Archive Jerry Sandusky on NBC tonight at 10

Skyhook79

Posts: 5,739

Nov 15, 2011 12:08am

dwccrew;973406 wrote: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.

I agree the 2 detectives and investigator should have done their jobs in 1998.

dwccrew

Posts: 7,817

Nov 15, 2011 12:13am

Skyhook79;973409 wrote:I agree the 2 detectives and investigator should have done their jobs in 1998.

And as I said, in 2002, PSU admins could have really helped out little boys had they been more forthcoming with the information they were presented. I don't think we are in disagreement here. They tried covering up. I think the only thing we disagree on is whether or not how deep JoePa's involvement is. But I think it is safe to say that a cover-up was definitely in full effect in State College.

chicago510

Posts: 5,728

Nov 15, 2011 12:31am

slmandel
RT @PeteThamelNYT: NYT reports tonight "close to 10 additional suspected victims" have come forward. http://t.co/2Zd92qjT
11/15/11 12:24 AM

What a fucking coincidence. We were just playing sexy games in the shower. All of them are conspiring to convict me. #JerrySanduskyExcuses

2kool4skool

Posts: 1,804

Nov 15, 2011 12:44am

The "if all of this is untrue, you seem to be the most persecuted person in the history of the world, why is that?" was classic. Good job by Costas.

Mulva

Posts: 13,650

Nov 15, 2011 1:09am

Saw something on the ESPN bottom line that apparently the defense team thinks they found the 2002 victim and he may be denying the GJ assault report.

M

Manhattan Buckeye

Posts: 7,566

Nov 15, 2011 2:02am

Mulva;973465 wrote:Saw something on the ESPN bottom line that apparently the defense team thinks they found the 2002 victim and he may be denying the GJ assault report.

This however corroborates McQueary's claim that he saw the two in the shower, and Sandusky knows who we was then and now. Even taking this in the most positive light it doesn't absolve criminal liability for the charge. McQueary's account was partially inaccurate? A guy who is now 18-22 years old might want to consider toning down what happened to him?

majorspark

Posts: 5,122

Nov 15, 2011 2:40am

chicago510;973270 wrote:When asked the question, "Are you sexually attracted to young boys", who takes 15 seconds to say no?!?! And not even a definite no.

A person sexually atracted to young boys.

Skyhook79

Posts: 5,739

Nov 15, 2011 6:13am

Manhattan Buckeye;973487 wrote:This however corroborates McQueary's claim that he saw the two in the shower, and Sandusky knows who we was then and now. Even taking this in the most positive light it doesn't absolve criminal liability for the charge. McQueary's account was partially inaccurate? A guy who is now 18-22 years old might want to consider toning down what happened to him?

Sandusky already said that in the NBC interview. He said they were in the shower just that the rape never occurred and that Costa would have to ask McQueary why he said what he said about the incident.

T

Tiernan

Posts: 13,021

Nov 15, 2011 7:59am

Sandusky is using the famous "Clinton Defense"..."I did not have sex with that boy"

M

Manhattan Buckeye

Posts: 7,566

Nov 15, 2011 8:50am

Skyhook79;973508 wrote:Sandusky already said that in the NBC interview. He said they were in the shower just that the rape never occurred and that Costa would have to ask McQueary why he said what he said about the incident.

And your point is what? Do you think it is perfectly normal for a guy to shower with a boy that at that time period when no one else was supposed to be around? It is still potentially criminal behavior.

Dan Wetzel has been merciless with this interview:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-wetzel_sandusky_interview_mindset11411

Key point:

"If Sandusky truly thought at the time this was even remotely appropriate, why did he continually wait until the Penn State locker room was empty to shower with the boys?

If there was nothing wrong, then why not try it in front of everyone?"

In no testimony, from anyone is that Sandusky tried to pull this stunt in public.

Skyhook79

Posts: 5,739

Nov 15, 2011 9:20am

Manhattan Buckeye;973568 wrote:And your point is what? Do you think it is perfectly normal for a guy to shower with a boy that at that time period when no one else was supposed to be around? It is still potentially criminal behavior.

My point is Sandusky isn't denying he was in the shower with the boy so corroborating what McQuaeary said about being in the shower is a moot point. What is at dispute is was he raping the boy. McQuaery says yes, Sandusky says no. And no I don't think it is normal to shower with a boy at 9:30 at night on the Penn State campus, whether its criminal or not is for the courts to decide.

