Penn State Child Molestation Scandal

Whats black and blue and dont like sex?

The kid tied up in Sanduskys trunk.

 

Is there a dislike button somewhere? Eesh...

 

If the Sandusky jokes are about to start, I hope future ones will leave the victims out of the punchline.

 

I'm down for tasteless jokes and all.. but when it deals with kids being raped.. eh.. no thanks. Highly distasteful.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Sandusky's attorney would allow this interview to happen. If it was a move to try and smoke up the air it failed miserably. The fact that the attorney said he would be perfectly comfortable with Sandusky being around his children was so rehearsed everyone saw right through it. Body language rarely lies.

I'm also not just appalled at the acts and the arrogant attitude, but he seems so sarcastic about it, that it sounds like he's daring the system to stop him. This dude needs to be put away long enough to ensure a proper shanking.

 

I can't wrap my head around it either. He can't actually be stupid enough to think the interview is about to change public opinion. If anything, giving the monster a voice would surely only add to the outrage the public feels. Such a bad move, one wonders if he's secretly hoping he loses his case. If I were his defense attorney, I would make a show out of putting up a defense with the hopes this guy would be convicted despite my efforts.

 

In a strategy which might include requesting a change in venue, it's possible that Sandusky might actually do better with a Centre County jury, some of whom might have inherent loyalties to Penn State whereas any Pennsylvania jury outside of the State College area and Centre County will likely be just as well informed about the case (come jury selection time) and maybe not suffer loyalty to the same degree.

Drag it out longer to keep Sandusky free longer? Maybe hoping outrage and strong opinions will die down once the media has moved on from the story? Could be. Of course, delaying a trial gives Sandusky more rope to hang himself, if he decides to go after another child while waiting (which it seems likely to me he will).

 

I think if he has a jury with large loyaties to Penn State, he'd be worse off. People who are Penn State fans are looking to pin this whole thing on the man who made Penn State a horrible university. While I don't think the university is horrible, when a scandal of this sort hits, it's going to have an impact not just on recruiting, coaches, etc, but on the fans as well. They'll now be known as the fans of the team who had a rapist coordinator. Penn State fans are angry that JoePa is gone, and they would gladly feed this man to the lions. Then again, Jonie, you could be right..there may be people who will put the university above all else (as it appears many did in this case already..yes..including JoePa). No matter the venue, I think the mountain will be too high to climb, but then, I thought the same thing in the Casey Anthony case.

 

Hopefully with his extended time of freedom he will nip out and buy a garden hose for his exhaust and write a full confession and appology to those he has harmed. As to access to children, I should think the men loving boys club would be able to kep him safely entertined. Dont think he will jump another one - at least not till he knows he is going down, then he may think one for the road or might as well be hung for sheep as lamb. The university has a duty of care to the students - including little kids visiting surely if not especialy.
Will he be taking up his lawyers offer and take his kids camping for the weekend?

 

That could very well be true, Glory. A jury sympathetic to Penn State may bring the attitude of "Let's get this bastard convicted, sentenced and put away so we can get on with repairing the damage he's done to our beloved University."

If his attorney can drum up enough reasonable doubt which in truth, is any reasonable doubt, and the jury feels duty- bound to adhere to that principle in its deliberations, it could very well end up as the Casey Anthony case did.

I'm thinking about the unidentified victim McQueary caught Sandusky raping and the attorney's claim that they've found him and the suggestion that the victim has denied the incident occurred as described by McQueary. Whether or not it turns out they've actually found this victim or that it's the same victim will be irrelevant if this person gets a chance to testify that a rape never occurred. Reasonable doubt of rape occurring is introduced even if leaves open the notion that Sandusky may well have behaved inappropriately. As a worse case scenario, the attorney might be satisfied with a conviction on a lesser felony charge .

Interesting how McQueary, in an email to some of his former teammates, now claims that he went so far as to stop Sandusky the night he caught him raping the boy. The plot thickens.

 

If the attorney has indeed found the as of yet unidentified victim, I'm willing to bet the attorney is drumming the beat of "if you testify that this happened, you'll be branded for life and your sports career will be over." Rape in any form is disgusting, but a male dreaming of pro sports may be willing to sweep it under the rug and testify it never happened in order to salvage that dream. I swear this was a recent episode of law and order (before this story broke) in a basketball setting. I still think even if the McQueary victim testifies it never happens, the attorney will not be able to explain all 8 away, nor will he be able to fully explain the comments to the mother of a victim away. I think that conversation (if it makes it to court) will be the undoing of the defense case. The man is speaking to a victim's mother and makes no effort to defend himself against allegations. So while he may not be convicted of all 8 counts, I think if he spends more than a few days in prison on any charge, he's a dead man. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

I also think McQueary is overstepping here in order to save his career. I believe he saw something, but I do not believe that he stopped anything. If he had stopped it, there is no way this man shouldn't have been in custody earlier. The plot thickens indeed.

 

Guy makes my skin crawl. Sandusky does, too.

 

SVU FTW. The father from The Wonder Years totally has the creepy pedo coach thing down.

 

I don't know Pennsylvania law in regards to sex offenses, but is there an opportunity for Sandusky and his attorney to forgo a jury trial and have the case heard by a judge? If it's the judge who let him walk out of her courtroom without having to pay bail or wear an ankle monitor, the judge who is affiliated with Second Mile - what would the chances be he could walk away from this a free man? I realize I'm getting way ahead of things here. Surely the prosecution would insist that particular judge recuse herself if that were to occur and without a guarantee that the judge hearing the case without a jury present would show partiality, Sandusky and Co., would be better off with a jury trial.

Yes, I don't think it would take more than a conviction of 1 count of felony sexual assault to put this guy away long enough for him to regret laying a hand on any of those boys but my concern is, the prison would probably keep him out of the general population in some sort of protective custody environment.

I'm not sure the comments he made in 1998 to the mother of one of the victims would be enough to lead to a conviction associated with child rape, which is what the prosecution is shooting for, I believe. It's supporting evidence, at best. Like I said, Sandusky's attorney will be hoping for an acquittal of all 40 charges but will be satisfied with convictions on lesser charges. I can also see the possibility of a plea deal, somewhere down the road or a deal in exchange for information Sandusky may have about a wider sex ring rumored by the reporter Mark Madden (who broke the story about the Sandusky investigation back in April this year, before the grand jury report surfaced).

In situations where the impossible appears to have occurred, anything is possible.

I'm a bit of a Law and Order fan too.

 

I think his reaction was exactly as his grand jury testimony states. But he's now seen the overwhelming agreement displayed in the media, that he should have intervened and stopped it. In an attempt to save face, he's now backtracking and telling a story to match what he now sees is the reaction most would have. Amazing that in 8 years, it might never had occurred to him that he could have, should have, stopped it - It's possible he didn't even consider it during his grand jury testimony. It took the outrage of the public and the media to point it out to him.

 

Wow, Paterno could get over $500K/yr in retirement.

Sandusky gets much less.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...o-line-554000-annual-pension-according-review

I would assume, until a criminal conviction is obtained retirement will continue.

 

They might possibly continue despite convictions, unless language in the pension terms allows for a denial of payouts in such an event. When Sandusky's in jail, I assume his wife would continue getting his pension checks. There oughta be a law!

 

It is a state pension plan so I'm guessing there would be an ethics clause, however that article didn't mention it. Certainly seems like something a reporter would question.