Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal (Indictment Post #144, "Pimping" Allegations Post #442)

I suppose if they find the boy and he confirms what Sandusky said then we have a real problem. But I doubt that will happen. Why would McQueary see the act, break it up, let him take the boy home and NOT call the cops that night, if he knew it was wrong?

we are now seeing people in full on damage control.
 
Cajuncowboy;4246878 said:
I suppose if they find the boy and he confirms what Sandusky said then we have a real problem. But I doubt that will happen. Why would McQueary see the act, break it up, let him take the boy home and NOT call the cops that night, if he knew it was wrong?

we are now seeing people in full on damage control.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not really up to date on this. What did Sandusky say?
 
Yakuza Rich;4246883 said:
sounds like perjury to me.






YR
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. If I'm the prosecution I can't wait to get him on the stand and just watch him perjure himself.
 
Joe Realist;4246718 said:
Anyone see the Costas-Sandusky interview that just played on NBC?

When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he struggled to answer the question before finally saying no.
Click to expand...

Absolutely disgusting.
 
Joe Realist;4246718 said:
Anyone see the Costas-Sandusky interview that just played on NBC?

When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he struggled to answer the question before finally saying no.
Click to expand...
I really can't believe he did that interview.... I'm sure his criminal defense attorney is outstanding, but I've never seen anything like that done before trial.
 
peplaw06;4246904 said:
I really can't believe he did that interview.... I'm sure his criminal defense attorney is outstanding, but I've never seen anything like that done before trial.
Click to expand...

Dude, in the Army our defense attorneys don't even put the accused on the stand at trial.
 
Joe Realist;4246865 said:
Supposedly Sandusky's defense team has found him or think they found him. That is what Sandusky's lawyer told Bob Costas tonight.
Click to expand...

How is it possible that you find someone that you didn't rape? If it's false, then there should be no one to find? I get the feeling that his attorney got some random 20 year old to say that was me in the shower and he didn't rape me.
 
Joe Realist;4246718 said:
Anyone see the Costas-Sandusky interview that just played on NBC?

When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he struggled to answer the question before finally saying no.
Click to expand...

Yup, what a baffoon.

I was just telling my wife after hearing it that his lawyer(s) should have never allowed him to do that interview. Or, at the very least, they should have given him canned answers to respond with.

When you're asked "are you sexually attracted to young boys" and you're sitting there hemming and hawing saying things like "I enjoy being around them..." before finally saying "I'm not sexually attracted to young boys," you sound guilty as sin.

His answer should have been a quick and definitive "no."
 
Manwiththeplan;4246941 said:
How is it possible that you find someone that you didn't rape? If it's false, then there should be no one to find? I get the feeling that his attorney got some random 20 year old to say that was me in the shower and he didn't rape me.
Click to expand...

If it was one of the kids in his organization, then it wouldn't be an issue to find him, only a matter of time. Sandusky has to know that he's facing dying behind bars if he can't weasel his way out of it. Furthermore, I'm sure he knows what's going to be inflicted on him once he hits general population. Not all justice comes from the fall of a gavel.
 
SaltwaterServr;4247016 said:
Sandusky has to know that he's facing dying behind bars if he can't weasel his way out of it. Furthermore, I'm sure he knows what's going to be inflicted on him once he hits general population. Not all justice comes from the fall of a gavel.
Click to expand...

OJ got off, Ray Lewis, Casey Anthony, ... I'm getting nervous that the same "powers" that covered this up will make this go away.
 
Cajuncowboy;4245768 said:
Because Joe can't tell it because he doesn't have the whole story and the one who has the whole story isn't going to say anything more. I will say this, this goes beyond the Sandusky thing. In the end, Paterno was a small bit player who through no fault of his own, got caught up in it and was put between a rock and a hard place. Still, he should have done more. Notice how Paterno said "He should have done more"? He didn't say he should have gone to the police.
Click to expand...

That is still more that the story won't be told. Not that it can't be told. This person could tell the story, but they choose not to.
 
casmith07;4246919 said:
Dude, in the Army our defense attorneys don't even put the accused on the stand at trial.
Click to expand...
Right. The basic default rule is defendants don't talk to anyone before trial and don't testify at trial.

Amendola has basically pigeon-holed Sandusky into having to testify at trial. To think he would speak before the trial to defend himself and not testify on his own behalf?? That would be odd. All that stuff can be used against him at trial now. And now if any part of his story changes he's even more sunk than he already was.

I was more referring to the thought that sometimes a defendant would do an interview like this after the trial is done. But something like this is unprecedented as far as I'm aware.
 
WV Cowboy;4247237 said:
OJ got off, Ray Lewis, Casey Anthony, ... I'm getting nervous that the same "powers" that covered this up will make this go away.
Click to expand...

OJ got off because of the Rodney King riots. The city really couldn't afford to go thru those again and the jury knew it. Everybody forgets that. The Rodney King riots were devastating to the city of LA. People can talk about the jury being stupid for letting OJ be free, but I think being on that jury would be an incredibly difficult moral dilemma. Do you bring one guy to justice at the risk of another riot which could injury, harm or kill numerous people?

Ray Lewis 'got off' because he was never tried for the crime anyway. I lived in Atlanta at the time and there's no way Lewis should've been arrested in the first place. They don't let a person accused of *double* homicide go unless they know they have no case. The problem was that there was a lot of racial tension in Buckhead at the time as more and more African Americans were hanging out in the Buckhead area where the homicides occured and the DA felt pressure and wanted to make a name for themselves and instead wasted taxpayer money on a guy they had no shred of evidence committed the crime.

I live in Orlando now, and Casey Anthony was a case of a DA thinking he could get a conviction of murder without having any evidence as to how the child died. Had the DA gone for something like manslaughter, they would have gotten the conviction.

I think we see a pattern here...poor job by the Prosectors. Even in the OJ case, the prosecution did a terrible job.

I don't blame the jury in the Anthony case. Lewis didn't go to trial for the double homicide. And the OJ case is something one would have to ask themselves 'convict OJ or suffer possibly a worse riot than the Rodney King riots.'







YR
 
realtick;4247013 said:
Yup, what a baffoon.

I was just telling my wife after hearing it that his lawyer(s) should have never allowed him to do that interview. Or, at the very least, they should have given him canned answers to respond with.

When you're asked "are you sexually attracted to young boys" and you're sitting there hemming and hawing saying things like "I enjoy being around them..." before finally saying "I'm not sexually attracted to young boys," you sound guilty as sin.

His answer should have been a quick and definitive "no."
Click to expand...

I agree.

I was telling my girlfriend that he could not have answered that question worse without actually admitting to it.





YR
 
WV Cowboy;4247237 said:
OJ got off, Ray Lewis, Casey Anthony, ... I'm getting nervous that the same "powers" that covered this up will make this go away.
Click to expand...

No eye witnesses in those cases. Sounds like there will be plenty in this one.
 
I didn't see the interview, but they're replaying it on 103.3 right now and the guy couldn't have made himself sound worse. Why would he even agree to do an interview like that? It's mindboggling.

Maybe he's been so very insulated in that little world for so long that he didn't even realize that he'd get tough questions like that? I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 120 more.
Total: 7,012 (members: 220, guests: 6,792)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,113
Messages
13,789,531
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top