Although conventional wisdom says the accused should shut up, sit back, and wait, Sandusky answered questions posed by Bob Costas. I haven’t heard the whole thing, but it doesn’t sound like he made any missteps. Although risky, I don’t think it was a bad idea for the defense.
The prosecution has been able to lay out much of their case before the public. This gave the defense a chance to start to do the same, and possibly see how it plays with the public, a national focus group so to speak.
He admits to only what he is reported to have acknowledged before police (although without his knowledge at the time), he showered with the boys. Setting up the “it’s a huge misunderstanding” defense.
The attorney gets to say some things that he couldn’t in court. He carefully worded his comments about the victim McQuery witnessed, we expect him to deny it happened, we believe he will say.
Not that I believe a word that comes out of his filthy mouth, but I found it interesting that he was unhesitating when he denied that Paterno ever addressed the allegations with him directly. That stands in contrast to how he answered (denied) most other accusations.
I think he had no other choice. He has victims, and he has witnesses - and all to an incredibly heinous act. He’s got nothing to lose as he will most definitely be found guilty if the evidence holds. He’s probably trying to muddy or pollute the waters.
Although conventional wisdom says the accused should shut up, sit back, and wait, Sandusky answered questions posed by Bob Costas. I haven’t heard the whole thing, but it doesn’t sound like he made any missteps. Although risky, I don’t think it was a bad idea for the defense.
The prosecution has been able to lay out much of their case before the public. This gave the defense a chance to start to do the same, and possibly see how it plays with the public, a national focus group so to speak.
He admits to only what he is reported to have acknowledged before police (although without his knowledge at the time), he showered with the boys. Setting up the “it’s a huge misunderstanding” defense.
The attorney gets to say some things that he couldn’t in court. He carefully worded his comments about the victim McQuery witnessed, we expect him to deny it happened, we believe he will say.
In the end, it did nothing to sway my perception.
I saw that…heck, my own kids can try to pull off a lie better than Sandusky…
Sadly, what they are really doing is forcing the kids to come forward and talk, while betting that they won’t. I think that is about as heinious as the crime itself.
Sadly, what they are really doing is forcing the kids to come forward and talk, while betting that they won’t. I think that is about as heinious as the crime itself.
If Sandusky is maintaining that the 2002 rape to which McQueary testified did not happen, what is he supposed to do? So far there is no victim prepared to testify to McQueary’s version of events. So many people are prepared to take the allegations as true … not unlike the Duke rape allegations. And while there are more indicia of truthfulness with respect to these allegations, they remain allegations.
I don’t know about you guys, but, while I like young people also, I never felt the urge to “horse around in the shower” with them. What’s with that? There is no fine line in this case. It’s no different that the creepy stuff that Michael Jackson was involved in with kids.
I listened to the interview…Sure didn’t “protest too much”!
I get what you’re saying, but they are allegations and we have been given part of the evidence. If this was a simple as one case that could possibly be miscontrued I’d be inclined to agree with the criticism of rushing to judgement, but having read the 23 page grand jury presentment, I don’t feel that I personally am rushing to anything. Multiple victims have already testified before the grand jury. Even if you eliminate the instance McQuery testified to, others have already testified and were felt to be truthful.
Lots of people think he was mega doped up during the interview as he had a very monotone and listless voice.
Others are saying his lack of emotion is a clear sign of a sicko, as he has no remorse for his actions, and will never ever accept that what he did was wrong…
There is an old saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. I too have read the presentment. It is foul. But they remain allegations. What will we do or say if he is acquitted? And while I agree that horseing around in the showers with youth as Sandusky has admitted is beyond creepy, what do we do if that is all that is ever proven?
You know what they say about birds of a feather.
Sandusky’s turning into like the poster child of NAMBLA (or maybe he is now their test case and we just haven’t learned it yet). I’m trying to understand the sense of even giving that Costas interview (or his lawyer letting him do it), but the only thing I can arrive at is he is in complete denial that what he did was horrifically consequential to these kids. His legal strategy is to admit showering and horseplay but deny he fucked them up the ass? Looks like the Sandusky muck train is just getting rolling.
Hopefully they’ll have a jar ready at the Mutter museum for his brain one day (providing he’s too self-important to blow his own brains out).