V

vball10set

Posts: 24,795

Nov 15, 2011 9:23am

IMO, the guy's a fucking pervert who whould be locked up for the rest of his life...period

...and Paterno never talked to him about any of these allegations, never discussed with him the complaints, never brought up any of the alleged sexual improprieties? are you kidding me?? so then, who's lying, Sandusky or Paterno???

M

Manhattan Buckeye

Posts: 7,566

Nov 15, 2011 9:25am

"And no I don't think it is normal to shower with a boy at 9:30 at night on the Penn State campus, whether its criminal or not is for the courts to decide. "

I wouldn't bet on any court absolving him of criminal activity at this point. And I'm not part of the court. Nor is likely anyone else here. Hence the discussion. I'm not bound to the evidence rules. This guy is one sick human being.

D

dat dude

Posts: 1,564

Nov 15, 2011 9:32am

Bob Costas was just on the Dan Patrick Show. He said the interview was suppposed to be with him and Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola. However, ten minutes before they were supposed to tape, Amendola said, "What if I can get Jerry on the phone?" Bob said do it, and five minutes later he was on the phone. There were also no ground rules for Costas to abide by.

Crazy that Amendola suggested Sandusky do the interview. Wow.

M

Manhattan Buckeye

Posts: 7,566

Nov 15, 2011 9:36am

I don't think Amendola is doing his client any favors, particularly with his own reported history.

Iliketurtles

Posts: 8,191

Nov 15, 2011 9:37am

dat dude;973615 wrote:Bob Costas was just on the Dan Patrick Show. He said the interview was suppposed to be with him and Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola. However, ten minutes before they were supposed to tape, Amendola said, "What if I can get Jerry on the phone?" Bob said do it, and five minutes later he was on the phone. There were also no ground rules for Costas to abide by.

Crazy that Amendola suggested Sandusky do the interview. Wow.

It's not really that crazy for him to suggest it. He obviously thinks that this will somehow benefit Sandusky's case.

D

dat dude

Posts: 1,564

Nov 15, 2011 9:39am

Iliketurtles;973622 wrote:It's not really that crazy for him to suggest it. He obviously thinks that this will somehow benefit Sandusky's case.

I disagree. There was nothing in that interview that benefited Sandusky. It was a terrible choice. Amendola could have spoke on behalf of Sandusky and came across much better.

V

vball10set

Posts: 24,795

Nov 15, 2011 9:40am

How he felt putting Sandusky on the air at this time benefits his client is beyond me. I'd really like to hear his reasoning behind it because as far as I'm concerned, in the court of public opinion, he was tried, convicted, and executed.

Skyhook79

Posts: 5,739

Nov 15, 2011 9:40am

Manhattan Buckeye;973621 wrote:I don't think Amendola is doing his client any favors, particularly with his own reported history.

What a Lawyer with some questionable behavior in his past? Let me put on my shocked face. /sarcasm

V

vball10set

Posts: 24,795

Nov 15, 2011 9:45am

I didn't go back thru this thread, but does anyone have a link to the interview? one of my coworkers didn't see it live, and he wants to listen to it--thanks

M

Manhattan Buckeye

Posts: 7,566

Nov 15, 2011 9:45am

Skyhook79;973627 wrote:What a Lawyer with some questionable behavior in his past? Let me put on my shocked face. /sarcasm

That's your first half-way decent post on this thread.

IggyPride00

Posts: 6,482

Nov 15, 2011 10:13am

Dan Patrick kept repeating, and I think he is correct, that Sandusky thinks he was justified in taking a little action from the boys because he thought he really was looking out for them and taking care of them. His attitude seems to be "so what if I fooled around a little, look at everything I did for them."

I mean this guy really is a sick fuck.

sleeper

Posts: 27,879

Nov 15, 2011 10:20am

The man is innocent until proven guilty.

Although, I'm not sure how much the interview helped him, especially his answers to the questions "You must be the most unlucky man in history, why is that?" and "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?".

V

vball10set

Posts: 24,795

Nov 15, 2011 10:51am

sleeper;973666 wrote:The man is innocent until proven guilty.

Although, I'm not sure how much the interview helped him, especially his answers to the questions "You must be the most unlucky man in history, why is that?" and "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?".

I literally laughed out loud at that question...I thought Costas rocked last night

password

Posts: 2,360

Nov 15, 2011 11:07am

jordo212000;973362 wrote: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

This could be a big break for Sandusky, because if McQueary lied to the grand jury and changes his story now, he becomes a non-credible witness. I sure as hell hope they are not building this case just off of McQueary's statements and it comes out that it was all a lie about the rape. Maybe McQueary is a pedophile and he exaggerated the story to satisfy his own perverted sexual attraction to young boys.