showered with boys and that his actions or alleged actions got his friend fired and is bringing down the university. He really didnt show much emotion throughout
Nov 14, 2011 11:09pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:09 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;973310 wrote:Not sure why it wouldn't be admissible, it is textbook statement against interest. If all statements needed to be sworn or collected by law enforcement, we wouldn't have many probative statements.
I agree. This is clearly not under duress. That would deem it un-admissible. But since it is clear that Sandusky wasnt pressured or under any type of influence this transcript will almost assuredly be used in court, right?
Nov 14, 2011 11:09pm
IggyPride00's avatar

IggyPride00

Senior Member

6,482 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:12 AM
I just heard on the Ed Show that Sandusky's house backs up to the playground of a middle school. Talk about direct access.

How in the world is this sicko allowed to be out on the loose?
Nov 14, 2011 11:12pm
chicago510's avatar

chicago510

Original Chatterer

5,728 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:13 AM
IggyPride00;973332 wrote:I just heard on the Ed Show that Sandusky's house backs up to the playground of a middle school. Talk about direct access.

How in the world is this sicko allowed to be out on the loose?
The Judge who granted bail was affiliated with his charity. Certainly no implications of impropriety there?
Nov 14, 2011 11:13pm
chicago510's avatar

chicago510

Original Chatterer

5,728 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:14 AM
Laley23;973326 wrote:I agree. This is clearly not under duress. That would deem it un-admissible. But since it is clear that Sandusky wasnt pressured or under any type of influence this transcript will almost assuredly be used in court, right?
It would be hard to prove that considering his lawyer was sitting next to Costas.

So all the prosecution has to prove is that there was penetration. Sandusky already admitted everything but.
Nov 14, 2011 11:14pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:14 AM
IggyPride00;973332 wrote:I just heard on the Ed Show that Sandusky's house backs up to the playground of a middle school. Talk about direct access.

How in the world is this sicko allowed to be out on the loose?

Did you hear that the judge who set his bond had some tie to the 2nd mile? An attorney in State College said he had clients with similar charges and none had ever been freed with unsecured bond
Nov 14, 2011 11:14pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:21 AM
Fab1b;973251 wrote:Just got a SportsCenter alert on my phone stating - Sources told Tom Rinaldi that McQuearly stopped Sandusky's sexual assault in 2002. WTF? Now if I am McQueary I am saying that from the get go as he has been drug through the mud like a ****!
No, this is something that people affiliated with McQueary are putting out to try and save some face. McQueary already said in the GJ testimony that he didn't interfere. Now he looks like a jackass and a pussy.
Skyhook79;973276 wrote:To be fair it wasn't enough for 2 police detectives and an investigator for Pennsylvania Child Welfare in 1998 to take it the Prosecutor.
Probably hard to gather evidence when everyone was helping to cover it up.
Nov 14, 2011 11:21pm
Fab1b's avatar

Fab1b

The Bald A-Hole!!

12,949 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:27 AM
I did read the GJ report and the Ginger damn sure didn't say he tried to stop anything. I was just passing what the alert said but I haven't seen anything else in reference to the ESPN alert either.
Nov 14, 2011 11:27pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:28 AM
Looks like McQueary's pride got into the way. If the reports are true that he did break it up, then it looks like he might have some explaining to do. In the GJ report he said he called his dad and left right away
Nov 14, 2011 11:28pm
Skyhook79's avatar

Skyhook79

Senior Member

5,739 posts
Nov 15, 2011 4:54 AM
dwccrew;973350 wrote:


Probably hard to gather evidence when everyone was helping to cover it up.
Um No, they had Sandusky and the mother in the same room and a phone recorded conversation between Sandusky and the Mother admitting to being in the shower with the boy. They told Sandusky not to shower with boys and let him go.
Nov 14, 2011 11:54pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Nov 15, 2011 5:01 AM
Skyhook79;973392 wrote:Um No, they had Sandusky and the mother in the same room and a phone recorded conversation between Sandusky and the Mother admitting to being in the shower with the boy. They told Sandusky not to shower with boys and let him go.
So now you deny there was any cover up at all or just that JoePa wasn't involved in a cover up? Seems as if they still were investigating after this incident since he is now being charged. Just because they didn't charge him then, doesn't mean he was not still being investigated. He is being charged now; probably would've been charged much earlier and less little boys raped had PSU cooperated and not covered this whole thing up.
Nov 15, 2011 12:01am
Skyhook79's avatar

Skyhook79

Senior Member

5,739 posts
Nov 15, 2011 5:03 AM
dwccrew;973403 wrote:So now you deny there was any cover up at all or just that JoePa wasn't involved in a cover up? Seems as if they still were investigating after this incident since he is now being charged. Just because they didn't charge him then, doesn't mean he was not still being investigated. He is being charged now; probably would've been charged much earlier and less little boys raped had PSU cooperated and not covered this whole thing up.
Investigation started in 2008 didn't you read the GJ testimony?
Nov 15, 2011 12:03am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Nov 15, 2011 5:06 AM
Skyhook79;973404 wrote:Investigation started in 2008 didn't you read the GJ testimony?
And he is being charged now....in 2011. Had they cooperated long before, notified the proper authorities and been forthcoming of evidence, Sandusky would've been charged way back in 2002 and less little boys would have been raped.
Nov 15, 2011 12:06am